Paris Judicial Court, 3rd chamber, 2nd section, 29 May 2026, no. 22/07774
In a judgment dated 29 May 2026, the Paris Judicial Court ruled on the lawfulness of the service offered by Spliiit, a platform enabling users to share the cost of their digital subscriptions.
The dispute pitted Spliiit against several companies from the Apple, Disney and Netflix groups, members of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE). They alleged that the platform facilitated practices contrary to their general terms of use, used their trademarks without authorisation and presented its service in a manner likely to mislead consumers.
Created in 2019, Spliiit connects subscribers holding so-called shareable offers with users wishing to bear a share of the cost, while managing access and payments. In practice, the main subscriber gives third parties access to their subscription in return for sharing the price, with the platform charging a commission.
After an initial interim-relief stage on 17 March 2022, when the President of the Judicial Court refused to order the cessation of the activity due to the existence of a serious challenge, the judgment of 29 May 2026 rules on the merits. The court upheld several claims against Spliiit, the main one relating to the unlawful nature of the subscription-sharing offered by the service, insofar as it breached the general terms of use of the claimants’ streaming services.
Breach of the general terms of use as the anchor point
The core of the reasoning concerns the liability of a third party complicit in a contractual breach. The court recalls that, although a contract produces effects only between the parties, third parties must respect the legal situation it creates. They incur tort liability when they become complicit in the breach of contractual obligations.
The analysis nevertheless remains nuanced. The court rejected the idea that Spliiit users necessarily made commercial use of the services, as the sharing mainly took place between consumers with a view to pooling costs. The fault was characterised differently: Spliiit facilitated subscription sharing outside the scope authorised by the general terms of use, particularly beyond the family circle or household. In those circumstances, the platform’s activity was held to generate a loss of revenue for the operators, as certain users accessed the services at a lower cost without taking out a subscription.
The court therefore does not prohibit subscription sharing as such, but sanctions a model that is incompatible with the applicable contractual terms.
A presentation of services found to be misleading for consumers
The judgment also found acts of unfair competition linked to the presentation of the service. Spliiit was criticized for having communicated in a way that reassured consumers as to the lawfulness of its activity, suggesting that it breached neither copyright nor the terms of use of the referenced services. That statement proved inaccurate for the services concerned.
In addition, the platform did not clearly distinguish between services that were the subject of partnerships and those that were merely referenced. This overall presentation was likely to create confusion as to the existence of a commercial relationship or authorization from the rightsholders.
The trademark-reference exception circumscribed
As regards the use of trademarks, the court acknowledged that referring to the distinctive signs of the services may be necessary to identify the subscriptions concerned. However, that possibility must remain limited to informative, proportionate and fair use. In this case, the use of the trademarks, particularly in semi-figurative form, went beyond that purpose as part of an overall presentation found to be misleading and likely to suggest a non-existent partnership. The exception having been rejected, the court therefore found infringement.
Practical significance for the market
The judgment did not, however, grant all of the claims. In particular, the court rejected the parasitism claim, thereby avoiding treating any activity ancillary to popular digital services as inherently wrongful.
Although the decision does not condemn the principle of putting subscribers and co-users in contact with one another, it strictly governs the conditions under which this may be done: compliance with the services’ general terms of use, transparency in the presentation of offers and measured use of third-party trademarks.
The judgment thus marks a step in digital platforms’ efforts to regain control over secondary uses of their subscriptions, in an ultra-competitive market where controlling sharing is a key economic issue. It cannot, however, be ruled out that Spliiit will appeal this decision.
