# Defamation law France: claim, proof and the clock

Defamation law France explained: diffamation and injure under the 1881 press law, the three-month clock, proof of truth, good faith and search results.

---


Defamation law in France is set mainly by the press law of 29 July 1881, which treats it as a criminal offense and also lets the victim claim damages. The law punishes diffamation (a statement of a fact that harms someone's honor or reputation) and injure (an insult that states no fact), and in most cases it gives the victim only three months to act.

This article follows one path: what the offense is, whether it is public, who can be pursued, which defenses apply, which routes exist, and what a court decision or removal request does to search results. It is information, not legal advice, and the clock may already be running, so read it alongside advice from a French lawyer.

On sources: the Légifrance database could not be opened for this article. The 1881 text was read in a [consolidated copy published by the Conseil constitutionnel](https://presidentielle2017.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/tout-savoir/en-resume/textes-de-reference/autres-dispositions-generales/744-2/index.html) (version dated 4 January 2017), and later changes were checked against the Conseil's own decisions and the government's [Service-Public page on diffamation](https://www.service-public.gouv.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F32079). Check the current consolidated text before relying on an article number.

<div class="box"><b>The short version</b>
<ul><li>Diffamation needs a precise fact that can be proven true or false; injure is an insult with no fact. Both are punished more heavily when public, and an online post anyone can open is public.</li><li>The criminal and civil actions both expire three months after publication or after the last investigative or prosecution step, with one year for racist or discriminatory offenses.</li><li>The defendant may prove the fact true or argue good faith, which needs no proof of truth. A win is never certain.</li><li>For a website, the director of publication is pursued first and the author can follow as accomplice. A host must check a report and remove content that is illegal.</li><li>A conviction does not remove a page from the web. Search results are handled by separate requests to search engines.</li></ul></div>

## Defamation law in France rests on the 29 July 1881 press law

The 1881 law defines and punishes defamation and insult, and it covers speech, writing, images and online communication to the public. A claim is built on that law, not on the general civil liability rules.

The Senate's 2016 information report on the 1881 law and the internet records in its notes that the Cour de cassation (the highest civil and criminal court) subjected civil compensation to the 1881 law and excluded the general civil liability article of the Civil Code (then article 1382). Article 65 of the 1881 law itself sets the three-month period for both the public action and the civil action. A victim who pleads ordinary civil fault to escape the short clock should expect the 1881 rules to be applied anyway.

Two features set the French system apart: the limitation period is counted in months, and the defendant can win on good faith without proving that the statement is true.

## Diffamation and injure: what each one requires

Diffamation is an allegation or imputation of a fact that harms the honor or reputation of a person or body. Injure is an outrageous expression, a term of contempt or an invective that imputes no specific fact. The test is whether the statement can be proven true or false.

Those are the two definitions in article 29. Service-Public adds the working tests:

- The fact must be precise enough that contrary proof is possible.
- The person need not be named, only identifiable. The portal's example is an unnamed police officer placed in a named village.
- A question or insinuation can still be diffamation.
- Calling someone a thief ("voleuse") is injure; accusing an employee of taking money from the till is diffamation, because that can be checked.

The distinction matters because the defenses differ. Proof of truth belongs to diffamation (article 35); an insult imputes no fact, so there is nothing to prove true. For injure aimed at a private person, Service-Public describes the excuse of provocation instead: the accused must show the provocation was personal, faulty or excessive, immediate and the cause of the insult, and if the court accepts it the accused cannot be convicted.

## Public or non-public: the setting changes the offense

An offense is public when the statement can be heard, seen or read by many people, and non-public when it stays in a restricted circle. Public defamation is a délit (an offense of middle gravity, tried by the tribunal correctionnel); non-public defamation is a contravention (a minor offense, tried by the tribunal de police).

Service-Public applies the test to online content by asking who can see it. A message to one phone or a closed group is non-public. A page, video or post anyone can open is public. On a social network the question is whether the account is public or restricted to friends. The figures below are those on the Service-Public pages as read. The 2017 consolidated copy shows older figures for some aggravated cases (article 33 gives six months and 22,500 euros for injure on grounds of origin or religion), so use Service-Public and check the current text.

