STAY UP TO DATE: The Effects of the US Foreign Aid Freeze on Freedom House
Expanding Freedom and Democracy
Freedom on the Net 2025

France

Free
76
100
A Obstacles to Access 23 25
B Limits on Content 29 35
C Violations of User Rights 24 40
Last Year's Score & Status
76 100 Free
Scores are based on a scale of 0 (least free) to 100 (most free). See the methodology and report acknowledgements.
France_hero

header1 Key Developments, June 1, 2024 – May 31, 2025

Internet freedom remained strong in France due to high access rates and limited restrictions on content. Laws adopted in recent years have increased online surveillance, but the rights of users remained largely protected.

  • In May 2025, a Paris court ruled that five virtual private network (VPN) providers were mandated to block 203 domain names that were linked to the illegal livestreaming of sports.1 VPN providers criticized the ruling, arguing that it could lead to restrictions on free expression and privacy.2 The May 2025 ruling followed a June 2024 court ruling ordering content-delivery networks, including Cloudflare, Google, and Cisco, to block over 100 websites linked to illegal livestreams of sporting events (B1 and C4).3
  • In July 2024, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said that Progressif Media, a French communications firm, had launched a smear campaign against the organization, setting up a fake website with a similar domain to RSF. Progressif Media established the website, which contained inaccurate content about RSF, and purchased Google advertisements to promote it following the French Council of State’s decision to enforce “independence and pluralism” mandates at CNews at the request of RSF. RSF said the fake website’s “origins were traced to a company located in the center of Paris, operating from the offices of Vivendi, a media group run by the family of French billionaire Vincent Bolloré.” Bolloré had significant media holdings in France including CNews, which he created (B5 and C7). 4
  • In December 2024, police detained Phillipe Miller, a journalist for the independent online outlet Warning Trading who was investigating the links between a law firm in Paris and online financial scams, and a former intern for the firm. Miller was detained for 48 hours and had his devices confiscated. The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) called his arrest “arbitrary” and condemned a judge’s decision to permit the search of Miller’s devices as “judicial intimidation” (C3).5
  • In April 2025, under the 2024 Law to Secure and Regulate the Digital Space (SREN), the Regulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communication (ARCOM) began requiring pornographic websites to introduce age-verification measures implementing a “double anonymity solution,” through which a third-party site conducted the age verification. The system is designed so that the site the user is trying to visit would not know the user’s identity, and the third-party site would not know the site the user is trying to visit (C4).6
  • In April 2025, the French parliament passed the Narcotrafficking Law, which provided law enforcement with expanded authority to deploy algorithms to identify online behavior that may be associated with drug trafficking. The law also enabled law enforcement to extend its use of satellite-interception technology for “serious threats to public order” through 2028. 7 While civil society organizations have raised concerns about measures in the law that increase law enforcement’s surveillance powers,8 the final version of the law did not include a measure that would have required end-to-end encrypted messaging applications to install “backdoor” access to give authorities access to certain chats (C4 and C5).9
  • In August 2024, Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France, in part because the company had refused to share required information with French investigators. Durov was charged with failing to comply with law enforcement, complicity in drug trafficking and the spread of child sexual abuse imagery, and violating a 2004 law that prohibited the import of encryption tools without declaration.10 Media reports described France’s 2004 cryptography law as unusual among democracies for its aim to collect certain information on cryptography tools. In September, the company announced that it would begin to share users’ internet protocol (IP) addresses and phone numbers with “relevant authorities in response to valid legal requests.” The policy applied worldwide. Previously Telegram had only offered such information to authorities in cases involving confirmed terrorism suspects. (C6).11

header2 Political Overview

The French political system features vibrant democratic processes and generally strong protections for civil liberties and political rights. However, successive governments have responded to terrorist attacks, the COVID-19 pandemic, and various protests and demonstrations by curtailing constitutional protections and empowering law enforcement to infringe on personal freedoms. The government has also imposed states of emergency, enabling it to curtail the rights to privacy, assembly, and movement.

This report has been abridged for Freedom on the Net 2025 due to ongoing budget constraints. Please consider making a donation to support future editions of this vital resource.

For additional background information, see last year’s full report.

A Obstacles to Access

A1 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Do infrastructural limitations restrict access to the internet or the speed and quality of internet connections? 6.006 6.006
A2 1.00-3.00 pts0-3 pts
Is access to the internet prohibitively expensive or beyond the reach of certain segments of the population for geographical, social, or other reasons? 3.003 3.003
A3 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does the government exercise technical or legal control over internet infrastructure for the purposes of restricting connectivity? 6.006 6.006

Score Change: The score improved from 5 to 6 because the French government did not block social media platforms, as it did in the overseas territory of New Caledonia during the previous coverage period.

A4 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Are there legal, regulatory, or economic obstacles that restrict the diversity of service providers? 4.004 6.006
A5 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do national regulatory bodies that oversee service providers and digital technology fail to operate in a free, fair, and independent manner? 4.004 4.004

B Limits on Content

B1 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does the state block or filter, or compel service providers to block or filter, internet content, particularly material that is protected by international human rights standards? 4.004 6.006
B2 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do state or nonstate actors employ legal, administrative, or other means to force publishers, content hosts, or digital platforms to delete content, particularly material that is protected by international human rights standards? 2.002 4.004
B3 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do restrictions on the internet and digital content lack transparency, proportionality to the stated aims, or an independent appeals process? 3.003 4.004
B4 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do online journalists, commentators, and ordinary users practice self-censorship? 4.004 4.004
B5 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Are online sources of information controlled or manipulated by the government or other powerful actors to advance a particular political interest? 3.003 4.004
B6 1.00-3.00 pts0-3 pts
Are there economic or regulatory constraints that negatively affect users’ ability to publish content online? 3.003 3.003
B7 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Does the online information landscape lack diversity and reliability? 4.004 4.004
B8 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Do conditions impede users’ ability to mobilize, form communities, and campaign, particularly on political and social issues? 6.006 6.006

C Violations of User Rights

C1 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Do the constitution or other laws fail to protect rights such as freedom of expression, access to information, and press freedom, including on the internet, and are they enforced by a judiciary that lacks independence? 5.005 6.006
C2 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Are there laws that assign criminal penalties or civil liability for online activities, particularly those that are protected under international human rights standards? 2.002 4.004
C3 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Are individuals penalized for online activities, particularly those that are protected under international human rights standards? 4.004 6.006

Score Change: The score declined from 5 to 4 because of the detention of investigative online journalists.1

C4 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Does the government place restrictions on anonymous communication or encryption? 2.002 4.004
C5 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does state surveillance of internet activities infringe on users’ right to privacy? 2.002 6.006
C6 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does monitoring and collection of user data by service providers and other technology companies infringe on users’ right to privacy? 3.003 6.006
C7 1.00-5.00 pts0-5 pts
Are individuals subject to extralegal intimidation or physical violence by state authorities or any other actor in relation to their online activities? 4.004 5.005
C8 1.00-3.00 pts0-3 pts
Are websites, governmental and private entities, service providers, or individual users subject to widespread hacking and other forms of cyberattack? 2.002 3.003

On France

See all data, scores & information on this country or territory.

See More

Country Facts

  • Population

    67,970,000

  • Global Freedom Score

    89 100 free

  • Internet Freedom Score

    76 100 free

  • Freedom in the World Status

    Free

  • Networks Restricted

    No

  • Websites Blocked

    Yes

  • Pro-government Commentators

    No

  • Users Arrested

    Yes