Marine Tondelier, national secretary of the Greens (Les Écologistes) and a candidate for the French presidential election, has called for X, formerly known as Twitter, to be banned during the presidential campaign. She argues the move would counter foreign interference threats that have already targeted several French political figures since early summer.
In an interview published by Libération on Thursday, August 6, Tondelier described the platform as a threat and said a ban during the campaign could become necessary if interference is detected beforehand. She said that if X stopped operating for a month, it would do a great deal of good for French public debate, criticizing what she called the platform's rigged algorithm and the supremacist ideology of its owner.
Elon Musk responded by demanding that Tondelier be stopped for what he called treason against France. Behind that summer exchange lies a legal question: how credible is Tondelier's proposal? TF1info's fact-checking team, Les Vérificateurs, examined it.
Platforms and illegal content
The proposal blends two separate issues: content posted by users, and the recommendation algorithm that amplifies certain messages. Both fall under the European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA), though member states have varying degrees of latitude depending on which issue is at stake.
On user-posted content, Article 6 of the DSA states that a provider like X cannot be held responsible for information it stores unless it has actual knowledge of illegal activity or content and fails to act promptly to remove or block it. If those conditions are not met, the legal system of a member state can intervene.
This article is transposed into French law through the law on confidence in the digital economy. Article 6-3 requires platforms to take all appropriate measures to prevent or stop harm caused by content on an online public communication service, triggering what is known as an accelerated merits procedure that allows courts to rule quickly.
Juliette Sénéchal, a professor of private law at the University of Lille, told TF1info that the French prime minister previously relied on this law to seek the suspension of the platform Shein, which was selling child-like sex dolls. That showed a suspension is not theoretically impossible.
In practice, though, the Paris Court of Appeal rejected that request in March 2026, because Shein had removed access to the disputed products and because the court considered a full suspension excessive. Sénéchal said the court first noted that the harm justifying the state's action no longer existed, and then made clear it cannot order general measures or ones that disproportionately restrict the right and freedom to conduct business. Any new suspension request under this law would need to account for both points.
Brussels handles "systemic risks"
The algorithm issue Tondelier raised falls under a different part of the DSA, Articles 34 and 35, which apply to "very large online platforms." Companies with more than 45 million monthly users in the European Union must identify and mitigate systemic risks arising from how their recommendation algorithms function, Sénéchal explained. Electoral processes are explicitly listed among the risks to be considered, and overseeing this falls to the European Commission, which adopted specific guidelines on electoral risks in March 2024.
When a platform breaches these articles, the Commission launches a lengthy process, Sénéchal said. Brussels must first carry out an investigation in cooperation with national digital regulators, in France's case the broadcasting and digital regulator Arcom. Only after that investigation, followed by an unsuccessful dialogue with the platform and its failure to comply with recommended measures, can sanctions follow, ranging from fines to temporary restriction of access to the platform's interface.
Jean Cattan, a digital law specialist and adviser to the think tank FOTI, confirmed to TF1info that such procedures move slowly. He said the Commission follows an adversarial procedure with defined steps, including formal notice requiring the platform to take corrective measures.
After finding X in violation of the DSA in December, the Commission approved the company's "action plan" to comply with EU law on July 16. Among the approved measures was greater transparency of X's systems, intended to let experts monitor the platform's systemic risks and assess its impact on users and European society as a whole.
A "gap in the net," experts say
Brussels holds the authority here, meaning France is effectively stripped of control over the algorithm issue in favor of the European Commission, Cattan said. Cattan, who authored France's national strategy report on countering information manipulation, said member states like France have almost no room to maneuver on the matter.
One remaining possibility is an emergency mechanism. Beyond managing societal risks in advance, the DSA also allows for a crisis mechanism in extraordinary and unforeseen circumstances. But Cattan said interference of the kind seen on X does not fit that category at all, since the conditions are extremely restrictive and time-limited. The law requires such circumstances to represent a serious threat to public security or public health in the Union or a significant part of it, in which case the Commission must determine and apply specific, effective and proportionate measures.
Sénéchal said no decision has yet been made in Europe under this article. Cattan suggested an example of what might qualify, such as X hosting a mass of content calling for the killing of a population group or promoting a highly toxic product.
We find ourselves stripped of means of action
That line comes from Cattan, who holds a doctorate in public law, describing the situation around X's algorithm.
In short, while French law allows action against certain illegal posts, and Brussels can sanction a company over systemic risks, nothing makes it as simple to suspend an entire social network as Tondelier's proposal suggests. Cattan acknowledged that her comments do capture the situation in which authorities find themselves stripped of means of action. He said a call to simply block the platform makes no sense under current law, but that it highlights genuinely interesting issues.
Tondelier has also floated no longer treating X as a platform but instead as a content publisher in its own right, which would classify the network as a media outlet. Cattan said that change would not grant any greater power to suspend the platform, but it would help align media law to address broadcasting and the digital environment jointly, along with the neutrality and pluralism requirements that come with it.
