The Paris court was to decide on Tuesday whether or not to block
five pornographic sites, accused of not preventing the exposure of minors to their content.
But the examination of this request from Arcom was delayed by at least one month due to the overrun of a deadline in a procedure initiated by Arcom.
During the hearing, representatives of the telecom operators ordered to set up the blocking and of the five sites targeted by Arcom (Pornhub, Pornhub, XHamster, XVideos, Xnxx) since the end of December were ready to explain their positions.
But Arcom, the media and internet regulator (ex-CSA), which had until the day before the hearing to inform the Paris court that it had correctly issued the subpoena to the operators , only performed this act on the same day.
The summons has therefore been declared null and void, and will have to be reiterated.
This decision shifts the procedure by one month, estimated with AFP the council of Arcom Antoine Beauquier.
Two other threatened sites
Since the law of July 30, 2020 on domestic violence and the publication in the fall of an implementing decree, the media regulator can give notice to pornographic sites to take measures to prohibit their access to minors, and to default, turn to the president of the Paris court to order their blocking.
This same law specifies that the companies concerned cannot exonerate themselves from their responsibilities by contenting themselves with asking an Internet user if they are of legal age.
Arcom had thus launched a first salvo of formal notices at the end of December and announced on March 8 that it had taken legal action to request the blocking of the Pornhub, Pornhub, Xhamster, Xvideos and Xnxx sites.
Two other sites, YouPorn and Redtube, were also given formal notice in April by Arcom to prevent their access to minors.
On the exact same subject, but in a parallel procedure, a week ago, the Paris Court of Appeal validated the rejection last October of a request to block nine pornographic sites addressed to French telecom operators by two child protection associations.
Reason: this blocking can only occur as a last resort and in this case, all solutions had not been explored in the eyes of the court.