Television and radio channels: what are Arcom’s sanctioning powers?

Film & television

27 oct.

According to a press release published on its website, on 22 October 2026 Arcom (French audiovisual and digital regulator) wrote to television and radio service providers (the “channels”) asking them to exercise “the utmost vigilance” in their coverage of the demonstrations that have taken place since 17 October. It announced that it had opened inquiries into several segments, which could lead to interventions with the channels concerned, or even to sanctions.

The press release does not name any channel. Several segments of different kinds have, however, been criticised in the press: a factual claim made on air and then denied by the service to which it had been attributed, a false accusation against a politician followed by an apology, a report broadcast almost without commentary and criticised for its lack of context, and remarks made on set that led to complaints being referred to Arcom. The press release does not say which of them are currently under inquiry.

A complaint to Arcom, an inquiry into a segment, a formal notice and a sanction are four distinct stages: neither a complaint nor an inquiry amounts to a finding of a breach.

An earlier article, “Pluralism, honesty, independence: what the law requires of broadcasters”, set out the main obligations that channels must meet. This one looks at the consequences of failing to meet them.

What can Arcom do when a channel fails to meet its obligations? It acts in a graduated way (1.), under a procedure governed by statute (2.). The contested segment must still amount to a breach (3.). Arcom then has a range of sanctions at its disposal (4.), independently of any criminal proceedings that may be brought against those who made the remarks on air (5.).

1. A graduated response

Arcom acts after the event. It does not review programmes before they are broadcast and does not interfere with the channels’ editorial line.

When it finds a breach, Arcom may in particular proceed in stages:

a reminder of the rules;
a warning;
a formal notice.

Only the formal notice is required by law before a sanction; the reminder of the rules and the warning are a matter of Arcom’s practice. This prerequisite applies both to private channels (Articles 42 and 42-1 of the 1986 Act) and to public service broadcasters such as France Télévisions or Radio France (Articles 48-1 and 48-2 of the 1986 Act).

A formal notice serves as a warning; it does not make a sanction automatic. If the channel breaches the obligation concerned again, Arcom may initiate sanction proceedings. The breach must relate to the same obligation, but be based on facts other than those that gave rise to the formal notice, or cover a different period. A breach of another obligation requires a new formal notice.

A formal notice can lapse. Since the Act of 25 October 2021, a formal notice that has not been followed by any sanction within five years of its adoption is deemed to have lapsed. This period is suspended between the notification of the objections to the channel by the rapporteur and Arcom’s decision (Article 42-7, 3°, of the 1986 Act, as introduced by the Act of 25 October 2021).

By contrast, a formal notice that has already served as the basis for a sanction does not lapse: it can ground further sanctions, even after more than five years, without a new formal notice (CE, 10 July 2024, No. 472887, para. 11). This is how C8 came to be sanctioned in 2023 on the basis of a 2010 formal notice that had already been followed by sanctions in 2017 and 2019 (para. 12).

2. A regulated procedure

Sanction proceedings are entrusted to an independent rapporteur. The rapporteur is appointed by the Vice-President of the Conseil d’État from among serving members of the administrative courts (Article 42-7 of the 1986 Act) and may take up any matter that could justify a sanction. In practice, according to Arcom, the Director General informs the rapporteur when a formal notice has not been complied with.

The rapporteur then decides whether to bring proceedings. If so, the rapporteur notifies the objections to the channel, which may submit written observations, and then investigates the case (Decree No. 2013-1196 of 19 December 2013, Article 3).

The decision lies with Arcom’s board. At a hearing to which the channel is summoned, the rapporteur sets out his or her analysis of the facts and objections and, where appropriate, proposes a sanction. The channel, which may be assisted by any person of its choosing, is then heard. The rapporteur does not take part in the deliberations (Article 42-7 of the 1986 Act).

The sanction can be challenged before the Conseil d’État, which may annul it or, where appropriate, reduce the amount (see 3. below).

