C8’s Suspension: ARCOM, a Contested Regulatory Authority
The implementation at the end of February of ARCOM’s decision from December 12th, not to renew the digital terrestrial television (DTT) licences for two channels, provoked intense debate. While the fate of NRJ12 drew little attention, unsurprising given its modest viewing figures, the reaction regarding C8 was markedly different. The group of media outlets increasingly labelled the “Bollosphere,” notably CNews, Europe 1, and the Journal du Dimanche, fiercely condemned the move as an attack on freespeech. At the core of ARCOM’s decision was the future of C8’s flagship programme, Touche pas à mon poste, hosted by Cyril Hanouna, which has a substantial following among young and working-class viewers. Influential commentators, including CNews presenter Pascal Praud, publicly argued that this alleged censorship highlighted, at best, a disconnect between ARCOM—viewed as representing a technocratic Parisian elite—and ordinary French people, and at worst, outright class prejudice. This argument gained momentum among several political figures, including the Minister of Culture, whose role overseeing the communications sector makes her responsible for safeguarding ARCOM’s authority. Rather than explaining the reasoning behind ARCOM’s decision clearly, the Minister confined her comments to expressing regret over the impact on C8’s audience.
In an age characterised by “augmented truth” and increasing competition due to the proliferation of media channels, ARCOM is working hard to assert its mission to safeguard media pluralism and the independence of information. A ruling by the French Council of State in February 2024 further strengthened this role, explicitly instructing ARCOM to ensure a diversity of viewpoints, including among the presenters and commentators across various channels. Given the diversity of audiences, rapid societal and news developments, and the growing polarisation of opinions, ARCOM now faces a significant challenge: it must fulfil its mandate effectively without being perceived as an agent of censorship.
A Legally Indisputable Decision
In the United States, as Vice-President J.D. Vance and Elon Musk have vigorously reminded us, freedom of speech is virtually absolute; people can say or claim almost anything. It falls upon those who disagree to voice their objections, and social media platforms widely enable them to do so. In France, while freedom of expression holds constitutional status, it must be exercised within the boundaries set by the laws of the Republic. ARCOM is responsible for overseeing compliance with these laws in the context of broadcasting and digital communications, imposing various obligations, particularly on television channels.
Over recent years, ARCOM has penalised C8 on 37 occasions, including 16 times in 2024—the very year its frequency renewal was under review. None of these penalties have been overturned by the Council of State, which also rejected C8’s appeal against the decision of 12 December. Certainly, as its defenders argue, C8 has paid all imposed fines. However, can a regulatory authority realistically allow its rulings to be systematically disregarded? What authority would ARCOM retain over other channels if it had chosen to renew C8’s frequency despite the broadcaster’s insistence on continuing Cyril Hanouna’s programme unchanged? Clearly, ARCOM could not have reached any other decision; indeed, it had not only the right but the duty to act as it did.
A Regulator Under Pressure
Although the decision taken on the 12th of December 2024 is legally indisputable, the campaign mounted by supporters of C8 has nonetheless been effective. A significant portion of public opinion has failed to understand the ruling. As Camille Broyelle, Professor of Law at the University of Paris-Panthéon-Assas, succinctly put it, this has essentially become a case of “the people against the law.”
In a world where emotion frequently trumps reason, and assertion often outweighs facts, Martin Ajdari, the new President of ARCOM, faces significant challenges. Like all heads of regulatory bodies, Ajdari must ensure decisions grounded firmly in law are clearly communicated to the widest possible audience. However, given ARCOM’s particular area of responsibility, his task is especially demanding. The authority therefore needs to adapt its communication strategy, making complex regulatory decisions more accessible without falling into political or contentious rhetoric. It is unfortunate that Ajdari’s predecessor waited until the very end of his mandate, coinciding precisely with the implementation of the December 12th decision, before substantially increasing his media presence. This sensitive issue deserved clearer, sustained communication much earlier, before emotions could dominate reason. For ARCOM to make its voice heard effectively in the future, it must communicate differently, adopting a more direct and consistent approach to reach the French public. The authority must now rebuild its own narrative to establish a stronger connection with society as a whole.
Eric Giuily
CLAI President
Lucie Lelong
Account Manager
Alice Pillod
Established Consultant