Ligue 1: "They should have stopped the levies", deplore the subscribers of Canal + and BeIN

Since mid-March, replay of matches, events and special programs have alternated on Canal +. Following the epidemic, the expenses of the private channel were considerably reduced in the absence of payments of television rights to the clubs, and this for unchanged income of money. This undoubtedly explains why subscribers are now seeking compensation.

“The replacement, quality programs that are currently being broadcast are not the reason we signed the contract. I signed up to watch live, concrete games, not rebroadcast games that I can find on the Internet, ”said Paul, a 23-year-old student who has been a Canal + subscriber for a year. He continues: "To terminate is to show that we do not let ourselves be done. "

"It's a question of honesty"

The same goes for BeIN Sports, where Stéphane, a 28-year-old subscriber and fervent supporter of PSG, thought of canceling, before changing his mind. “It's a question of honesty. I would have done it without hesitation if the Bundesliga had not resumed and if Serie A was not going to resume. "

At the origin of the collective action brought against the channels, My Vincent Durant and Hervé Juillard individually defend the complaints of dissatisfied subscribers. To do this, they have set up a platform where any subscriber can register, to see themselves represented in court in this case.

Lawyer at the Paris bar and specialist in assistance and negotiation in transactions with the Paris Court of Appeal, Me Juillard insists on the "absence of performance of essential obligation" on the part of broadcasters. “Subscribers are the big losers in this story. The television rights of these channels are essentially constituted by the subscribers within the framework of the tariff offer which they pay. They should have been reimbursed up to the breach of obligation. Who are we laughing at ? "

"They promised to broadcast. They did not do it"

Another black point that weighs in their arguments: the breach of obligation is precisely the point raised by the broadcasters against the Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 clubs, thus refusing to pay the television rights, on the grounds that the matches just weren't taking place.

“Canal + has stopped paying TV rights to football clubs. They should have stopped the levies, it makes sense! We subscribe to an offer, whether for football or any other sport, but this offer is not available because there is no sport. The least you can do is rebalance, ”says Paul.

For Me Juillard, it's the same thing: “They promised to broadcast. They did not do it. We insist with this action on a certain parallelism of forms, a symmetry. "

"We are on a redistributive collective action"

Responding to UFC-Que Choisir and subscribers, the BeIN Sports and Canal + channels had respectively argued in mid-May not to oppose the possible termination of subscribers dissatisfied with the replacement offer, or to treat requests individually.

Newsletter - The essentials of the news

I'm registering

Your email address is collected by Le Parisien to allow you to receive our news and commercial offers. Find out more

A defense that can not bring down the anger of consumers: "To say that we do it on a case-by-case basis, or that it is entirely free to terminate is in a way to divide and rule. I refer to the obligation of good faith when you sign a contract, ”retorts the lawyer.

Asked about the chances that the procedure would lead to succeed, Me Juillard said however prefer the term invitation in talks: "We are on a redistributive collective action. We offer litigants the possibility of donating the sums that subscribers will receive (Editor's note: at the club of their choice) , which is virtuous. I think that common sense will prevail, we remain basically on the essential and determining reason of the subscription. The games are open, but we will not let go. Justice has a face ”.