3. From a contested segment to a breach

A segment criticised from a journalistic standpoint is not necessarily a breach. Arcom must link the facts to a specific obligation of the channel, such as the honesty and rigour of information, control over what is broadcast, or respect for the rights of the person.

The segments highlighted by the press therefore raise different questions:

for an inaccurate factual claim: was it presented without the precautions that honest reporting requires, such as checking sources or using the conditional (Deliberation No. 2018-11 of 18 April 2018)?
for an inaccurate accusation against a person: is it a lack of rigour, or an infringement of the rights of the person?
for a report without commentary: this choice is not wrongful in itself; the question is whether viewers had the information they needed to understand the images.

Finally, any sanction must remain proportionate. The Conseil d’État checks that it does not disproportionately interfere with freedom of expression, protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It thus upheld the €3.5 million sanction imposed on C8, having regard in particular to the insulting nature of the remarks (CE, 10 July 2024, cited above, para. 15). It did, however, find another sanction against C8 excessive and reduced it from €300,000 to €150,000 (CE, 6 May 2025, No. 476367).

4. The available sanctions

For private channels, Arcom may impose, depending on the seriousness of the breach (Article 42-1 of the 1986 Act):

the suspension, for up to one month, of the publication or broadcasting of the service, of a category of programme, of part of the programme or of advertising slots;
a reduction in the term of the licence or agreement, by up to one year;
a financial penalty, possibly combined with a suspension;
the withdrawal of the licence or the unilateral termination of the agreement.

It may also publish the sanction imposed (Article 42-1 of the 1986 Act).

For public service broadcasters, that is, the national programme companies such as France Télévisions or Radio France, the range is narrower: Arcom may only suspend part of the programme for up to one month, or impose a financial penalty within the same limits as for private channels (Article 48-2 of the 1986 Act).

Financial penalties are capped. The amount must reflect the seriousness of the breach and be related to the benefits derived from it. It may not exceed 3% of turnover (excluding tax) for the last completed financial year, or 5% in the event of a further breach of the same obligation. Where the breach also constitutes a criminal offence, it may not exceed the amount of the criminal fine provided for either (Article 42-2 of the 1986 Act).

For example, in 2023 Arcom fined C8 €3.5 million after the host of “Touche pas à mon poste” insulted a member of parliament who was a guest on the show. It found an infringement of the rights of the person and a failure to maintain control over what was broadcast (Arcom, Decision No. 2023-63 of 9 February 2023, upheld by CE, 10 July 2024, No. 472887).

Arcom may also require a statement to be broadcast on air, by private and public channels alike (Articles 42-4 and 48-3 of the 1986 Act).

In urgent cases, independently of any sanction, the President of Arcom may ask the president of the section du contentieux of the Conseil d’État, ruling in summary proceedings, to order the channel to put an end to an irregularity or to remove its effects (Article 42-10 of the 1986 Act).

5. Criminal proceedings

Arcom refers any offence under the 1986 Act to the public prosecutor (Article 42-11). In its press release of 22 October, it also reserves the right to report to the prosecutor any criminally punishable remarks made on air, so that those who made them answer for them personally.

The two routes can be combined: a sanction imposed by Arcom does not preclude criminal proceedings for the same facts (CE, 10 July 2024, cited above, para. 4). They nevertheless remain distinct. Arcom sanctions the channel in the light of its own obligations, without applying the Act of 29 July 1881 on the freedom of the press (same decision, para. 5). Its sanction therefore does not prejudge whether a criminal offence has been committed, the elements of which must be established before the criminal courts.

In practice

For channels, the significance of the letter of 22 October depends on their situation:

An inquiry is not a sanction: examining a segment does not amount to a finding of a breach.
A channel that has already received a formal notice for the same obligation may face sanction proceedings, provided that a new breach is established.
A sanction imposed by Arcom does not rule out criminal proceedings against those who made the remarks, but does not make them automatic either.

Sources

To find out more, our firm advises audiovisual sector players on these issues.

Get in touch

Maëva Gomez