New Judicial Episode in TF1 / Kanal + TV Series > Media

While on Monday 5 September, TF1 Group Secretary General Didier Casas announced that he wanted to file a complaint against Canal +, the crypto channel responded on Wednesday at the end of the day, and in turn summoned TF1 to the Nanterre Commercial Court.

I support

Talk about TF1 and Canal+ continues! While the former is witnessing a decisive step in the merger project with the M6, the second is facing controversy after mistakes made during Champions League evenings, depriving thousands of viewers of the beautiful European posters. Meanwhile, the dispute between the two channels took on a legal role. As a reminder, Canal + has suspended the broadcasting of the five channels of TF1 while the latter has demanded “unfounded and unreasonable” financial compensation. In objection to this decision and noticing the rather large declines in the audience, the leading French audiovisual group filed a lawsuit on Wednesday. Summary proceedings before the Paris Commercial Court. This is an emergency measure that allows the judge to take interim measures. Thus, TF1 hopes to force the encrypted channel to resume broadcasting its programs as soon as possible.

In response to this legal attack and only a few hours later, Channel + has taken legal action and the Commercial Court of Nanterre. Laetitia Minassi, General Secretary of Channel +, said she had “prepared this mission ahead of the TF1 mission announced in the press earlier today”. according to ParisianThese expedited actions should lead to decisions being taken before the end of the year. Four years ago, the two channels had already experienced a similar dispute but left the courts out of everything…

A legal void noticed by Arcom

Arcom (formerly CSA), the “French TV Gendarmerie”, unfortunately does not have the powers to interfere with this story. Limited to the role of “simple” commentator, the regulatory body for audiovisual and digital communications TV giants call for renewed dialogue. According to the organisation,The law does not impose an obligation to seize a signal, as this is the subject of a commercial agreement between the parties. Similarly, the broadcaster has the right to demand a fee for the distribution of his signal, […] So the law does not provide the regulator with a tool to force one of the parties, but it is in constant contact with the parties to determine a way out of the dispute“.Providing satisfaction ‘as soon as possible’ is desirable by all parties and it appears that the solution at the moment is only the decision of the court…

I support

Leave a Comment