The Paris Criminal Court delivered its long-awaited verdict on Monday, January 5, 2026, in the cyberharassment trial involving Brigitte Macron.
Ten defendants were prosecuted for having spread or relayed insults, defamatory statements and false rumors on social media, targeting the First Lady’s gender and the age gap between her and the French president.
The court handed down sentences of up to six months of actual prison time, a rare and highly symbolic decision in cyberharassment cases, signaling a tougher judicial stance against online abuse.
Suspended sentences — and one firm prison term
Eight defendants were sentenced to four to eight months in prison, suspended, after the court established a clear “intent to harm” and the use of “malicious, degrading and insulting language”, notably allegations of pedocriminality that were entirely unfounded.
A ninth defendant was sentenced to six months in prison without suspension, the court citing his failure to appear at the hearing, which was interpreted as contempt for the judicial process.
A case emblematic of gendered and transphobic online violence
At the heart of the case lies a global disinformation campaign falsely claiming that Brigitte Macron is a transgender woman or that she assumed another identity — a rumor that has circulated for years on platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), YouTube and Telegram.
These narratives combine transphobia, sexism and conspiracy thinking, reflecting a well-documented pattern of online attacks used to delegitimize women in public life.
The relationship between Emmanuel Macron, 48, and his wife, 72, has also been repeatedly weaponized, with their age difference turned into a pretext for harassment and criminal insinuations.
“Leading by example”
On the eve of the verdict, Brigitte Macron explained her decision to pursue legal action during a primetime television interview on TF1:
“I fight constantly. I want to help teenagers fight harassment. But if I don’t lead by example, it becomes very difficult.”
She also drew a firm line regarding attacks on her identity:
“You do not tamper with my genealogy. This is not something you play with.”
During the hearing, her daughter Tiphaine Auzière described the lasting psychological toll of the harassment, portraying a woman “constantly on alert”, and stressing the impact on the First Lady’s grandchildren, who were exposed to the rumors.
Instigators and followers
Prosecutors distinguished between so-called “instigators”, influential figures accused of initiating or massively amplifying the false narratives, and “followers”, individuals who relayed or endorsed the content from their private accounts.
Several defendants invoked freedom of expression, arguing satire or the right to inform. The court firmly rejected these claims, reiterating that freedom of expression does not extend to harassment, defamation or incitement to hatred.
A precedent in the fight against online abuse
This ruling marks a significant step forward in the judicial recognition of digital violence, particularly when it targets women and exploits gender, age or identity-based prejudices.
It sends a clear message:
sharing or endorsing false rumors can constitute a criminal offense;
online anonymity does not shield individuals from legal accountability.