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.

The post France Convicts Ten Over “Cyberbullying” of Brigitte Macron Amid Ongoing Transvestigation and Gender Conspiracy Claims appeared first on KIMU.

The legal action accuses her of 22 separate defamatory statements, contending they caused immense emotional and reputational harm. However, when examined closely, the case against Owens becomes less about proven falsehoods and more about silencing a controversial but evidence-supported opinion.

Candace Owens did not simply invent this theory. She built her case around existing claims that have circulated in France since at least 2021. Central to her argument is the existence of Jean-Michel Trogneux – Brigitte’s real brother. The coincidence in names is undeniably curious, and Owens has publicly stated that she is asking questions based on available information, not making definitive claims of fact. Furthermore, she refers to recent French legal precedent to support her case. In July 2025, a French appeals court overturned libel convictions against two women who had made the same claims about Brigitte Macron, ruling that their assertions did not meet the legal threshold for defamation in France. This ruling weakens the argument that Owens acted maliciously or recklessly. If French courts are allowing these statements as part of public discourse, how can a U.S. court argue they were legally and morally out of bounds?

Under U.S. law, especially involving public figures, the burden of proof for defamation is very high. The Macrons must show “actual malice” – that Owens knowingly lied or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Given that Owens has cited a living person named Jean-Michel Trogneux, referenced a French court ruling in favor of other accusers, and framed her commentary as investigative questioning rather than accusation, it’s difficult to see how that threshold is met. Her videos, including the widely viewed “Becoming Brigitte” series, do not declare the claims as indisputable facts but rather explore the inconsistencies and mysteries surrounding Brigitte’s early life.

Critics of Owens may point to her sensationalist style and her clear political motivations, but these do not automatically equate to malice. Many journalists and commentators throughout history have challenged powerful figures with uncomfortable questions. That’s the hallmark of free speech. Just because a theory is provocative or controversial doesn’t mean it is defamatory – especially if it is backed by circumstantial evidence and grounded in public interest.

Moreover, the Macrons’ choice to sue in Delaware may appear strategic, perhaps hoping for a more sympathetic jurisdiction. But even there, U.S. legal standards for defamation will apply. And in this case, Owens has strong legal footing. She has reason to believe what she said was true or at least plausibly arguable, which makes her commentary protected under the First Amendment.

In the court of public opinion, the Macrons may win sympathy for enduring personal attacks. But legally, this looks like an uphill battle. Candace Owens has not only cited evidence but has shown that similar claims have been debated in France without legal punishment. Unless the Macrons can prove she acted with clear intent to harm, this lawsuit risks becoming a high-profile example of political overreach and an attempt to stifle uncomfortable discussion.

The bottom line is this: in a free society, even the most powerful figures must tolerate public scrutiny – especially when there’s some foundation for the questions being asked. Candace Owens may be a lightning rod, but in this case, she has more than enough evidence to justify her investigation. Whether one agrees with her conclusions or not, she deserves the legal protection afforded to those who challenge the official narrative with genuine inquiry. All she has been asking is that Brigitte produces a photo of herself as a female before the age of 30, biological proof of her sex, and that she appears with her alleged brother in a public appearance.

The post Brigitte Macron Takes Candace Owens to Court Over Gender Claim – But Candace Is Armed With Evidence appeared first on KIMU.