Decision of 24 July 2026 imposing legal sanctions on the Société d'exploitation d'un service d'information (SESI)

The French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication,

Having regard to Law No. 86-1067 of 30 September 1986, as amended, on freedom of communication, and in particular Articles 1, 3-1, 15, 28, 42-1, 42-2 and 42-7 thereof;

Having regard to Decree No. 2013-1196 of 19 December 2013, as amended, relating to the sanctioning proceedings implemented by the French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication pursuant to Article 42-7 of Law No. 86-1067 of 30 September 1986 on freedom of communication;

Having regard to Decision No. 2005-473 of 19 July 2005, as amended and extended, authorising the Société d’exploitation d’un service d’information (SESI) to use radio spectrum for the operation of a national television service shown unencrypted via terrestrial digital transmission, initially known as ‘i Télé’ and, following Decision No. 2016-680 of 27 July 2016, ‘CNews’, and Decision No. 2019-582 of 11 December 2019 renewing the authorisation of 19 July 2005;

Having regard to the agreement concluded on 27 November 2019 between the French Superior Audiovisual Council and the Société d’exploitation d’un service d’information (SESI), concerning the ‘CNews’ television service, in particular Articles 2-2-1, 2-3-2, 4-2-2 and 4-2-4;

Having regard to Decision No. 2024-1153 of 11 December 2024 authorising the Société d’exploitation d’un service d’information to use a radio frequency resource for the terrestrial digital diffusion, in unencrypted and high-definition mode, of the national television service known as ‘CNews’;

Having regard to the agreement concluded on 10 December 2024 between the French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication and the News Service Operating Company (SESI), concerning the ‘CNews’ television service, which came into force on 1 September 2025, in particular Articles 2-2-1, 2-3-2, 4-2-2 and 4-2-4 thereof;

Having regard to Decision No. 2019-578 of 27 November 2019 issuing a formal notice to the Société d’exploitation d’un service d’information (SESI);
Having regard to Decision No. 2021-218 of 17 March 2021 imposing legal sanctions on the Société d’exploitation d’un service d’information (SESI);

Having regard to Decision No. 2024-401 of 2 May 2024 imposing legal sanctions on the Société d’exploitation d’un service d’information (SESI);

Having regard to Decision No. 2024-655 of 3 July 2024 imposing legal sanctions on the Société d’exploitation d’un service d’information (SESI);

Having regard to the viewing records for the programmes “100% Politique” shown on the “CNews” service on 2 June and 1 September 2025 and ‘L’Heure des pros 2’ was shown on the ‘CNews’ service on 23 October 2025, and the related reports, with which the panel has familiarised itself ;

Having regard to the letter of 22 May 2026 from the rapporteur referred to in Article 42-7 of the Act of 30 September 1986 notifying the News Service Operating Company (SESI) of the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against it and inviting it to submit its observations within one month;

Having regard to the email of 1 June 2026 by which the Société d’exploitation d’un service d’information (SESI) requested access to the documents in the file , which were sent to it by the Director-General of the French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication by post on 2 June 2026;

Having regard to the comments from the News Service Operating Company (SESI) submitted by email on 26 June 2026;

Having regard to the report drawn up by the rapporteur and communicated to the Information Service Operating Company (SESI), its legal advisers, and the Chair of the French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication by letters dated 7 July 2026;

Having regard to the decision of 15 July 2026 by which the French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication decided not to exercise the power conferred upon it by paragraph 6 of Article 42-7 of the Act of 30 September 1986;

Having regard to the email of 16 July 2026 in which the News Service Operating Company (SESI), through its legal advisers, declined the opportunity to make public the hearing of 22 July 2026 before the French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication, in response to the latter’s letter with effect from 8 July 2026;

Having regard to the other documents in the file ;

At the hearing on 22 July 2026, the Authority heard the rapporteur, as well as Mr Gérald-Brice Viret , Managing Director of Canal+ France in charge of channels and programmes ; Ms Hélène Fleury, Head of Legal Affairs for France at the Canal+ Group; Mr Christophe Roy, Director of Regulatory Affairs and Competition for the Canal+ Group, Mr Serge Nedjar, Managing Director of CNews, Mr Thomas Bauder, Editor-in-Chief of CNews, and Mr Yoann Boubacir, solicitor.

