Cyberbullying, online platforms and Article 6-3 of the LCEN: be careful not to pick the wrong battle, or the wrong legal basis or remedy!

In a judgement dated 31 August 2026, the Paris Judicial Court reiterated a principle often overlooked by legal practitioners: the procedure under Article 6-3 of the LCEN is an emergency procedure intended to put an end to online harm, not to obtain compensation.

In this case, a professional dog breeder claimed to be the victim of a cyberbullying campaign within a Facebook group that was particularly critical of him. In particular, he sought the removal of the group, the identification of the authors of the messages and €20,000 in damages from Meta.

The court dismissed all the claims. In particular, it considered that the evidence produced was insufficient to establish cyberbullying within the meaning of Article 222-33-2-2 of the Criminal Code: posts spread over several years, an incomplete context, and a failure to demonstrate a deliberate and coordinated collective action.

However, the most interesting aspect of the decision undoubtedly lies elsewhere.

The claimant had attempted to salvage his claim for damages by alleging, during the proceedings, that the platform had engaged in unreasonable obstruction. This attempt failed.

The judge noted that the provisions of Article 6-3 of the LCEN “must be interpreted strictly” and that the award of damages is not a measure intended to prevent or put an end to harm, but to make good a loss already suffered. The claim for damages was therefore declared inadmissible.

The practical lesson is simple: the Article 6-3 LCEN procedure is a tool for removal, blocking or cessation. To establish the liability of an author or, where applicable, a technical intermediary, one must resort to actions under ordinary law.

FIRSH’s inputs

This decision confirms an increasingly clear trend in case law: it is no longer possible to regard the 6-3 LCEN procedure as an ‘all-in-one’ legal dispute. The litigation strategy must distinguish between matters relating to urgent injunctions and those relating to compensation for damages. Procedural rigour is becoming just as important here as the merits of the case.

Claire Poirson & Samuel Brami