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>Offense</th><th>Non-public</th><th>Public</th><th>Notes</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>Diffamation, general</strong></td><td>Fine of 38 euros</td><td>Fine of 12,000 euros</td><td>Damages to a civil party on top</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Injure, general</strong></td><td>Fine of 38 euros</td><td>Fine of 12,000 euros</td><td>Court may order the conviction published</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Racist or discriminatory</strong></td><td>Fine up to 1,500 euros</td><td>Up to 1 year in prison and 45,000 euros</td><td>Time limit is one year</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Against a court, administration or army</strong></td><td>Not stated on the pages read</td><td>Fine of 45,000 euros</td><td>Defamation only</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

Do not read the 12,000 euro figure as what the victim receives. Service-Public says the victim can seek damages from the convicted person and gives no amount.

## The three-month clock: start, interruption and the 2026 change

The criminal and civil actions for 1881 offenses expire three months after the offense or after the last act of investigation or prosecution. The exception covered in the sources is one year for racist, ethnic, religious or similar offenses, a rule the Conseil constitutionnel upheld in 2013 for article 65-3.

Article 65 says exactly that: the public action and the civil action prescribe after three months, counted from the day of the offense or the last act of investigation or prosecution. Service-Public gives the same period for the complaint and the direct summons.

### When the clock starts on a web page

The clock starts at the first publication, not when the victim finds the post and not when it is taken down. A written answer from the Justice Ministry, published on 30 December 2008, cites case law that the period runs from the moment the message was first made available to users. The 2004 digital economy law tried to run the online period from the end of availability, and the Conseil constitutionnel struck that down in decision 2004-496 DC. A Senate bill (no. 423, session 2007-2008) proposed one year for online offenses, but Service-Public's page still gives three months.

The sources read give no extra time for late discovery. Whether a repost or new link restarts the clock is not confirmed. The same ministry answer reports first-instance rulings from 2002 and 2004 that accepted a new period when content went back online with new information or on a new medium; that is one answer's account of old rulings, not confirmed as current law, so ask counsel before assuming a repost restarts or does not restart the period.

### What interrupts the clock

Per the 2017 text, acts of investigation or prosecution interrupt the period, and a new three-month period starts after the last one. Before a prosecution has begun, only a request for an investigation (réquisitoire) interrupts, and it must state and classify the offenses or it is void. The Conseil constitutionnel's commentary on decision 2013-302 QPC puts the working result plainly: the case is time-barred if more than three months pass between publication and the first prosecution step, or between two steps. The court raises the point itself.

Nothing read says that a platform report, a letter to the publisher or a request for a reply stops the clock, and the sources read do not say whether a simple complaint to the police or prosecutor counts as an interrupting step. Plan on the three months running through all of them until your lawyer confirms which step interrupts.

### The rule struck down on 12 June 2026

Article 65-2 once reopened the period for a person targeted by a defamatory statement when a final criminal decision on the same facts did not implicate that person. In [decision 2026-1204/1205 QPC of 12 June 2026](https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2026/20261204_1205QPC.htm) the Conseil constitutionnel found it wholly unconstitutional: it had no time limit and applied to any criminal imputation whatever its gravity. The decision applies to cases not yet finally decided on that date.

<aside class="callout">
<span class="callout-label">Limit</span>
<h4>The clock is counted from publication, not discovery</h4>
<p>Date-stamp the page, the capture and the day you first saw it. If publication was more than three months ago and no prosecution step has intervened, a criminal claim under the 1881 law is very likely time-barred. The racist or discriminatory category is the exception, at one year.</p>
</aside>

## Proof of truth and good faith: the two defenses

A defendant has two main defenses to diffamation: prove the imputed fact true (exceptio veritatis), or show good faith. A defendant can plead both.

### The exceptio veritatis: what it allows and where it stops

The truth of a defamatory fact can in general be proven, with listed exceptions. Service-Public says the proof must be complete and directly tied to the claims, and the accused has ten days after receiving a direct summons to serve it.

Three limits matter:

- **Private life.** The consolidated text excludes proof of truth where the imputation concerns private life. Service-Public adds that private-life material is allowed only where the defamation concerns a sexual offense against a minor.
- **Old facts.** The ten-year bar fell in decision 2011-131 QPC of 20 May 2011, and the bar on amnestied, prescribed or rehabilitated facts fell in decision 2013-319 QPC of 7 June 2013. An old fact can now be proven, subject to the rest of article 35.
- **Public bodies and officials.** For defamation of public bodies and officials, truth can be proven only for imputations about their functions.