Having regard to the following :

On the legal framework:

1. Firstly, pursuant to Article 42-1 of Law No. 86-1067 of 30 September 1986: ‘If the person subject to the formal notice fails to comply with it, the French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication may impose on that person, taking into account the seriousness of the breach, and provided that the breach relates to separate facts or covers a period distinct from those already covered by a formal notice, one of the following legal sanctions: […] 3° A financial penalty, which may be accompanied by a suspension of the production or distribution of the service(s) or of part of the programme […]’. Article 42-2 of the same Act provides that: “The amount of the financial penalty must be proportionate to the seriousness of the breaches committed and commensurate with the benefits derived from the breach, without exceeding 3 per cent of the turnover excluding VAT achieved during the last financial year ended, calculated over a twelve-month period. This maximum is increased to 5 per cent in the event of a repeat infringement of the same obligation .” Furthermore, under the provisions of Article 4-2-2 of the agreement concluded between the French Superior Audiovisual Council and the Société d’exploitation d’un service d’information (SESI) on 27 November 2019: ‘If the publisher fails to comply with a formal notice, [the French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication] may, under the conditions laid down in Article 42-1 of the amended Act of 30 September 1986, impose one of the following legal sanctions on the publisher: / 1° a financial penalty under the conditions set out in Article 42-2 of the amended Act of 30 September 1986 […].’ Article 4-2-4 of the same agreement makes provision for the imposition of the contractual penalties referred to in Articles 4-2-2 and 4-2-3 by [the French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication] in accordance with the safeguards laid down in Articles 42 et seq. of the amended Act of 30 September 1986.” These provisions are reproduced in Articles 4-2-2 and 4-2-4 of the agreement of 10 December 2024.

2. Secondly, under the provisions of Article 15 of the Act of 30 September 1986, the French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication shall ensure “that programmes made available to the public by an audiovisual communication service do not contain: 1° Any incitement to hatred or violence based on any of the grounds referred to in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union […]’, which include, in particular, religion and ethnic origin. Furthermore, Article 2-3-2 of the agreement of 27 November 2019 stipulates that: “The broadcaster shall ensure, in its programming […], that it does not encourage discriminatory behaviour on the grounds of […] origin, […] or religion .” Finally, under the provisions of Article 2-2-1 of the same agreement, the broadcaster “is responsible for the content of the programmes it shows. It retains control of its airtime in all circumstances.” These obligations are reiterated in Articles 2-3-2 and 2-2-1 of the agreement of 10 December 2024.

3. Thirdly, whilst issues relating to immigration and the integration of immigrants fall within the scope of public debate and, as such, summon special protection of freedom of expression, this freedom is not absolute. Comments made in this context may certainly take a polemical form, or even contain an element of exaggeration or provocation, but they must not, without exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression, constitute incitement to hatred, violence or discrimination, in particular by helping to stir up feelings of rejection or hostility towards a section of the population or a group of people. These principles are of particular importance when the remarks are made by politicians, given their role in public debate. As the European Court of Human Rights has issued its verdict, whilst politicians enjoy particular freedom to take a stance on immigration issues and propose the solutions they deem appropriate, this freedom is accompanied by a responsibility not to contribute, through their remarks, to fuelling intolerance or legitimising discriminatory, vexatious or humiliating attitudes towards the persons concerned. In all cases, the scope of the remarks in question must be assessed in the light of their specific content and the circumstances in which they were made, taking particular account of the context of their diffusion and any factors that might contradict, qualify or put them into perspective.

