A Paris court has found ten individuals guilty of cyberbullying France’s first lady, Brigitte Macron, over persistent and false claims about her gender identity – allegations that have circulated online for years despite never being substantiated.
The defendants, eight men and two women aged between 41 and 65, were convicted of posting content the court described as “particularly degrading, insulting, and malicious.” Sentences ranged from mandatory cyberbullying awareness training and temporary social media bans to suspended prison terms of up to eight months.
At the centre of the case were conspiracy theories falsely alleging that Brigitte Macron is a transgender woman who was “born male,” a claim repeatedly debunked but widely amplified across social media platforms and alternative media ecosystems.
A Strategic Legal Choice: Cyberbullying, Not Defamation
Notably, the Macrons have not pursued this case as a defamation action, nor have they sought to litigate the factual falsehood of the claims themselves. Instead, the prosecution focused on harassment and cyberbullying, a distinction with significant legal and cultural implications.
Under French law, cyberbullying does not require courts to rule on the “truth” of a claim, but rather on intent, repetition, and harm. This approach sidesteps the conspiracist tactic of reframing litigation as proof that “questions are being silenced,” while centring the real-world impact of sustained online abuse.
Despite widespread speculation, the Macrons have never formally “denied” the rumour in court – a silence frequently misrepresented online as evasiveness, rather than a deliberate refusal to legitimise a bad-faith narrative.
Speaking to TF1 ahead of the verdict, Brigitte Macron said the harassment felt “endless” and explained that she pursued legal action “to set an example” in the fight against online abuse.
Key Figures in the Case
Among those convicted was Delphine Jegousse, also known online as Amandine Roy, a self-described medium who published a four-hour YouTube video in 2021 advancing the false claims. She received a six-month suspended prison sentence.
Another prominent defendant, Aurélien Poirson-Atlan, known on social media as Zoe Sagan, was given an eight-month suspended sentence. His X (formerly Twitter) account was suspended in 2024 after being cited in multiple judicial investigations.
Several defendants argued that their posts were “humour” or “satire,” a defence the court rejected.
Family Impact and Testimony
While Brigitte Macron did not attend the trial, her daughter Tiphaine Auzière testified about the toll the harassment had taken on her mother and their wider family.
“She cannot ignore the horrible things said about her,” Auzière told the court, describing how the abuse affected not only her mother but also her grandchildren.
Prosecutor-mandated measures included immediate cyberbullying education and, for some defendants, bans on social media use – penalties Ms Macron’s lawyer, Jean Ennochi, said were essential to preventing repeat behaviour.
The Candace Owens Case: A Parallel Battle in the U.S.
Separately, Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron are pursuing a defamation lawsuit in the United States against right-wing influencer and podcaster Candace Owens, who has repeatedly promoted the same gender conspiracy claims to a large American audience.
The U.S. case differs sharply in scope and strategy. Unlike the French cyberbullying prosecutions, the Owens lawsuit directly challenges the publication and monetisation of demonstrably false statements, highlighting how such claims migrate across borders and media systems — from fringe blogs to high-traffic platforms.
The case underscores a growing international tension: how democratic societies confront misinformation that is simultaneously personal harassment, political weaponisation, and profitable content.
A Broader Signal
This verdict marks one of the clearest legal rebukes yet of gender-based conspiracy harassment targeting public figures. More broadly, it signals a judicial willingness to treat online abuse not as speech in isolation, but as cumulative harm amplified by digital systems.
As the boundaries between “free expression,” disinformation, and harassment continue to blur, France’s approach may offer a model – one that focuses less on debating conspiracies and more on limiting the damage they cause.