The Paris Court of Appeal on Thursday rejected Meta’s appeals and left in force interim measures that require Meta revenue data to be shared with French press publishers and news agencies. The October 29, 2026 rulings also require good-faith neighbouring-rights talks and bar Meta from degrading how news is displayed, after the court said Meta’s payment method may amount to an abuse of dominance.
Key Takeaways
- Paris appeal court rejected both of Meta’s challenges on October 29, 2026.
- Meta must negotiate pay, share revenue and usage data, and not degrade news.
- Court said Meta’s payment method may abuse dominance; merits case continues.
- APIG and DVP members have had no Meta rights pay since early 2025.
Two Appeals, Not a Final Finding
The Economic and Financial Regulation Chamber (5-7) issued judgments RG No 26/12580 and RG No 26/12581 in Meta v Alliance de la presse d’information générale (APIG) and Société des droits voisins de la presse (DVP). As Reuters reported, the court said in a statement:
The Court concluded that Meta’s practices, specifically regarding the methods used to determine the amounts payable as ‘neighboring rights’ to press publishers, may constitute an abuse of a dominant position, which is prohibited under both European and French competition law.
PPC Land’s report on the judgments said the rulings are not a final finding that Meta broke the law. They leave in place interim measures the Autorité de la concurrence adopted on July 8, 2026, numbered 26-MC-01 for APIG and 26-MC-02 for DVP, while that review continues. Meta appealed on August 6, 2026.
The court held that the Neighbouring Rights Law, adopted to transpose Directive 2019/790, does not preclude competition law. It assessed the practices on the market for personal social networking services.
What the Meta Revenue Data Orders Require
According to the court’s press release, as reported by PPC Land, the measures order Meta to:
- negotiate in good faith the remuneration due for the reuse of protected content “across all of its services,” following the arrangements of the Neighbouring Rights Law and on transparent, objective and non-discriminatory criteria;
- provide the complainants with certain information on the revenue of its various social networks and on the use of protected content;
- not degrade the way press content is displayed.
When the July decisions were issued, PPC Land reported, the Autorité gave Meta 15 days to hand over information needed for negotiations, required talks to cover reuse from the start of 2025, and asked for regular compliance reports. The measures stay in force until the Autorité rules on the merits.
The 2024 negotiations ended with no agreement on the amount due, the scope of uses covered by neighbouring rights, or the Meta services concerned. Analysis: the order to negotiate across all of Meta’s services keeps that scope dispute inside the interim regime.
Who Has Gone Unpaid
| Group | Coverage | Deal signed | Deal ended | Interim request | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| APIG | More than 300 member newspapers | December 24, 2021 | January 31, 2025 | September 2025 | 26-MC-01 |
| DVP | 920 publications and more than 60 news agencies | June 2024 | December 31, 2024 | July 2025 | 26-MC-02 |
APIG’s newspaper count is from the Autorité’s July decision; DVP’s count is from Presse Agence, both as reported by PPC Land. The court’s press release says that since the first agreements expired, members “have no longer received any remuneration from Meta in respect of neighbouring rights.”
Those rights come from Law No 2019-775 of July 24, 2019, which transposed Directive 2019/790. DVP asked the Autorité for interim measures in July 2025 and APIG in September 2025. The authority found that Meta likely held a dominant position on the European market for personal social networking services, and that unfair trading conditions and circumvention of the Neighbouring Rights Law could be abuses.
The Platform Must Show the Value
According to an unofficial English translation of the press release, circulated by competition lawyer Thomas Höppner and reported by PPC Land, remuneration is fair under Article 102(a) TFEU only if it is determined by reference to the nature and extent of use and the economic value generated by that use, “which it is for network service providers to substantiate.”
That account says Meta was likely to have taken only partial account of that use and value, and that transparency conditions for a fair price did not appear to be met. The court set no price. It held that the conduct is the cause of serious and immediate harm to the press sector and to APIG and DVP members, distinct from the sector’s structural economic difficulties, and found the measures strictly limited to what is necessary to deal with the urgency.
A Meta spokesperson told Reuters the company was disappointed. “We are assessing next steps but will continue to comply with the interim measures and negotiate in good faith, and hope the publishers will do the same,” the spokesperson said.
Analysis: this is a bargaining order, not a tariff. French groups can press for revenue and usage figures only the platform can see, and for normal display, while the merits case remains open. Separate fights over Meta’s terms continue, including Norwegian publishers asking a court to halt Meta business terms.