4. Fourthly, by a decision of 27 November 2019, the Société d’exploitation d’un service d’information (SESI) was served with a formal notice to comply in future, on the one hand, with Article 15 of the Act of 30 September 1986 and, on the other hand, the fourth paragraph of Article 2-3-3 of its agreement of 19 July 2005, reproduced in Article 2-3-2 of the agreements of 27 November 2019 and 10 December 2024, as well as Article 2-2-1 of the agreement of 19 July 2005, reproduced in the same article of the agreements of 27 November 2019 and 10 December 2024.

5. Fifthly, by a decision of 17 March 2021, the Société d’exploitation d’un service d’information (SESI) was penalised for breaches, on the one hand, of Article 15 of the Act of 30 September 1986 and, on the other hand, the provisions of Articles 2-3-2 and 2-2-1 of the agreement of 27 November 2019.

6. Sixthly, by a decision of 2 May 2024, the Société d'exploitation d'un service d'information (SESI) was subject to legal sanctions for breaches of the provisions of Articles 2-3-2 and 2-2-1 of the agreement of 27 November 2019.

7. Finally, by a decision of 3 July 2024, the Société d’exploitation d’un service d’information (SESI) was penalised for breaches, on the one hand, of Article 15 of the Act of 30 September 1986 and, on the other hand, the aforementioned provisions of Articles 2-3-2 and 2-2-1 of the agreement of 27 November 2019.

On the programme ‘100% Politique’ shown on 2 June 2025:

8. During the programme “100% Politique” shown on 2 June 2025, a segment was devoted to the violence that took place following Paris Saint-Germain’s victory in the Champions League final. During this segment, the presenter and several people on set, including Mr X, a salaried contributor to the channel, commented on this news story, and a video clip of a politician, Mr Y, posted on his social media accounts and in which he spoke on the same subject, was shown.

9. During the segment, Mr X made the following remarks, in response, in particular, to the term ‘barbarians’ used by the Home Secretary to describe the perpetrators of this violence: ‘Yes, what he’s saying is important. When he uses the word ‘barbarian’, what does that mean? It means he’s talking about people who don’t share our civilisation. That’s the etymology of the word ‘barbarian’. So, I’m all for talking about justice and the police, but we’re not going to put everyone in prison. The problem is one of civilisation. […] We’re left with children whose parents were the rioters of 2005. And for the most part, they came from immigrant backgrounds. […] What happened yesterday was that they wanted to send a message. […] These messages were: ‘This is our home. We used to be in the neighbourhoods. Now, we’re going to stop your daughters and your mothers from going to the Champs-Élysées or into the neighbourhoods of Paris.’ During the diffusion of the excerpt from Mr Y’s video, he made the following remarks: “They smash things up, they loot, they steal, they attack people, they set things alight. […] Most of them are children of Arab-Muslim immigrants. […] They hate France and the French. White people, the ‘Gwers’, are their enemies […] If our Saturday-night rioters deserve to be called barbarians, it is very much in the tradition of the Barbary pirates, as they were known in the 17th century. That is to say, pirates and plunderers who came from Algiers or Tunis to raid the French coast and make off with their spoils. At least back then, they would return to their lairs once their misdeeds were done. For forty years, our elites have brought in millions of representatives of a foreign civilisation that has accumulated centuries of conflict with France and the West. This guerrilla war of civilisations on our soil is the result of their criminal recklessness .” In response to these remarks, Mr X stated: ‘I agree 100 per cent with what he said, […] I think that 90 per cent of the viewers watching tonight, across the political spectrum, agree that today’s incident was an immigration-related issue. […] And in 10 or 15 years’ time, when the situation gets worse – because we’ll have brought even more foreigners into the country – […] it’ll snowball. […] A few decades ago, this only happened in the 93. Today, it’s happening all over the country. When you look at it, you think to yourself, ‘Perhaps I’d like to take refuge in my little village in Brittany’, but there’s a fifty-fifty chance that even in that village, it’ll turn into the same mess. […] The issue is to ensure, going forward, that in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time, we no longer take in people who are, proportionally speaking, more dangerous today […]”.

