France orders Meta to resume press rights talks and grants Lacoste interim measures against Shein

French competition authority orders Meta to resume neighbouring rights negotiations 

On 8 July 2026, the French Competition Authority adopted Decisions 26-MC-01 and 26-MC-02 in proceedings involving the US company Meta Platforms, Inc. and its Irish subsidiary, Meta Platforms Ireland Limited. These decisions followed complaints from Société des droits voisins de la presse (DVP) and Alliance de la presse d'information générale (APIG) regarding negotiations over Meta's use of press content. The authority is continuing its investigation and has not yet reached a final conclusion on whether Meta infringed competition law. 

The dispute concerns the neighbouring right granted to press publishers under Article 15 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the Digital Single Market. This right allows publishers to control how digital service providers use their publications online. France incorporated it into national law through the Law of 24 July 2019. 

After the French law came into force, Meta signed separate remuneration agreements with APIG and DVP. The APIG agreement was signed in December 2021, while the DVP agreement was signed in June 2024. Together, these agreements covered Meta’s use of press content from the date the French law came into force until 31 December 2024 for DVP members and 31 January 2025 for APIG members. 

The parties began a new round of negotiations in 2024, but were unable to reach an agreement. They disagreed over the amount of remuneration, the uses covered by the neighbouring right, and which Meta services should be included in the negotiations. As a result, DVP members received no remuneration for the relevant uses from 1 January 2025 onwards, while the corresponding period for APIG members began on 1 February 2025. 

APIG and DVP alleged that Meta had sought to impose its own method for calculating remuneration and had not supplied the information needed to assess its proposals. The authority also examined Meta’s decision to exclude, in principle, all of its services distributing news content from the negotiations, apart from content posted by Facebook users. At this preliminary stage, it considered that these practices could amount to the imposition of unfair trading conditions and circumvention of the French neighbouring rights rules. 

 The authority also pointed out that Meta was likely to hold a dominant position in the market for personal social networking services including hybrid platforms. Its preliminary assessment referred to Facebook’s large user base and the capacity of Meta’s platforms to meet a particularly wide range of user needs and uses. It found that the lack of remuneration had caused financial harm to APIG and DVP members while their content continued to be distributed on Meta’s services. In its view, the practices also posed a serious and immediate threat to the press sector. These findings remain provisional and do not amount to a final determination that Meta abused a dominant position. 

Against this background, the authority ordered Meta to resume negotiations with APIG and DVP in good faith, using transparent, objective and non-discriminatory criteria. The negotiations must cover the relevant uses of press content after the previous agreements expired. Meta must also provide, within 15 days, the information required to assess its remuneration proposals. During the negotiations, it may not change the conditions governing the display of APIG and DVP members’ content on its online services and must submit regular compliance reports to the authority. The measures will remain in force until the authority decides the case on its merits. 

The authority did not set an interim remuneration amount because it considered that doing so could influence the negotiations. Meta said that it disagreed with the decisions but would participate in the process. The company also stated that it remained committed to reaching an agreement with APIG and DVP. 

Lacoste secures EU-wide interim relief against Shein 

On 9 July 2026, the Paris Judicial Court issued an interim order in proceedings brought by the French clothing company Lacoste S.A. against companies operating the Shein platform. The dispute concerns clothing, jewellery and fashion accessories offered through the platform with crocodile images that allegedly resemble Lacoste’s renowned logo. The order was made while the main trade mark proceedings remain pending before the French court. 

The case was considered by a case-management judge from the court’s Third Civil Chamber, which specialises in intellectual property disputes. At this stage, the judge did not decide whether Shein had definitively infringed Lacoste’s trade marks. Instead, the judge assessed whether the evidence justified provisional measures before the court rules on the merits. 

Upon examining the products, The judge noted that Lacoste had a strong reputation for clothing in France and the EU, and that the Shein companies were likely seeking to exploit this by selling 11 garments bearing stylised crocodile images. For the remaining trade marks, the judge identified a clear risk of consumer confusion and deemed imitation-based trade mark infringement likely.  

Although the products were no longer available online, the judge considered that there was a strong likelihood of further infringement. The products had been marketed despite an earlier interim order of 3 April 2025 that had already prohibited several other articles bearing crocodile images. Therefore, the court prohibited the Shein companies from marketing products bearing a crocodile logo anywhere in the European Union during the proceedings. The companies were also ordered to pay Lacoste an interim sum of €110,000 towards any damages that may ultimately be awarded. This payment is provisional and does not constitute a final award of damages.  

Furthermore, the court ordered Shein to publish the decision on the homepage of its website and in its applications for one month. According to the court, this measure is intended to inform consumers and prevent further harm while the proceedings continue. In response, Shein stated that the order only concerned the interim stage, and that the court had not yet reached a final decision on the matter. The company also said that it had cooperated with Lacoste by removing the products after being notified of the complaint. The substantive proceedings are ongoing.