Wikimedia Foundation secures crucial legal win in France

by
Translate this post
Picture of the Paris skyline (including the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris) taken in October 2019
Image of Paris seen from above, including the Tribunal de Paris, taken in October 2019.
Image by Vincevinss, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

On 19 September 2025, the Wikimedia Foundation won an important case at the Paris Civil Court,1 marking a victory for freedom of expression and for everyone who contributes to Wikimedia projects. The case involved a French citizen who tried a range of tactics in an attempt to undermine the privacy of Wikipedia contributors, dictate Wikipedia’s content, and control the worldwide results of search engines. The dismissal of his claim is a win for the Wikimedia movement. It is also a wake-up call to the risks of new online regulation, combined with speedy court processes to stop “online harms”, creating an easier path for SLAPP cases: lawsuits brought by influential figures to silence or intimidate free speech.2

The ambitious claims aimed to rewrite Wikipedia and undermine privacy

This lawsuit concerned a Wikipedia article about a socio-political analyst and commentator. In addition to his efforts to rebut or obtain retractions of critiques of his work in France, he also spent years trying to rewrite his Wikipedia article.

Wikipedia has processes for managing editorial disputes and conflicts of interest, based on editorial policies that promote neutrality and the collective discussion of proposed changes. Unfortunately, he often tried to circumvent these processes by directly rewriting the text on Wikipedia he disliked. 

When that failed, he demanded that the Wikimedia Foundation – the nonprofit that hosts Wikipedia – help him change or censor the article. Since its content was lawful, the Foundation refused, as it does for the vast majority of content takedown requests, and relayed his concerns to volunteer editors. 

Still dissatisfied with the continuing evolution of the article, he resumed trying to edit it himself, then started the lawsuit against the Foundation. He used France’s increasingly notorious “LCEN Article 6-3” fast-track process for “ending online harms” to expedite the case. The case was marked by a rapid succession of legal filings, bringing fresh arguments and demands. By the end, he was asking a judge to declare that the Wikimedia Foundation had violated six parts of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and seven parts of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), and then order us to do at least some of the following:

  1. Change how we comply with four of those DSA articles;
  2. Delete the whole Wikipedia article, or at least parts he was most critical of;
  3. Rewrite other parts of it according to his personal preferences and suggestions;
  4. Prevent the article from being found by users of search engines such as Bing and Google, worldwide;
  5. Provide full identification data for one user (even though we do not hold such data);
  6. Create a new system to collect full identification data of potentially thousands of Wikipedia users, based on a dangerous French law governing online publishers and their web hosts (LCEN Article 1-1)3; and
  7. Pay him substantial compensation for harm and legal costs, and a further 1,000 Euros per day until his demands were met.

In further support of his demands, his lawyers invoked a wide range of French and EU laws, even alleging that a Wikipedia user had violated five different criminal laws.4

The counterarguments 

The Wikimedia Foundation countered his claims by arguing that Wikipedia and its users were operating lawfully, the article about him was sufficiently accurate, and free speech outweighed private interests in this case. We further argued that he had failed to justify his reliance on the LCEN Article 6-3 fast-track procedure, his allegations were unjustified, and the remedies were inappropriate.

Fortunately, the court agreed. It rejected his claim and ordered him to cover some of our legal costs. A few days later, he announced that he would not appeal, bringing this matter to an end.

SLAPPs in the new area of online regulation

Discussion about Europe’s vulnerability to SLAPPs (aggressive legal attacks on freedom of speech) often concentrates on threats facing traditional activists, journalists, and the media. But this was a reminder of the risks also facing online platforms and their users, including Wikipedia. New rules amplify that risk; for example, this was the first lawsuit in which we faced EU Digital Services Act-related arguments.

This case is a significant win for free speech, the reliability of Wikipedia, and the privacy and autonomy of its user community. We hope it will set a higher bar for future claims invoking LCEN Article 6-3 and the GDPR against platforms like Wikipedia, and prevent the inappropriate application of laws like the DSA or France’s LCEN Article 1-1. 

What this means for Wikipedia 

This case also illustrates the problems that arise when individuals or organizations forcibly bypass Wikipedia’s processes for collaboratively writing Wikipedia articles, or cannot graciously accept the outcome of community consensus. The result was wasted time and legal costs. Worse still, some SLAPP actions succeed, at least for a while. That can be particularly detrimental to Wikipedia and all those who rely on it.

Unfortunately, laws like LCEN Article 6-3 are typically written with the protection of individuals or companies in mind, whereas explicit safeguards for the rest of society – such as Wikipedia and its millions of users – are often neglected. This leaves us having to put up creative and uncertain defences, in unnecessary and onerous legal actions. 

As the whole of the EU slowly moves forward with implementation of the EU’s new anti-SLAPP Directive, but still lacks uniform and reliable rules on balancing online speech with private interests, the need to consciously protect public interest platforms and their users could not be clearer.

To learn more about the Wikimedia Foundation’s efforts to secure a healthy regulatory environment for projects like Wikipedia, sign up for the Global Advocacy team’s quarterly newsletter, visit the Meta-Wiki webpage, follow the team on LinkedIn, or sign up for the Wikimedia public policy mailing list.

Also, check out the Wikipedia Test: a public policy tool and a call to action to help ensure regulators consider how new laws can negatively affect online communities and platforms that provide services and information in the public interest.

  1. G.Z. vs. Wikimedia Foundation. Decision of the Judicial Tribunal of Paris, September 19, 2025. RG 25/51051. Available online at https://www.courdecassation.fr/decision/68cda04654b52e4d6bdff961  ↩︎
  2. Article 6-3 of the Loi n° 2004-575 du 21 juin 2004 pour la confiance dans l’économie numérique (“LCEN”). Available online at https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000049571761  ↩︎
  3. LCEN Article 1-1. Available online at https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000049568614  ↩︎
  4. Infringement of Articles 226-18-1 and 226-19 of the French Criminal Code, moral harassment contrary to Article 222-33-2-2 of the French Criminal Code, discrimination contrary to Article 225-1 of the French Criminal Code, and obstruction of freedom of expression contrary to Article 431-1 of the French Criminal Code. ↩︎

Can you help us translate this article?

In order for this article to reach as many people as possible we would like your help. Can you translate this article to get the message out?