The court determined that the defendants, eight men and two women aged 41 to 65, posted numerous comments falsely alleging that Brigitte Macron was born male and had transitioned to a female identity. The judicial panel described the online rhetoric as “particularly degrading, insulting, and malicious,” noting that the repeated publications had “cumulative harmful effects.” Some of the offensive posts were viewed tens of thousands of times. Additionally, the defendants likened the 24-year age gap between the first lady and President Emmanuel Macron to pedophilia. One defendant received a six-month prison sentence, while the other eight were handed suspended sentences ranging from four to eight months. All 10 individuals were ordered to complete cyberbullying awareness training, and some faced bans from using their social media accounts.
Brigitte Macron did not attend the two-day trial held in October but addressed the public via national television, stating she initiated the legal proceedings to “set an example” in the fight against harassment. Her lawyer, Jean Ennochi, emphasized that the immediate enforcement of awareness trainings and social media restrictions was the primary objective of the verdict.
Simultaneously, a high-profile legal battle is unfolding in the United States involving far-right commentator Candace Owens. In March 2024, Owens first asserted that Brigitte Macron was assigned male at birth, claiming she would “stake [her] entire professional reputation” on the accusation. Following a demand for retraction from the Macrons, who offered documents proving Brigitte Macron is a cisgender woman, Owens expanded her claims in an eight-part series. These included allegations that Brigitte Macron stole a woman’s identity and that the couple is in an incestuous relationship.
In July 2025, the Macrons filed a defamation lawsuit against Owens and two affiliated media entities, Candace Owens LLC and GeorgeTom Inc., in Delaware. The amended complaint alleges that Owens published the claims knowing they were false, motivated by a desire for fame rather than truth. Since the suit was filed, Owens has continued to publish additional unverified claims, including assertions that Brigitte Macron participated in the 1971 Stanford prison experiment and that the Macrons orchestrated an assassination attempt against her.
On Monday, Owens’ attorneys asked a Delaware judge to dismiss the case, arguing that Owens has no personal connection to the state and that the Macrons filed the suit solely to take advantage of Delaware’s two-year statute of limitations, compared to France’s three-month limit. Owens’ lawyer, Chad M. Shandler, characterized the lawsuit as an “assault on freedom of speech,” though his arguments largely focused on procedural jurisdiction rather than the merits of the defamation claims.
Representatives for the Macrons countered that the business entities named in the suit were registered in Delaware by Owens to benefit from state legal protections. They argued that allowing Owens to exit the lawsuit would create an “absurd” scenario where the entities that published the statements could not be held accountable in the venue of their registration. Judge Sheldon K. Rennie questioned the attorneys regarding the applicable laws and the agency of the corporate entities but adjourned the hearing without ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The case, designated *Macron v. Owens* in Delaware Superior Court, remains pending, with the next hearing scheduled for July 27, 2026. The juxtaposition of the Parisian criminal convictions and the ongoing U.S. civil litigation highlights the transnational reach of the online harassment campaign targeting the French first family.
