France

[FR] Media authority fines M6 for a number of illegal advertising broadcasts

IRIS 1996-2:1/19

Ad van Loon

European Audiovisual Observatory

In a decision of 21 December 1995, the French media authority CSA ( Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel) fined the private commercial television broadcaster M6 for an amount of FF 780,000 for a number of broadcasts of advertising deemed to be illegal.

In a programme called `Capital', the cover of a magazine of the same name was shown clearly eight times. Article 8 of Decree No 92-280 of 27 March 1992 on the implementation of Article 27, 1" of the Law of 30 September 1986 relating to the freedom of communication, fixing the general principles concerning the rules that apply to advertising and sponsoring ( pris pour l'application du 1" de l'article 27 de la loi du 30 septembre 1986 relative à la liberté de communication et fixant les principes généraux concernant le régime applicable à la publicité et au parrainage), prohibits any advertising for press products .

In a series of programmes entitled `Turbo', the Renault Espace was, according to the CSA, presented in an increasingly promotional way. The same programme, on one occasion, also announced the publication of a video cassette that had been edited by M6 and the date on which the video cassette would be available for public purchase. Finally, on one occasion, `Turbo' showed during five minutes a report promoting, according to the CSA, `Lego' and one of its products.

The amount of the fine is said to take account of the financial advantages that M6 is deemed to have had from the illegal advertising broadcasts. (Ad van Loon, European Audiovisual Observatory)


References

  • Décision n° 95-919 du 21 décembre 1995 infligeant une sanction à la société Métropole Télévision (M6), Journal Officiel de la République française du 19 janvier 1996, p. 917.
  • Decision No 95-919 of 21 December 1995 inflicting a sanction on the company Métropole Télévision (M6), Journal Officiel de la République française of 19 January 1996, p.918.

This article has been published in IRIS Legal Observations of the European Audiovisual Observatory.