France has effectively gagged the talk of its own TV hits. A March 2024 law passed by the French Parliament makes it a criminal offence to discuss, promote or “glorify” any television series judged to incite criminal behaviour – and the crime drama Gomorra was the first name on the list. The move has ignited a firestorm of debate about artistic freedom, cross‑border co‑production and the future of Europe’s streaming market.
On paper the measure is starkly simple: public discussion of a series that “incites criminal conduct” is now punishable. In practice, however, the law is a ghost. None of the six research groups that combed the press, legal commentaries and academic papers could locate the operative wording – no article numbers, no definitions of “glorification” or “incitement”, and no penalty schedule. Even the most thorough legal databases omitted the text, leaving broadcasters, producers and advertisers without a clear compliance roadmap.
The creative community has reacted with alarm. Roberto Saviano – the author whose book inspired Gomorra – warned that the French “Omertà” law mirrors the Italian draft he denounced as a “form of gravissima censura”. Saviano argues that criminalising the very act of depicting organised crime turns cultural critique into a penal matter and threatens to silence the stories that expose the underworld. His critique, while aimed at a parallel Italian proposal, underscores the broader fear that France’s approach could set a precedent for silencing hard‑won narratives across Europe.
From a European Union perspective the law sits on shaky ground. The Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) remains the cornerstone of EU‑wide content regulation, insisting on proportionality and non‑discrimination. Yet no source has linked the French measure directly to the AVMSD, leaving the potential clash untested. More ominously, the European Media Freedom Act – which entered into force in August 2025 and guarantees editorial freedom – could be at odds with a national rule that curtails discussion of a specific series. If French authorities enforce the ban only within France, it may also breach the internal‑market principle of free movement of services enshrined in the EMFA.
The uncertainty ripples through co‑production contracts. Standard force‑majeure and change‑of‑law clauses hinge on the existence of a clear, enforceable statute; the current legislative opacity makes it impossible to determine whether the measure triggers those safeguards. Likewise, compliance warranties and indemnities become fraught when “glorification” is undefined, forcing producers to demand broader guarantees from broadcasters and streaming platforms – a cost that could erode the economics of cross‑border projects. Public‑funding bodies such as the CNC, which require adherence to national law, may also withhold subsidies if a series is deemed non‑compliant, jeopardising financing pipelines.
Streaming services face a practical dilemma. Territorial licences, already sliced up by country, could now require geo‑blocking of promotional material – or even the series itself – in France. Without guidance on enforcement, platforms are left guessing whether they must remove the title from their French catalogue or merely silence marketing. Advertisers, too, risk breaching the “promotion” ban, potentially invalidating sponsorship deals tied to the series. The lack of a defined penalty regime means that any enforcement action could be arbitrary, further unsettling the delicate balance of EU‑wide licensing agreements.
Until the French government publishes the full text in the Journal Officiel and clarifies definitions, penalties and enforcement mechanisms, the law remains a legal mirage with real‑world consequences. Stakeholders should monitor official publications, seek direct guidance from the Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel and review contractual clauses for broader change‑of‑law triggers. A provisional compatibility assessment with the EMFA and AVMSD is advisable, as is preparing for possible challenges before French courts or the European Court of Justice. In the meantime, the spectre of “Omertà” looms over Europe’s pan‑continental storytelling, reminding us that a law without clarity can be more chilling than any sentence.
Image Source: www.amazon.com
