Canal+ condemned for lack of blurring of tobacco

Canal+ was sued by the National Committee against Smoking (CNCT), an association which, as its name suggests, fights against smoking. According to the Evin law, any advertising for tobacco or alcohol is prohibited in France except for certain exceptions (linked to the region, etc.). However, Formula 1 was a big consumer of the money of the tobacco and alcohol companies.

Until 2021, “Mission WinNow” (Philip Morris group) appeared on Ferrari single-seaters. Other brands had appeared on the screen during the live broadcast, but also delayed and in replay of the F1 Grands Prix.

Spectator interests versus Evin law

Canal+’s position is delicate because the group recovers the images from the official broadcaster of Formula 1. Arguing of its good faith, it was nevertheless found guilty by the Court according to AFP, but over a limited period, roughly December 2021. Since then, Canal+ has made every effort to no longer display brands that are not necessarily cigarette brands but are part of the ecosystem of tobacco companies and are therefore considered to be indirect advertising, which falls under the of the law.

Canal+ was ordered to pay 25,000 euros in damages to the CNCT and to pay 10,000 euros in legal fees. The Court also sentenced her to a suspended fine of €30,000.

For Canal+ like other broadcasters, this year also raises the thorny question of casino and/or cryptocurrency companies. Alfa Romeo has signed a contract for sponsorship with an online casino company, prohibited in France. Therefore, showing the brand can be advertising. Blurring logos live is done, but is not easy. And during the interviews with the pilots, we can well imagine the journalists of Canal+ putting sticky paper on the combinations of the pilots, or framing them close-up on the head (without cap…).

The difficult application of the Evin law on television

The Evin law (by its author Claude Evin) dates from January 10, 1991. It prohibits advertising for various products. However, it quickly caused problems for televisions which broadcast live events from abroad. As these countries do not ban alcohol or tobacco advertising, live broadcasts featured these and other logos.

The Superior council of audio-visual (CSA, become ARCOM) quickly seized the courts or threatened to do it, vis-a-vis diffusions of rugby or football. For F1, this became very problematic since in addition to the circuits, the cars were covered with advertisements prohibited in France.

Amendment F1

This brought into direct confrontation two notions between the Evin law and the EEC directive known as “Television without borders” which has been transposed into French law. This directive protects the viewer’s right to information. The “television without borders” considers that it is not advertising to show a brand if there is no remuneration or consideration. In France, it will still have been necessary to wait until 1995 and an amendment to the law called “amendment F1” so that live broadcasts no longer fall under the Evin law.

This is not the first time that the CNCT attacks Canal+. Already in 2011, the association had attacked the channel for broadcasting, during a tennis match in Switzerland, an advertisement for a cigar brand. Already there, Canal+ argued that it did not produce the images, but bought the rights to broadcast them live.