Voyeurism is classified as an offense under French law when a person uses any means to observe, without consent, the intimate parts of another person concealed by clothing or in a private place. Article 226-3-1 of the Penal Code establishes this framework. When videos are captured and then shared online, several offenses overlap, from voyeurism itself to invasion of privacy, including the unlawful processing of personal data.
Accumulation of criminal offenses when sharing a stolen video
A point rarely detailed by legal guides: the capture of intimate images and their online posting trigger several distinct qualifications, not just one. Understanding this layering changes the victim’s strategy.
You may also like : How to Find and Use Pampers Promotional PIN Codes?
Article 226-1 of the Penal Code punishes invasion of privacy through the capture of images in a private place. The more recent Article 226-3-1 specifically targets the act of viewing intimate parts without consent. When the video is subsequently published on a social network or a third-party site, the offense of dissemination adds to that of capture.
A person who recognizes themselves in a video shared without their permission can therefore file a complaint on multiple simultaneous grounds. Since 2022-2023, the CNIL has reminded that an image allowing someone to be identified constitutes personal data under the GDPR, even in the absence of explicit nudity. This means that a CNIL report can be filed alongside the criminal complaint, exposing the perpetrator and sometimes the content host to additional administrative sanctions (warnings, fines).
See also : How to Take a Free IQ Test Online and Easily Assess Your Intelligence
The issue of voyeurism and stolen videos in France thus goes beyond the purely criminal realm to touch on personal data law, which multiplies the avenues of action for the victim.
Penalties for voyeurism and aggravating circumstances
Voyeurism as defined by Article 226-3-1 is punishable by one year of imprisonment and a fine of 15,000 euros in its simple form. The penalty increases to two years of imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 euros in the presence of aggravating circumstances.
These aggravating circumstances are specifically listed by the Penal Code:
- The acts are committed against a minor or a vulnerable person due to their age, illness, or disability.
- The perpetrator acted with one or more co-authors or accomplices, or abused the authority conferred by their position.
- The acts took place in public transport or a location accessible to such transport.
- Images were fixed, recorded, or transmitted, which is the case as soon as a video exists on a phone or server.
In practice, the mere existence of a video file is sufficient to characterize the last aggravating circumstance. Prosecutors now apply stricter requisitions than a few years ago, with seizure and confiscation of computer equipment (phone, computer, hard drives) from the investigation stage.
Filing a complaint and CNIL report: the dual approach in practice
The first step remains filing a complaint with the police, gendarmerie, or directly with the public prosecutor. A precise chronological account, accompanied by time-stamped screenshots and the URL of the dissemination, forms the basis of the case.
In parallel, the victim can contact the CNIL via its online complaint form. The image of a person is personal data: its dissemination without consent constitutes unlawful processing under the GDPR. The CNIL can then initiate a control against the platform hosting the content.
This interplay between criminal law and personal data law has been strengthened by the implementation of the European DSA regulation in 2024. Arcom and the CNIL have begun to coordinate their guidelines, which allows for pressure on platforms to quickly remove reported content. The CNIL report accelerates removal where the criminal complaint aims to sanction the perpetrator.
Requesting the removal of videos from platforms and search engines
Waiting for the outcome of a judicial procedure to see a video disappear can take months. Acting directly with hosts and search engines is often quicker to limit the damage.
Most major platforms have dedicated forms for reporting non-consensual intimate images. Google offers a specific form to request the de-referencing of content infringing on privacy. The right to de-referencing, established by European case law, fully applies here.
For less well-known sites, without an identifiable contact, reporting to the Pharos platform (official portal for reporting illegal content on the internet) remains an option. The request must mention the exact URL, the nature of the content, and the identifying elements of the victim.
- Keep evidence before removal: screenshots with date, full URL, account identifier that published it.
- Send the removal request in writing (online form or registered mail) to keep a record.
- Engage a bailiff for an online report if the content risks disappearing before police intervention.
The DSA regulation now requires platforms to process reports within shorter timeframes and to justify any potential refusals. This regulatory framework strengthens the position of victims against technical intermediaries.
Protection against voyeurism and stolen videos thus relies on three pillars that can be mobilized simultaneously: the criminal complaint to sanction the perpetrator, the CNIL report to challenge the data processing, and the direct removal request to make the content disappear as quickly as possible. Each lever acts on a different link in the dissemination chain, and it is their combination that provides victims with a truly effective response.