Paris, December 12, 2025 – In a decision delivered today, the Paris Court of Appeal revoked the closing order and ordered the reopening of debates in the case opposing France-Soir to the Google entities (Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited, and Google France). At the heart of this reopening: Google’s statements before the “Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government” of the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, chaired by Jim Jordan. These “admissions,” which occurred in October 2025, reveal censorship of political content regarding COVID-19 “that did not violate its rules” under pressure from the Biden administration, along with a commitment to reinstate “all creators concerned”. Google also accepted a payment of 22 million dollars to Donald Trump for similar censorship.
However, in its response of November 28, 2025, to the French Court, Google disputes any “admission of censorship” and denies any link with the case of France-Soir, which was censored in 2021 for articles (55,000 articles de-indexed from Google News) and nearly 1000 videos, a small number of which questioned official COVID policies.
This contradiction raises a crucial question: do statements made before an American committee have international judicial scope? Can they be invoked as evidence in a European dispute, influencing debates on abuse of dominant position, freedom of expression, and platform transparency?
The Court deemed these new facts relevant, setting a new schedule with submissions due on February 12 and March 19, 2026, and a hearing on April 16, 2026. This reopening is a stage victory for France-Soir, which could lead to a reinstatement of services (YouTube, Google News, AdSense) and compensation for France-Soir. It questions the cross-border role of Big Tech and could create a precedent for other cases in Europe. This goes far beyond the France-Soir case, which has been the European spearhead in the fight against Google concerning the instrumentalization and/or collusion of Big Tech with authorities in various countries in order to control information and therefore censor political opinions or health data.
France-Soir calls for mobilization: “These statements expose censorship influenced by states; French justice must clarify their international scope to restore fairness and informational pluralism”. In the context of this action,
France-Soir is advised by Me William Snyder (Ohio Bar attorney), Me Diane Protat, Me Nathalie Lesenechal, and Me Arnaud Dimeglio.
Video summary of the article
*** Appendix ***
History of the Case France-Soir, an independent media outlet without subsidies, engaged in investigative journalism, was sanctioned by Google in early 2021: total de-referencing on Google News and Discover, suppression of its YouTube channel (nearly 1000 videos censored), and deactivation of advertising accounts AdSense, AdExchange, and AdManager. These measures, imposed without clear notice or effective recourse, deprived France-Soir of essential visibility and caused human (layoffs) and financial damage estimated at several million euros.
The case concerns accusations of abuse of dominant position (Articles L.420-2 of the Commercial Code and 102 of the TFEU), infringement of freedom of expression (Article 10 of the ECHR and Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights), non-compliance with neighboring rights for content remuneration (Law on Neighboring Rights and decision of the Competition Authority of April 9, 2020), abusive commercial practices (Article L.442-1 of the Commercial Code), and violations of EU Regulation 2019/1150 (“Platform to Business”) regarding platform transparency. France-Soir argues that Google applied opaque and discriminatory rules regarding COVID-19 related medical content, favoring an official narrative to the detriment of pluralism.
In the first instance, in September 2022, the Paris Commercial Court dismissed France-Soir‘s claims, judging the actions inadmissible due to lack of standing or interest to sue against certain Google entities. It considered that Google’s measures did not infringe freedom of expression, did not constitute an abuse of dominant position, and did not violate obligations of transparency or good faith negotiation. France-Soir was ordered to pay 70,000 euros in costs (including 50,000 euros to Google Ireland) and legal fees, with provisional execution. This decision was perceived as a carte blanche for digital giants to censor without being accountable.
France-Soir appealed in September 2022, requesting the annulment of the judgment and restoration measures (reinstatement of services, negotiation of remuneration, removal of articles disparaging France-Soir as « conspiracy theorist« ). Debates were closed in May 2025, but France-Soir alerted the Court to new facts from October 2025: Google’s admissions before the American committee, confirming political and COVID censorship under governmental influence. This reinforces the arguments of discriminatory censorship and abuse of power, aligning with criticisms of Google as a « criminal disinformer« .
The questions at the heart of the dispute: Freedom of expression and pluralism: Did Google censor France-Soir for COVID content that did not conform to an official line, violating the public’s right to information? Abuse of dominant position: Do unilateral sanctions (without fair negotiation on neighboring rights) constitute monopolistic abuse? Transparency and fairness: Did Google respect its obligations regarding notification, internal recourse, and clear information about its rules (P2B Regulation, Consumer Code, LCEN)?
Denigration and political censorship: Do Google’s admissions validate censorship influenced by states, discriminating against independent media? The consequences: This reopening, in addition to being a moral victory for France-Soir, recently reinstated on YouTube, is a strong signal against Big Tech censorship. It could lead to the annulment of the initial judgment, reinstatement of services, compensation, and penalty payments. More broadly, it questions the role of platforms as guardians of public information, potentially influencing other cases in Europe.