A French court ruled that unauthorized videos exposing animal farming conditions cannot be automatically removed, emphasizing a balance between rights.
Court of Cassation reverses earlier decision
The Court of Cassation, France’s highest judicial body for civil and criminal matters, reversed a previous ruling on October 14, which had denied Denkavit France’s request to remove a video filmed without permission by the animal rights group L214. The case is now being sent back to the Rennes court of appeal for further review.Video's removal not automatic
The Court of Cassation ruled that the mere act of filming without authorization does not automatically justify the removal of a video. The court emphasized that the dissemination of such content cannot be considered a "manifestly unlawful disturbance" on its own, and that judges must balance the rights of all parties involved.Background of the dispute
The dispute began in April 2022, when L214 uploaded a video titled New Images: Calves Abused at the Headquarters of the Giant Denkavit in Maine-et-Loire to its website. The video was filmed without permission inside Denkavit France’s research and innovation center and exposed alleged poor treatment of calves. Denkavit France then sued for the video’s removal.Earlier court rejected removal request
In April 2025, the Angers court of appeal denied Denkavit France’s request to remove the video, stating that it addressed a matter of public interest and that the unauthorized filming did not cause significant damage or intrusion. The company then appealed this decision to the Court of Cassation.Court highlights need for balanced judgment
On its first appeal, Denkavit France argued that unauthorized filming alone was a "manifestly unlawful disturbance." The Court of Cassation rejected this, citing the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of expression. It stated that the video’s removal could only be justified if there was an urgent social need, after a thorough weighing of all interests.Second appeal focuses on consequences
In its second appeal, Denkavit France argued that the lower court had not considered the negative consequences of the video’s release, including violent reactions on social media and the distribution of anonymous leaflets to residents. The Court of Cassation agreed and annulled the previous ruling, sending the case back to the Rennes court of appeal and ordering L214 to pay 3,000 euros to Denkavit France.Farmers' union welcomes the decision
The FDSEA of Cher, a farmers’ union, praised the Court of Cassation’s decision, calling it a step forward in protecting farmers and their operations. The union emphasized that judges must now consider all consequences of video dissemination, including the emotional and reputational damage it can cause.
