Series of Convictions for Online Defamation and Harassment

The Paris Criminal Court recently delivered its verdict, finding ten individuals guilty of publishing or sharing defamatory and offensive content targeting Brigitte Macron online. The case centered around persistent rumors about an alleged gender identity history of the French First Lady, as well as unfounded and serious accusations of child abuse. Judge Thierry Donard condemned the malicious nature of the posts, which were widely circulated on social media using disparaging and degrading language, pointing to a clear “intent to harm the plaintiff.”

Sentences Range from Suspended Jail Terms to Firm Incarceration

Out of the ten defendants, eight received suspended prison sentences varying from four to eight months. One person, who failed to appear at the October hearing, was sentenced to six months in prison with no suspension. A tenth individual was given a more lenient punishment, consisting of a fine and mandatory participation in a digital civility program. All those convicted must cover the cost of attending a workshop focused on respecting individuals in digital spaces and collectively pay a €10,000 fine in damages to the plaintiff.

Harshest Penalties Reserved for High-Profile Social Media Figures

Among those convicted, a number were described as central figures in spreading the content online. Writer Aurélien Poirson-Atlan (known as Zoé Sagan), psychic Amandine Roy, and art dealer Bertrand Scholler received the stiffest penalties—eight and six months suspended respectively. Additionally, the court imposed a six-month ban on their usage of personal social media accounts. For Brigitte Macron’s attorney, Jean Ennochi, these sanctions send a vital signal, emphasizing that “preventive education and the suspension of offending accounts are key steps forward.”

Personal Toll of a Persistent Rumor

While Brigitte Macron was not present in court, she had elaborated during the investigation on the deep emotional impact the rumors had caused within her family. In her complaint filed in late August, she revealed how the false claims had distressed her loved ones—mentioning particularly her grandchildren, who were told in school that “their grandmother is a man.” Her daughter, Tiphaine Auzière, also testified about the severe toll the misinformation campaign had taken on her mother’s mental health. Speaking on national television, the First Lady reiterated her commitment to fighting against online harassment: “I’ve been battling this continuously… If I don’t set an example, the fight loses meaning.”

Transphobic Language and Baseless Allegations Called Out

Several of the harshest defamatory statements came from well-known online personalities. Under his alias, Zoé Sagan, Poirson-Atlan referred to the 24-year age difference between Brigitte and Emmanuel Macron as a “state-sanctioned sexual crime” and accused the president of “pedophilia”. Amandine Roy, meanwhile, uploaded a four-hour conspiracy video in 2021, falsely claiming not only that Brigitte Macron did not exist, but that her brother, Jean-Michel Trogneux, had allegedly assumed her identity after transitioning. Though previously convicted of defamation in another case in September 2024, Roy was later acquitted on appeal. Brigitte Macron and her brother have filed a cassation appeal to challenge that ruling.

Global Spread of Disinformation through Online Networks

Xavier Poussard, currently based in Milan and absent from the trial, has had his case separated for future proceedings. Identified as one of the central figures behind the rumor’s global proliferation, he is the author of Becoming Brigitte—a book that underpinned much of the disinformation. The publication inspired a wave of speculative content, including videos by U.S. influencer Candace Owen, who is now being sued by the presidential couple in the United States. Her online series helped take the narrative global, with some defendants in France having shared materials like a fake Time magazine cover declaring Brigitte Macron “Man of the Year.” Several individuals attempted to justify their posts as “satirical” and appealed to the right of free speech and public interest reporting—arguments that were firmly rejected by the court.