BLOOM wins victory against the SLAPP suit brought by destructive fishing lobbies: the courts protect environmental activists’ freedom of speech

04 June 2026

In a landmark ruling handed down on Wednesday 3 June 2026, exactly one year to the day after the vandalism of Claire Nouvian’s home, and the culmination of violence unleashed against BLOOM in 2025 in the run-up to the United Nations Ocean Conference in Nice, the Tribunal judiciaire de Paris (Paris Judicial Court) handed down a judgement upholding freedom of speech and the right of environmental activists working in the public interest to oppose destructive activities, in this case trawling that is ravaging so-called marine “protected” areas (MPAs).

In the absence of any will or action on the part of the French State to protect the ocean, which constitutes the world’s greatest common good, BLOOM had called on the retail sector, in 2025, to take responsibility and to stop sourcing fish from trawlers operating in MPAs. These are sensitive areas, but by no means protected in France. BLOOM’s condemnation of the destruction taking place in MPAs was, and remains, essential given that trawling is still permitted there.

BLOOM’s initiative to draw up a “red list” of trawlers operating in protected areas had so displeased defenders of the status quo and industrial interests that they launched a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit, or gag order, against us, in other words, an abusive use of the legal process aimed at censoring critical speech, through a summons for defamation issued on 19 June 2025. This action, initiated at the instigation of the French National Committee for Sea Fisheries and Marine Aquaculture (CNPMEM), sought to order BLOOM to pay a disproportionate sum of over one million euros in accordance with alleged non-material damages and legal fees! An exorbitant sum that served as an admission of the objective of this SLAPP suit: to bring BLOOM to its knees.

The court ruled that BLOOM had not committed any act of “denigration” against the fishing sector and dismissed all charges levelled against the methodology and public data used by BLOOM, which were deemed to provide sufficient factual basis for condemning the practice of trawling in MPAs.

This SLAPP order also aimed to cast doubt on the integrity of the scientific work carried out by BLOOM and the entire community committed to analysing the activities of fishing vessels worldwideusing the only tool available, and in the absence of data shared transparently by fishing fleets, to assess their activities at sea: Global Fishing Watch.

The industrial lobbies’ attack on science has failed.

The Court reaffirmed the value placed on freedom of speech, which includes the right of freedom to criticise, particularly with regard to a subject that is clearly of general interest. In doing so, the Paris Judicial Court dismissed the unfounded criticisms levelled against BLOOM’s actions and condemned the manipulation of the law for the benefit of industrial fishing.

For years, they have feared BLOOM’s effectiveness and were worried that Emmanuel Macron might finally side with public opinion and science by announcing a ban on trawling in “protected” marine areas at the Ocean Summit in Nice. This is why the industrial lobbies were lashing out against BLOOM with unprecedented ferocity.

Just as BLOOM was celebrating its 20th anniversary, 2025 saw a concentrated barrage of attacks and violence against us: attacks online, defamatory websites, identity theft, insults, physical and psychological intimidation, sabotage, harassment, and finally, the point of no return: the break-in and vandalism at the home of Claire Nouvian, founder of BLOOM. These events, coupled with the gag order brought against BLOOM and now dismissed, reveal the extreme mobilisation of BLOOM’s opponents as well as an action strategy so sophisticated, the coordination and professionalism of which are entirely uncharacteristic of fishing lobbies, that suggests the involvement of agencies specialising in “smear campaigns”.

These communication and harassment campaigns, carried out with the aim of “gagging” us, neutralising opposition and maintaining an unsustainable status quo, have been the subject of a complaint lodged by BLOOM with the public prosecutor, which is still ongoing.

For the first time in twenty years of campaigning, BLOOM has had to defend itself in court. Yet the legitimacy of its actions have only been confirmed: BLOOM has emerged victorious and even more determined.

The courts have put a stop to this attempt by lobbies to impose a reign of silence through fear. Delivered a few weeks after a disappointing transposition of the European directive specifically aimed at combatting SLAPP suits, this ruling serves as a reminder of the need to remain vigilant in the face of such proceedings.