Media crises. Defamation. Corporate reputation

Respond quickly. Speak accurately. Preserve the defence.

An accident occurs on a site. Pollution is reported. An investigation is opened after allegations made by an employee. A video is circulating before the company has even been able to establish what happened.

The site manager, the director or the company is publicly accused. Journalists are calling. Employees have questions. Partners are asking for explanations. Social media has already started to deliver its verdict.

The company has to speak.

But it cannot speak as though no proceedings existed.

A statement intended to reassure may admit a failure that has not yet been established. A defensive turn of phrase may seem indifferent to the victims. An overly categorical denial may be contradicted by the internal investigation. An accusation made against an employee, a service provider or a third party may, in turn, expose the company to prosecution.

Vouland Avocats assists companies, site managers, directors and executives when a criminal crisis also becomes a media crisis.

We act to organise public statements, preserve evidence, classify the disputed publications and, where useful, bring proceedings to protect the reputation of the company or its representatives.

We also defend companies and directors prosecuted because of a press release, an interview, a publication or statements made during a crisis.

A media crisis can begin before the criminal investigation

The company does not always control the moment when the matter becomes public.

The crisis may arise from:

• a serious or fatal accident on a site;
• an incident affecting visitors, customers or employees;
• pollution or an environmental event;
• a search or an administrative inspection;
• a report of harassment, fraud or corruption;
• a complaint made public;
• a dispute with a former employee, a service provider or a competitor;
• a press article;
• a video shared on social media;
• a fake account or artificially generated content;
• internal documents taken out of context.

At that moment, several realities coexist.

Management must understand the facts. Operational teams must secure the site. The legal team must preserve evidence. Human resources must protect the people concerned. Communications must respond to requests. The lawyer must already be considering the proceedings that may follow.

These functions cannot work separately.

A poorly coordinated criminal crisis produces contradictory messages, scattered documents and decisions taken without an overall view. The first task of the defence is therefore to restore order before responding.

Two timeframes: the media’s and the evidence’s

The media timeframe requires an almost immediate reaction.

The judicial timeframe requires establishing the facts, hearing the people concerned, analysing the documents and letting the investigation run its course.

The company must hold these two timeframes together.

It cannot wait several months before speaking. Nor can it present as certain a version that has not yet been verified.

The first communication must therefore distinguish between:

• what is established;
• what is still being verified;
• the measures taken immediately;
• cooperation with the authorities;
• the attention paid to the people affected;
• information that cannot yet be disclosed.

Saying that the company is checking the facts is not an admission.

Saying that it is supporting the victims does not establish its liability.

Saying that it is cooperating with the authorities does not mean that it already accepts every legal classification under consideration.

Precise language makes it possible to inform without prejudging the outcome of the investigation.

Crisis communication can become evidence

A press release, an email to employees, a statement by the director or a reply posted on social media may be added to the case file.

They may be compared with:

• interview records;
• internal documents;
• the conclusions of an internal investigation;
• technical reports;
• employees’ statements;
• the company’s subsequent position before the court.

Communication must therefore not be designed alongside the criminal defence. It must be built with it.

We assist general management, legal and communications departments to:

• check the information available before any public statement;
• identify what can be made public;
• avoid wording likely to compromise the company’s rights;
• preserve the presumption of innocence of the people concerned;
• align the press release with the internal or judicial investigation;
• prepare the director or site manager for an interview;
• coordinate the responses given to the media, employees and partners;
• work with specialist crisis communication advisers where the situation warrants.

The lawyer’s role is not to turn a press release into court submissions.

It is to prevent the urgency of communicating from creating an additional criminal problem.

When a company or director is publicly accused

A company may be accused of fraud, corruption, harassment, pollution, endangering others, concealment or unlawful commercial practices.

The director or site manager may also be personally named.

These publications may affect:

• employees’ trust;
• relations with customers and suppliers;
• the company’s standing with its lenders;
• access to certain markets;
• relations with regulators;
• the value of the company;
• the safety or health of its representatives;
• an administrative or judicial investigation already under way.

Yet the first reaction should not automatically be to go to court.

It is first necessary to determine:

• whether the company or person is identifiable;
• whether the statements allege a specific fact;
• whether that fact harms honour or reputation;
• whether the publication is public;
• who is legally responsible for it;
• what audience it has actually reached;
• whether a response risks amplifying its circulation;
• whether the alleged facts are already under investigation;
• what outcome the company wishes to achieve.

