Meta Ordered to Act on Illegal Casino Advertising in France

Meta Ordered to Act on Illegal Casino Advertising in France

A ruling by the Paris Court of Appeal has clarified the responsibilities of online platforms when confronted with repeated cases of illegal gambling promotion. In a judgment involving Meta Platforms Ireland, the court confirmed that the company must take active steps to prevent unauthorised casino advertising across Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger. The decision follows a legal challenge brought by Groupe Lucien Barrière, one of France's largest casino and hospitality operators.

The case emerged against the backdrop of France's restrictive stance on online casino gaming. While sports betting and certain other forms of online gambling are regulated, online casino games remain prohibited. Attempts to introduce a licensing framework have faced sustained resistance from land-based casino operators, who argue that an online market would disrupt the existing balance and undermine consumer protections. As a result, any promotion of online casino games in France falls outside the law.

Barrière became aware of the issue toward the end of 2023, when advertisements referencing its brand began appearing across Meta's platforms. These ads promoted casino-style apps that were not authorised to operate in France and had no connection to the Barrière group. Some went further, adopting visual elements closely associated with the company's branding, increasing the risk that users might assume a legitimate link.

Rather than treating the issue as isolated misuse, Barrière documented what it described as a coordinated and persistent pattern. According to evidence later presented in court, hundreds of advertiser accounts were involved, together publishing more than 2,400 advertisements. The group contacted Meta to request the removal of the ads and access to information identifying those behind the campaigns. Meta declined to comply, maintaining that it was not obliged to monitor or proactively assess advertising content placed by third parties.

This refusal led Barrière to pursue legal action. In January 2024, a lower court ruled in the company's favour, ordering Meta to introduce filtering mechanisms and preserve advertiser data linked to the disputed ads. Meta appealed the decision, arguing that imposing such measures would amount to a general monitoring obligation, which EU law has traditionally sought to avoid.

The appeal placed the matter before the Paris Court of Appeal, which took a narrower view of the platform's responsibilities. The court did not suggest that Meta must monitor all content in advance. Instead, it focused on the volume and repetition of the infringements, noting that Meta had been clearly informed of specific illegal activity linked to a known brand and had failed to act.

In its judgment, the court concluded that the scale of the advertising justified immediate intervention. It upheld the earlier ruling and confirmed that Meta must deploy automated systems capable of detecting and blocking advertisements that either misuse Barrière's trademarks or promote unlicensed online casino games. These measures are to remain in place for one year, reflecting what the court described as a proportionate response to a sustained problem.

The ruling also addressed the financial consequences of the dispute. Meta was ordered to cover Barrière's legal costs and to pay €10,000 under French civil procedure rules. While the sum itself is limited, the operational impact of the decision is more significant. The requirement to implement targeted filtering tools signals a clear expectation that platforms must respond when alerted to repeated, identifiable violations.

For Barrière, the judgment reinforces its position within the current regulatory framework. As a land-based operator, the group has consistently argued that unauthorised online casino advertising undermines both the law and consumer trust. The court's decision provides a legal mechanism to address brand misuse in digital advertising environments where enforcement has often lagged behind practice.

Beyond the immediate parties, the case contributes to an evolving legal discussion around platform responsibility. Social media companies have long relied on their status as intermediaries to limit liability for user-generated content. However, European courts have increasingly distinguished between passive hosting and situations where platforms are notified of specific illegal conduct and fail to intervene.

The Paris ruling reflects this shift. By emphasising targeted action rather than blanket monitoring, the court outlined a framework in which platforms are expected to act once clear evidence of unlawful activity is presented. This approach aligns with broader regulatory trends in the European Union, where lawmakers and courts are seeking to balance freedom of expression with enforcement of sector-specific rules.

The implications may extend beyond gambling-related advertising. Other rights holders may look to the Barrière case as a reference when addressing repeated misuse of trademarks or promotion of prohibited services. While the decision is limited to French law and applies for a defined period, it signals a willingness by courts to impose concrete obligations when voluntary compliance fails.