10. Mr Y, during the video shown during diffusion, described the violence witnessed during the celebrations of Paris Saint-Germain’s victory in the Champions League final as the manifestation of a ‘civilisational guerrilla war on our soil’, instigated by people, likened to “Barbary pirates” who, being “for the most part children of Arab-Muslim immigrants”, are, as such, “representatives of a foreign civilisation that has accumulated centuries of conflict with France and the West”. A section of the French population, portrayed as outside the national community on account of its supposed ethnicity and religion, has thus been described as waging war against the ‘other’—designated as ‘France and the French ’ or even ‘white people’, a form of armed struggle that is merely the continuation of a centuries-old clash of civilisations.

11. The decision to show this recording should have led the broadcaster—who was in a position to anticipate the necessary precautions—to balance this politician’s remarks with contextual information and counterarguments. However, the counterarguments provided on set were insufficient. Indeed, whilst one guest did express some disagreement, lamenting in particular the ‘generalisation’ they were making, this counterpoint – which was, moreover, ambiguous – was downplayed by the presenter, who urged the same guest to take a stance on whether there was a link between the violence and ‘all this immigration ’.

12. Furthermore, Mr X not only stated that he ‘agreed 100 per cent’ with Mr Y’s comments, but also presented them as an obvious fact, thereby strengthening their impact. Also supporting the use of the term ‘barbarians’ on the grounds that the violence committed was part of a ‘ “civilisational” issue, he, for his part, made statements relating, in particular, to a deterioration in the security situation across the country, which he attributed to people from immigrant backgrounds and against which the police and the judicial authorities were, in his view, powerless, or to the “message” of intimidation which, in his view, was being sent to the French population by the perpetrators of the observed violence.

13. Thus, remarks conveying particularly defamatory and alarming stereotypes against people presumed to be of immigrant background were shown without sufficient challenge; these individuals are portrayed as an irreducibly foreign element within the French population, and who, because of a particular propensity for violence and a resentment said to be rooted in their belonging to a foreign ‘civilisation’, constitute a serious and growing danger to the rest of the population . Such remarks, some of which are couched in highly virulent terms, are likely to provoke reactions of rejection and hostility towards them and, consequently, to incite hatred and encourage discriminatory behaviour towards them on the grounds of their origin.

14. As regards the subsequent statements by two guests emphasising the need to avoid equating all immigrants with the perpetrators of violence – statements which were made at a later stage and did not refer to the remarks made by Messrs X and Y referred to in paragraph 9 – these cannot be regarded as directly contradicting them.

15. It follows that this sequence constitutes a breach by the broadcaster, on the one hand, of the provisions of Article 15 of the Act of 30 September 1986 and, on the other hand, to the provisions of Articles 2-3-2 and 2-2-1 of the agreement of 27 November 2019, which was in force at the time.

On the programme ‘100% Politique’ broadcast on 1 September 2025:

16. During the programme “100% Politique” shown on 1 September 2025, a segment was devoted to remarks made by an elected representative wearing a veil during a meeting of the municipal council of Molenbeek-Saint-Jean, in Belgium.

17. During this segment, part of the remarks made by the Molenbeek-Saint-Jean councillor was replayed, notably: ‘If these people, who wear headscarves […] if we’re such a nuisance, if they don’t even want to see us anymore, […] if Molenbeek is so unbearable, then switch sides, for goodness’ sake, go somewhere else, get out. ” In response, Mr X stated: “That’s the plan. The truth is, we saw it first, in fact, with the Jews, who had to leave certain neighbourhoods […]. But it’s the same thing happening to the French, to us. […] The ‘Great Replacement’ – behind it all, it’s simply going to be a massive displacement. It’s about pushing us to emigrate. There are already 1.3 million French people who have left the country. […] They’re leaving because they’ve had enough. They’ve had enough of the lack of security. They no longer feel at home. There are neighbourhoods today where you can no longer avoid eating halal food.” A columnist commented: ‘If this lady can speak out, it’s because there’s a section of the population that votes for her. And when you have a population that is growing – not necessarily Islamist, but with an influx of Arab-Muslim immigrants – then yes, they elect people who resemble them.’ Mr X then spoke again: “Islam remains a religion of conquest, and […] part of this population may also be driven by a desire for counter-colonisation. That is to say […]‘Now we’re taking our revenge, we’re getting our own back’ – forgive me,” he added, also noting: “If tomorrow […] out of these 8 to 9 million Muslims, who have an extremely large population and a very high birth rate […] What on earth are you going to do? ”