Proceedings may lead to a conviction, compensation or court-ordered publication. They do not, on their own, guarantee that the content will disappear or that the crisis will be erased.

Not every attack on reputation is defamation

The word “defamation” is often used to describe any accusation felt to be unfair.

Legally, the classifications must be distinguished.

Defamation

Article 29 of the Law of 29 July 1881 defines defamation as the allegation or imputation of a fact that harms a person’s honour or reputation.

The fact alleged must be sufficiently precise to be the subject of a debate as to its proof.

Accusing a company of having falsified an inspection, concealed pollution or organised a fraudulent scheme may therefore amount to defamation if the other conditions are met.

A legal entity can be the victim of defamatory statements. It must, however, be checked that the statements really target the company, and not only its business, its products or the quality of its services.

Insult

An insult consists of an outrageous expression, a term of contempt or an invective that does not allege any specific fact.

The distinction from defamation is essential: the two classifications are not freely interchangeable.

Other infringements

Depending on the content and the way it is circulated, other legal bases may be considered:

• invasion of privacy;
• infringement of image rights;
• infringement of the presumption of innocence;
• identity theft;
• dissemination of private images or words;
• online threats or harassment;
• commercial disparagement;
• offences against data or information systems;
• fake content, fake voices or artificially generated images.

The strategy therefore begins with the words, the images and their context.

A classification chosen too quickly may lead to inappropriate proceedings or allow the relevant time limit to expire.

Three months to act in press matters

Public prosecution and civil actions based on most of the offences provided for by the Law of 29 July 1881 are time-barred three months after they were committed or after the last investigative or prosecution step lawfully taken.

Some offences are subject to a longer time limit, in particular several discriminatory offences.

Within this time limit, it is necessary in particular to:

1. keep complete proof of the content;
2. establish its date of publication;
3. identify precisely the disputed passages;
4. determine whether they are public or non-public;
5. identify the author and those responsible for the publication;
6. choose the legal classification;
7. determine the appropriate procedural route;
8. take a step that meets the requirements of the law.

An isolated screenshot does not always make it possible to establish all these elements.

A formal notice is not necessarily enough to interrupt the criminal limitation period. A complaint or summons that does not comply with the formal requirements of the 1881 Law may also jeopardise the prosecution.

In press law, acting quickly therefore does not mean acting hastily.

Preserve the evidence before requesting removal

When content is discovered, the first reflex is often to ask for it to be deleted.

This step may be useful, but it must not destroy the evidence needed for possible proceedings.

It is necessary to keep:

• the exact address of the content;
• the date and time it was viewed;
• the apparent identity of the author;
• the text, image or video in full;
• relevant comments and shares;
• the context of publication;
• information making it possible to assess its audience;
• modified versions or copies on other media.

Depending on the situation, a report drawn up by a commissaire de justice (bailiff) may be necessary.

It must then be decided whether the priority objective is:

• removal of the content;
• exercising a right of reply;
• publishing a denial;
• a correction;
• legal proceedings;
• compensation for the harm;
• identifying an anonymous author;
• or managing the crisis without further amplification.

The firmest response is not always the most protective.

Right of reply, removal or proceedings: choosing the objective

A company or director named or designated in a publication may, depending on the medium and the legal conditions, have a right of reply.

For online public communication services, the request must in particular be made within three months of the message concerned being made available.

The right of reply is particularly useful when the company wants to make its position known quickly without waiting for the outcome of proceedings.

It must nevertheless be drafted with the same care as a crisis press release. Its content will be public and may also be used in the legal debate.

Other steps may be considered:

• a request for correction or removal;
• reporting to the platform;
• summary proceedings where the conditions are met;
• a simple complaint or a complaint with civil party application;
• a direct summons;
• a civil action;
• use of a mechanism specific to the medium concerned.

The choice depends on the content, the time available, the author, the evidence preserved and the client’s real objective.

Defending the company or director prosecuted for their statements

A company may be the victim of a publication. It may also be prosecuted because of its own communication.

A press release may name a former employee. A director may respond publicly to an accusation. A site manager may speak after an accident. A company may accuse a service provider, a competitor or a whistleblower.