The strategic consequence: a case against a true or mostly true statement becomes a trial of the underlying facts, with the accused given a platform to prove them.

### Good faith: a defense without proof of truth

Good faith lets the defendant escape conviction even if the fact is not proven. Service-Public lists four elements, all required: restraint and measured wording, no personal quarrel with the victim, a legitimate purpose such as informing the public about a health scandal, and a serious investigation before the accusation. How strictly courts apply each element was not read for this article.

## Who can be sued: director of publication, author and host

For a website, the first person pursued is the director of publication, and the author can be pursued as an accomplice. Service-Public says that for online content a direct summons must name the publication director, who is treated as the author online.

The 2017 text of article 42 sets the order for press offenses: publication directors or publishers first, then authors when no director can be reached, then printers, then sellers and distributors. Article 43 lets the author be prosecuted as an accomplice when the director is pursued. On a blog or anonymous page the legal notice may be empty, and Service-Public says a complaint can be filed against "X" when the author is unknown, while the direct summons requires a known adult or legal entity. On a social account or review platform the user is the author and the platform is a host, with a different duty.

### The host's duty

Service-Public says anyone can report illegal content to the host, which must check the report and, if the content is illegal, alert the authorities and remove or block it. If the host does nothing, the reporter can use an out-of-court dispute body, which charges a fee, and the victim can sue a host that failed its obligations. The Conseil constitutionnel's 2004 reservation sets the limit: a host cannot be held liable for content it left up when the content is not manifestly unlawful and no judge ordered removal.

## The right of reply online: a fast, separate route

A person named or designated in an online communication has a right of reply, which puts a version on the record without a trial. The 2016 Senate report places it in article 6-IV of the 2004 digital economy law (LCEN). A digital bill text deposited in the Senate (no. 593, session 2022-2023) would insert a new article 1-1 of that law with a similar right and a three-month deadline. No current official text was read, so the numbering and the status of that bill must be checked.

As described in the Senate's 2016 information report, the latest detailed source read:

- The request must reach the director of publication within three months of the content going online.
- The director has three days to publish the reply.
- If the content's editor is not a professional, the request goes to the host, which forwards it to the director.
- The press-law rules of article 13 govern the form, and decree 2007-1527 of 24 October 2007 applies online.

For print, article 13 in the 2017 text requires a daily newspaper to publish a reply within three days of receipt, on pain of a 3,750 euro fine, in the same place and typeface. The 2016 report calls the online right's effectiveness "variable" and says only one conviction had been handed down for refusing to insert a reply, so do not plan around it as a lever.

A reply suits a factual correction. Nothing read says it stops the prosecution clock, and it can draw more readers to the original, so keep it short and factual.

## Criminal route, civil route and how to choose

There are three ways to act in court, plus the non-court steps. The criminal ones are strictly formal, and the civil one runs on the same short clock.

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>Route</th><th>What it needs</th><th>What it can give</th><th>Main risk</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>Complaint (plainte)</strong></td><td>Report to police, gendarmerie or the prosecutor, with evidence</td><td>A prosecutor decides whether to pursue; you can join as civil party</td><td>The file may be closed while the three months run</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Direct summons (citation directe)</strong></td><td>A known adult or entity; exact words; qualification; deposit</td><td>A hearing, a conviction and damages</td><td>Drafting errors; proof of truth offered</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Civil claim</strong></td><td>Facts within the 1881 framework</td><td>Damages</td><td>Civil liability rules cannot avoid the 1881 limits</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Host report or reply</strong></td><td>A message to the host or the director</td><td>Possible removal or a published reply</td><td>Not shown to stop the clock</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

Service-Public describes the direct summons in detail: quote the exact words, say whether the offense is public or non-public, give the date and place, cite the law, and state the harm and its amount. A commissaire de justice (bailiff) serves it, and the claimant pays a deposit (consignation) that depends on income. The portal strongly recommends a lawyer.

If you do not know the author, start with a complaint. If you know the author and the director and the three months have not run, the direct summons gives you control of the timetable. If you want a short correction rather than a conviction, the reply is quicker.

## Court decisions, removal requests and search results

A French decision on defamation does not delete a page from the web, and it does not by itself change a search engine's index. Search results are a separate step.

Under the Conseil constitutionnel's 2004 reservation, a host is not liable for leaving up content that is not manifestly unlawful unless a judge ordered its removal, so a judge's order is the clearest basis for removal in that case. The 1881 text read does not describe a removal order as a penalty, and the sources do not say what orders a French judge can give a host or search engine beyond publication of the conviction and damages. Ask counsel what remedy to plead.

