On September 3, the appeal court in Lyon acquitted far-right influencer Mila Orriols on procedural grounds. This decision came after she had previously been fined 2,000 euros with a suspended sentence and ordered to pay 1,000 euros to the League for Human Rights (LDH) in a first-instance trial on December 16. The original ruling was based on a tweet she posted, which she deleted within ten minutes. In the tweet, she made derogatory comments about Maghreb families, suggesting many were "consanguineous" (meaning related by blood, often in the context of close familial relationships) and described them as having "deformed and quite ugly faces and very small foreheads." She also referenced "chelous migrants" attacking people in the streets. During the appeal hearing, the prosecutor confirmed that the racist nature of the insults was clear. However, the appeal was granted due to a procedural issue related to how the facts were characterized. Initially, the prosecution had considered the insults as being directed at the complainant specifically. However, the public prosecutor later acknowledged that the comments targeted the entire Maghreb community, not just an individual. In October 2025, during the first instance trial, Mila expressed regret for having "offended certain people." She admitted she had been "clumsy" but still insisted on her "total freedom of expression." The complainant's lawyer, Marine Martens, expressed disappointment with the acquittal. She stated, "I sincerely regret having offended certain people," while also noting that the procedural error allowed Mila to be considered non-criminal, despite the factual evidence against her. Mila's lawyer, Robinson Barbier, criticized the initial conviction as "a defeat for free speech," reinforcing the legal argument that the case was improperly handled in the first instance. The case highlights ongoing debates in France about the boundaries of free speech and the legal treatment of racist or discriminatory speech online.