We then examine:

• the exact meaning of the statements;
• their context;
• the person actually targeted;
• whether they state a specific fact or a value judgement;
• whether they are public;
• the debate of general interest to which they may contribute;
• the factual basis available at the time of publication;
• the restraint of the wording;
• any personal animosity;
• irregularities affecting the complaint or summons;
• compliance with the limitation period.

Defending the company’s reputation does not mean prohibiting all criticism.

Defending its freedom of expression does not allow it to turn a response into an uncontrolled accusation.

The line depends on the words, the context and the information available to their author when they spoke.

Preparing the site manager’s statements

After a serious accident or incident, the site manager often becomes the natural point of contact for employees, local authorities, families and sometimes the media.

They may also be questioned as part of an investigation.

Their statements must therefore be prepared around a few principles:

• do not speculate on the cause of the event;
• do not attribute fault prematurely;
• distinguish findings from hypotheses;
• do not disclose confidential or personal information unnecessarily;
• do not contradict the measures already taken by the company;
• do not comment on the content of interviews or investigations covered by secrecy;
• state clearly the protection and support measures put in place;
• defer unverified technical questions to a later communication.

The site manager must not be left alone to face a crisis whose consequences go beyond their site.

Local statements must be coordinated with general management, the legal teams, communications and the lawyers in charge of the defence.

Internal investigation and external communication

When a report or accusation becomes public, the company may have to conduct an internal investigation.

This investigation must not be driven by the need to quickly confirm or refute the media narrative. It must seek the facts impartially and with respect for the rights of the people concerned.

External communication may state:

• that a report has been received;
• that it is being handled in accordance with the applicable procedure;
• that the people concerned are protected;
• that no conclusion will be announced before the checks are complete;
• that the company will take the measures required by the findings.

It must not prematurely reveal the content of interviews or present a person’s responsibility as established.

The internal investigation establishes the facts.

Communication explains the method and the measures taken.

The criminal defence anticipates how all of this may be used.

Internal investigations. Criminal law audits. Corporate training

Social media, fake accounts and AI-generated content

A disputed publication can be modified, deleted and then reproduced within minutes.

The difficulties relate in particular to:

• identifying the author;
• distinguishing between a public account and a private exchange;
• the multiplication of reposts;
• locating the platform or the author;
• the creation of a false identity;
• use of the company’s name or logo;
• artificial reproduction of a director’s voice or image;
• fabrication of non-existent documents or statements.

Artificially generated content does not call for a single legal classification.

Depending on the facts, identity theft, infringement of image rights, defamation, forgery, offences against data or other offences may be examined.

The technique used matters.

The content, its author, their intention and its circulation remain decisive.

Securing a publication before it is released

Prevention also concerns the company’s own voice.

We can review before release:

• a press release following an accident;
• a response to a public accusation;
• an interview with a director;
• a report intended for publication;
• a corporate campaign;
• a social media post;
• a podcast or audiovisual content;
• a book or documentary project;
• the public presentation of the conclusions of an internal investigation.

This analysis covers in particular:

• the legal classification of the facts reported;
• the reliability of the available sources;
• the distinction between established fact, hypothesis and opinion;
• how people are named;
• respect for the presumption of innocence;
• protection of privacy and image;
• useful drafting precautions;
• consistency with ongoing proceedings.

The aim is not to silence the company.

It is to enable it to speak while knowing the possible consequences of each wording.

A procedural safeguard obtained before the Constitutional Council

In its decision no. 2024-1089 QPC of 17 May 2024, the Constitutional Council examined the procedure applicable when the investigating judge is considering placing a person under formal investigation for defamation or insult.

The provision allowed that person to submit observations or answer written questions without requiring them to be informed of their right to remain silent.

The Constitutional Council held that these answers could be brought to the attention of the trial court and that the failure to inform the person of the right to remain silent breached the principle that no one is obliged to incriminate themselves.

It declared the provisions concerned unconstitutional and postponed their repeal until 1 June 2025, requiring in the meantime that the right to remain silent be notified.

This priority question of constitutionality was argued before the Constitutional Council by Tom Bonnifay.

It illustrates our approach to press law: its technical nature must never cause the fundamental safeguards of the person prosecuted to disappear.