For the search engine there are two routes, different in kind:

- **A legal removal report.** [Google's Legal Help pages](https://support.google.com/legal/troubleshooter/1114905?hl=en) list defamation and court orders as legal reasons for reporting content in Search, and say legal removals usually apply in the country or region where the content is illegal. The pages read do not set out the evidence required, so check the form before filing.
- **A de-referencing request (droit au déréférencement).** The [CNIL](https://www.cnil.fr/fr/le-droit-au-dereferencement), France's data protection authority, describes it as a request to a search engine, citing Article 17 of the GDPR, to remove results after a search on a person's name. The original content stays accessible. The engine has one month to reply, extendable to three, and if it refuses or does not answer you can complain to the CNIL. The result still appears for searches that do not use your name, and the engine may refuse if the information must stay public.

A court decision is evidence that a statement is unlawful, but it does not bind the engine. For accurate, lawful content that is simply unwelcome, neither route works, and the answer is lawful suppression: publishing accurate, better pages so they outrank the page. Our service pages explain how [removal](/remove-negative-content) and [suppression](/suppress-negative-results) divide the work.

## A worked scenario: six weeks left when the post is found

The scenario is invented, with generic parties, to show how the clock sets the order of work. A restaurant owner finds a public forum post, dated 3 March, saying he "pockets customers' deposits". The post names his restaurant, so he is identifiable. He first sees it on 20 April.

The statement is a precise fact that can be checked, so it is likely diffamation; it is public, so it is a délit; and the poster is anonymous. Counting three months from 3 March publication, the period ends on or about 3 June, leaving about six weeks (44 days) from 20 April. The lawyer fixes the exact last day.

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>When</th><th>Action</th><th>Why</th><th>Failure mode</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>20 to 22 April</strong></td><td>Capture the page with URL, date and exact words</td><td>Proof of the words and of the start of the clock</td><td>Screenshot with no date or URL</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>By 25 April</strong></td><td>Report to the host; brief a French lawyer</td><td>The host must check and may remove</td><td>Waiting for a reply while the clock runs</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>By early May</strong></td><td>Decide: complaint against X, or direct summons if the author is known</td><td>A prosecution step is needed before the period ends</td><td>Assuming the host report or a complaint paused the clock</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Before about 3 June</strong></td><td>File, on the lawyer's calculation of the last day</td><td>After that date the claim is likely barred</td><td>Counting from discovery</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

Two checks change the plan. If the post is accurate, the owner faces proof of truth at his own hearing. If it was an opinion with no fact ("terrible place"), it is not diffamation at all, and the platform's own review rules are the better tool. Once the page is removed or judged, search requests follow.

## What to do now if a statement about you is already online

Check the date first. If the page was first published less than three months ago, speak to a French lawyer about the complaint or direct summons this week. If it is older, the criminal and civil routes are likely closed, and the useful tools are the host report, a de-referencing request and suppression. A reply has its own three-month window from the date the content went online, so it may be closed too.

<div class="box hot"><b>If this is happening to you now</b>
<p>Date the page, keep a full capture and note who the director of publication or author is. Reputation Partners can review the page against these routes and tell you which are still open. Start with the private <a href="/audit">audit</a>.</p></div>

## Questions people ask

### How long do I have to sue for defamation in France?

Three months from the first publication or from the last act of investigation or prosecution, and one year for racist or discriminatory offenses, per Service-Public and articles 65 and 65-3. Online content follows the same rule, counted from the first posting, not from discovery.

### Can I be sued for something true?

You can be, but the court allows you to prove the statement true. Proof must be complete and tied to the claims, and private-life facts are mostly excluded. Even without proof of truth you can show good faith, which needs restraint, no personal quarrel, a legitimate purpose and a serious investigation.

### Is an insult the same as defamation?

No. Diffamation imputes a precise fact that can be proven true or false. Injure is an insult or contemptuous expression with no fact. The general fines are the same, but an insult imputes no fact, so proof of truth does not fit it, while provocation can be argued against an insult aimed at a private person.

### Does a court ruling remove the page from search results?

No. The ruling does not delete the page or update the index by itself. You still ask the search engine, through a legal removal report or a de-referencing request, and the source page stays online unless the host or publisher removes it.