18. The panellists thus presented the Belgian local councillor’s appearance and behaviour as symptomatic of a ‘great replacement’ also at work in France, aimed at provoking a ‘great displacement’ of the French by ‘pushing them to emigrate ’. This theory was described on set as a ‘project’ stemming from a ‘logic of counter-colonisation’ inherent to Islam, which was portrayed as a ‘religion of conquest’, and some of whose followers are said to be driven by a desire for ‘revenge ’ against ‘Western ’. Such remarks, conveying a particularly alarming image of people supposedly belonging to the ‘Arab-Muslim immigrant community’, portrayed as a serious threat to the rest of the population whom they allegedly seek to subjugate or drive into emigration, appear likely to stir up feelings of fear and rejection and, consequently, to incite hatred and encourage discriminatory behaviour towards these individuals on the grounds of their origin or religion.

19. Whilst the participants took care in the wording of some of the contentious remarks, this appears insufficient to mitigate their highly stigmatising nature, given that no contradiction or contextualisation was provided by the presenter or the other people present on set. In particular, whilst the presenter did intervene at a later stage of the programme to temper some of Mr X’s statements, his intervention related only to those statements and not to the remarks referred to in paragraph 17.

20. Consequently, this sequence constitutes a breach by the broadcaster, on the one hand, of the provisions of Article 15 of the Act of 30 September 1986 and, on the other hand, to the provisions of Articles 2-3-2 and 2-2-1 of the agreement of 10 December 2024.

Regarding the programme ‘L’Heure des pros 2’ broadcast on 23 October 2025:

21. In the circumstances of this case, there are no grounds for imposing legal sanctions on the broadcaster in relation to the programme ‘L’Heure des pros 2’ shown on 23 October 2025.

Regarding the legal sanctions imposed:

22. Having regard, on the one hand, to the nature and extent of the breaches referred to in points 15 and 20, which constitute a failure to comply with the provisions of Article 15 of the Act of 30 September 1986 and the provisions of Articles 2-3-2 and 2-2-1 of the agreements of 27 November 2019 and 10 December 2024, and, on the other hand, the previous legal sanctions referred to in points 5 to 7 imposed for infringements of these same obligations, a penalty of 200,000 euros is to be imposed on the Société d’exploitation d’un service d’information (SESI).

23. In the circumstances of this case, this decision must also be published in the Official Journal of the French Republic and on the Authority’s website.

Having deliberated ,

It is hereby decided:

Article 1. – A financial penalty of 200,000 euros is imposed on the Société d'exploitation d'un service d'information (SESI). This sum shall be allocated to the National Centre for Cinema and the Moving Image pursuant to Article L . 116-5 of the Code of Cinema and the Moving Image.

Article2. – This decision shall be notified to the Société d'exploitation d'un service d'information (SESI) and published in the Official Journal of the French Republic and on the Authority’s website.

Adopted on 24 July 2026 by Mr Martin Ajdari, Chair, Mr Benoit Loutrel, Ms Juliette Théry, Mr Denis Rapone, Ms Laurence Pécaut-Rivolier, Ms Bénédicte Lesage, Mr Antoine Boilley, Mr Romain Laleix and Ms Catherine Jentile de Canecaude, members.

Done at Paris , on 24 July 2026.

For the French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication :

The Chair

Mr AJDARI