Tom Bonnifay fait abroger l’article 51-1 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881 : impact majeur sur le droit de la presse

Our method

1. Stabilise

Identify the known facts, the people concerned, the proceedings under way and the urgent decisions.

2. Preserve

Preserve the publications, internal documents, technical data and everything needed as evidence.

3. Classify

Distinguish between defamation, insult, disparagement, privacy, image rights, identity theft or any other relevant legal basis.

4. Coordinate

Align management, the site concerned, the legal team, human resources, communications and external advisers.

5. Decide

Choose between a public statement, a right of reply, removal, legal proceedings, an internal investigation or no reaction at all.

6. Defend

Build the procedural strategy without losing sight of the human, economic and reputational consequences of the crisis.

Frequently asked questions

What should a company do when an accident immediately attracts media attention?

It must first secure people and the site, preserve documents and designate a clear decision-making channel.

Before any detailed communication, established facts must be distinguished from hypotheses, the proceedings likely to be brought must be identified, and the site’s statements must be coordinated with those of general management.

A first statement may confirm the event, present the measures taken and express concern for the people affected, without commenting prematurely on causes or responsibilities.

Should a site manager respond directly to journalists?

There is no general answer.

It may be appropriate for them to speak when they know the operations carried out on site and represent the company locally. But such a statement must be prepared, limited to verified information and coordinated with the legal and communications teams.

If they are likely to be personally questioned or implicated, their own interests must also be examined.

Can a company be the victim of defamation?

Yes. Case law accepts that a legal entity may be the target of an allegation that harms its honour or reputation.

It must, however, be checked whether the statements really concern the company or are merely criticism of its products, services or business. This distinction may point towards press law or towards other legal bases, in particular disparagement.

What is the difference between defamation and disparagement?

Defamation harms the honour or reputation of an individual or legal entity by alleging a specific fact.

Disparagement generally targets products, services or economic activity and falls mainly under civil liability.

The classification depends on the terms used and what is actually targeted.

Should every accusation be answered publicly?

No.

A response may be necessary to reassure employees, correct information or prevent an inaccurate version from taking hold. It may also amplify content that had so far received little attention, or lock the company into a version established too early.

The decision depends on the audience of the content, its seriousness, the evidence available and the proceedings under way.

What is the time limit for bringing a defamation action?

For most offences under the Law of 29 July 1881, the limitation period is three months.

This period in principle runs from publication and is subject to specific rules on interruption. Some offences, in particular several discriminatory offences, benefit from a longer period.

A lawyer should therefore be consulted quickly, without waiting for the content to disappear or be modified.

Does a formal notice interrupt the limitation period?

Not necessarily.

The limitation period for press offences is interrupted only by steps that meet the conditions laid down by law. A letter sent to the author or publisher does not automatically interrupt it.

Can a publication be removed immediately?

Not automatically.

Freedom of expression requires the judge to examine the basis of the request, the nature of the harm and the proportionality of the measure sought.

A request to the author, the publication director or the platform can sometimes be effective. In other situations, a right of reply, a correction or legal proceedings will be more appropriate.

Can crisis communication be used against the company?

Yes.

A press release, an interview, a publication or an internal message may be produced in an investigation or before a court. It may be compared with the documents in the case file and with later statements by directors or employees.

That is why communication must be legally reviewed without becoming unreadable or defensive.

Can the company and the site manager be advised by the same lawyer?

Yes, if their interests are compatible.

This compatibility must be checked concretely. It may cease if the investigation leads the company and the manager to take different positions on a decision, an alert, a delegation or the resources available.

Can action be taken against a fake account or fake AI-generated content?

Yes, but the legal classification depends on the situation.

The content must be preserved, its author identified as far as possible, and the use of the company’s name, image, voice, logo or data examined. Depending on the facts, several civil or criminal legal bases may be considered.

Speaking when every word counts

A crisis is not resolved by communication alone.

Nor is it handled by keeping silent on principle.

It is necessary to understand the facts, preserve the evidence, protect people and choose what can be said without compromising what will have to be defended.

Vouland Avocats assists companies, their directors and site managers facing a media crisis, an attack on their reputation or a prosecution relating to their own publications.

Offices in Marseille and Paris. Acting throughout France.

Are you facing a disputed publication, an urgent media request or a crisis on a site?