[Guest Post] Paris Court of Appeal Clarifies Platforms’ Obligations Under Article 15 DSM Directive in Twin Decisions Against X

Key Takeaways

• Court treats X as commercial user of press content
• Injunctions require disclosure of impressions, revenue, engagement data
• Non‑commercial and short‑extract exemptions denied for platforms
• Terms‑of‑service cannot waive statutory remuneration right
• Penalty of €170k imposed for non‑compliance

Summary

On 25 September 2025 the Paris Court of Appeal upheld two injunctions forcing X (formerly Twitter) to disclose detailed engagement and revenue data for press content, confirming the platform’s duty to provide information needed to calculate remuneration under Article L.218‑4 of the French Intellectual Property Code. The court adopted a functional view, treating X as a commercial user of press publications regardless of who uploads the material. It rejected X’s reliance on the DSM Directive’s non‑commercial user and short‑extract exemptions and dismissed the argument that terms‑of‑service implied consent. A €170,000 penalty was later imposed for X’s failure to comply with the first‑instance order.

Pulse Analysis

The Paris Court of Appeal’s decision marks a pivotal moment in the enforcement of the EU’s Digital Services and Single‑Market (DSM) Directive. By interpreting Article 15 through a functional lens, the court clarified that platforms derive economic value from hosting press material and therefore fall within the scope of French remuneration rules. This approach aligns with the EU’s broader objective to ensure that news publishers receive fair compensation for the digital exploitation of their content, and it signals to other online services that mere technical separation of user uploads will not shield them from liability.

Equally consequential is the court’s rejection of the two DSM‑Directive exemptions X invoked. The non‑commercial user exemption was confined to natural persons acting without profit motives, while the very short‑extract carve‑out was limited to reproductions that do not undermine the related right. By dismissing the argument that platform terms of service create an implied licence, the ruling underscores the primacy of statutory rights over contractual clauses. This stance creates a clear legal boundary that other platforms must respect, and it raises questions about how the decision will interact with the DSA’s liability framework, especially concerning the prohibition on general monitoring.

Looking ahead, the judgments could reverberate across the European digital market. Publishers now have a stronger basis to demand granular data for remuneration calculations, potentially prompting a wave of similar injunctions in other jurisdictions. Meanwhile, platforms may need to redesign data‑access mechanisms to comply without breaching DSA monitoring limits. Pending CJEU rulings on related referrals from Belgium and Italy will likely refine the scope of Article 15 exemptions, but in the interim, the Paris decisions set a de‑facto standard for transparency obligations, reshaping the balance of power between news media and tech intermediaries.