A French judge has delivered a split jurisdictional ruling in the defamation case brought by President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, against American commentator Candace Owens, determining that the court may proceed against companies associated with Owens but not against Owens herself.
The decision narrows the scope of the 2025 lawsuit, which centres on statements Owens allegedly made regarding Brigitte Macron’s gender. While the Macron legal team can continue to pursue corporate entities linked to the conservative pundit, the ruling shields Owens from direct personal liability within the French proceedings — at least for now.
A Split Ruling on Jurisdiction
Presiding over the matter in Paris, the judge concluded that French courts have authority over the corporate structures tied to Owens, but that the same does not extend to the commentator as an individual. It is a significant procedural carve-out in a case that has drawn attention on both sides of the Atlantic, where Owens has built a substantial audience through her commentary on American and European politics.
The distinction matters. In practical terms, the Macrons can seek remedies from Owens’s business interests under French law, but they cannot compel her personal appearance or enforce a personal judgment against her in this jurisdiction without further legal manoeuvring. For a political figure operating largely outside France, the ruling creates a buffer — though not a permanent shield.
The Macron Legal Offensive
Emmanuel Macron and Brigitte Macron filed the suit in 2025 after Owens made public claims about the First Lady’s gender. The Élysée has treated the allegations as a serious attack on the president’s private life, part of a broader pattern in which French officials have moved to counter what they describe as coordinated disinformation targeting the presidential couple.
By suing in France, they placed the case in a legal environment where the burden and procedural rules differ sharply from those in Washington or New York. French courts apply their own standards to defamation, privacy, and the public-interest defence, often with less deference to robust political speech than American courts would allow. The court’s willingness to assert jurisdiction over Owens’s companies suggests the Macron team’s forum choice was not merely symbolic. It also indicates that French judges are prepared to treat foreign-linked corporate entities as reachable targets when the alleged harm originates on platforms accessible inside France.
Owens’s American Platform and French Law
Owens, a prominent voice in conservative American media, has frequently commented on European leaders from her base in the United States. The French ruling underscores the friction between transatlantic speech norms: robust First Amendment protections in the US contrast with stricter defamation and privacy standards in France.
Whether the judgment will hold on appeal remains to be seen. Owens’s legal team is likely to challenge the jurisdictional finding over her companies, arguing that her US-based operations should be beyond the reach of a Paris courtroom. Meanwhile, the Macron camp will press forward against the corporate entities, testing how far French law can extend into American business structures.
For now, the commentator herself steps back from the centre of the French case — though she remains firmly at the centre of the political argument that produced it.
Why it Matters
The ruling sets a template for how European courts handle defamation claims against US-based commentators and their affiliated entities, drawing a line between corporate exposure and personal liability that could shape future cross-border political speech cases. As French leaders grow more aggressive in policing foreign commentary about their public figures, the decision signals both the reach and the limits of French jurisdiction — a distinction that will matter to media organisations, political operatives, and public figures navigating an increasingly borderless information war.
