Nintendo has secured a decisive legal victory over French file-hosting service 1fichier.com, as the French Supreme Court dismissed the platform’s appeal and upheld a prior ruling that found it liable for piracy-related infringements.
The decision reinforces the legal obligation of hosting platforms to remove pirated content upon request, setting a significant precedent in the fight against digital copyright violations.
A Long-Running Legal Battle
Founded in 2009, 1Fichier emerged during the peak of file-hosting and sharing platforms, a period that saw many competitors collapse under increasing legal scrutiny.
Unlike its counterparts, 1Fichier and its parent company, DSTORAGE SAS, withstood the pressure, continuing operations despite mounting copyright complaints.
The dispute with Nintendo dates back to 2018, when the gaming giant accused 1Fichier of failing to act on multiple takedown notices regarding pirated content.
Nintendo pursued legal action, securing victories in both the initial ruling and on appeal. The courts ordered 1Fichier to pay substantial damages, amounting to hundreds of thousands of euros.
Rather than complying, the platform escalated the matter to the French Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the decision.
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal
In a ruling published last week, the Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation), France’s highest authority on civil and criminal matters, upheld the lower court’s decision, solidifying Nintendo’s position.
The case hinged on the interpretation of France’s Law on Confidence in the Digital Economy (LCEN), which dictates the responsibilities of online platforms regarding pirated content.
A key argument put forth by 1Fichier revolved around the specificity of takedown notices. The company contended that Nintendo’s notices were inadequate, as they did not identify the original source of the pirated content, which could have been uploaded outside the platform
.Under its interpretation of French law, 1Fichier asserted that takedown requests must include details of the original infringer—the “publisher” or “author.”
However, the Supreme Court rejected this defense, clarifying that, in the context of the case, the uploader on 1Fichier’s platform is legally considered the “author” or “publisher.”
The interpretation strengthens copyright enforcement measures, ensuring that hosting services cannot evade responsibility by demanding impractical levels of detail in takedown requests.
A Precedent for Digital Copyright Enforcement
The ruling sets a key precedent, holding file-hosting platforms liable for not removing infringing content and reinforcing their duty to combat piracy.
For Nintendo and other rights holders, the judgment marks a significant step in their ongoing battle against unauthorised distribution of intellectual property.
“It follows from these provisions that the concepts of ‘author’ or ‘publisher’ of the disputed information or activities must be understood as designating the persons who have stored the illegal data and, therefore, as recipients of the online public communication or storage services,” the ruling reads.
In simple terms, Nintendo doesn’t need to identify who originally uploaded the pirated content outside 1Fichier. The anonymous uploaders are considered “publishers,” meaning the platform must act on takedown notices.
Monitoring Obligation?
The Supreme Court rejected the argument, ruling that takedown notices merely result in “targeted and temporary surveillance activity.”
“The Court of Appeal was right to hold that the measure ordered, consisting of the removal of the DStorage company’s website ‘1fichier’ or the blocking of access to content constituting copies of the aforementioned video games, only imposed on this company a targeted surveillance activity on very specific and temporary content.”
The ruling affirms that while service providers are not obligated to proactively monitor all content, they must take targeted action in response to valid takedown notices.
