In a significant legal victory for the French First Lady, Brigitte Macron has successfully pursued harassment charges against American conservative commentator Candace Owens, with a French court delivering its verdict this week.
Court Rules in Favour of French First Lady
The Paris judicial court found Owens guilty of harassment for repeatedly spreading baseless conspiracy theories about Brigitte Macron's personal history. The case centred around false claims that had been circulating online regarding the First Lady's background.
During the proceedings, the court heard how Owens had used her substantial social media platform to amplify debunked allegations, contributing to what lawyers described as a "targeted campaign of misinformation" against the French president's wife.
The Nature of the False Claims
While the specific details of the conspiracy theories weren't detailed in the court's public statements, the allegations involved completely fabricated narratives about Brigitte Macron's past that had been thoroughly disproven by fact-checkers and official records.
Legal representatives for the First Lady argued that the persistent nature of these false statements, despite clear evidence contradicting them, constituted a form of digital harassment that required legal intervention.
Legal Consequences and Implications
The court's decision establishes an important precedent regarding the legal responsibility of public figures when sharing unverified information about individuals, particularly when such information has been previously debunked.
This case highlights the growing trend of public figures using legal channels to combat online harassment and misinformation, particularly when false claims gain traction across international borders through social media platforms.
Response from Legal Teams
Brigitte Macron's legal team welcomed the decision, stating that it reaffirms the principle that factual accuracy matters, even in the rapidly evolving landscape of digital communication. They emphasised that the case was never about limiting free speech but about addressing knowingly false statements presented as fact.
The ruling comes amid increasing global concern about the spread of misinformation and its real-world consequences for individuals targeted by coordinated online campaigns.
