France Launches Probe Into X Over Alleged Algorithmic “Foreign Interference
In a move that underscores growing global anxiety over the power of social media in democratic societies, French authorities have initiated a formal investigation into X (formerly Twitter) following allegations that the platform’s algorithm may have been manipulated in a manner enabling foreign interference. The investigation, announced by Paris prosecutor Laure Beccuau on Friday, July 11, 2025, follows two separate complaints filed earlier this year and raises critical questions about transparency, digital sovereignty, and the limits of tech influence in Western democracies.
This latest legal scrutiny marks a major escalation in tensions between European governments and the Elon Musk-owned platform, which has faced accusations of allowing extremist content to flourish, undermining election integrity, and failing to comply with digital service regulations. With the French judiciary now examining the actions of X and its senior executives, the platform is being pushed into a new frontier of accountability.
In this comprehensive report, we examine the legal foundations of the case, the political context in France, the implications for global tech governance, and what this development means for the future of free speech, algorithmic accountability, and democratic resilience in the digital age.
I. The Catalyst: Two Complaints, One Algorithmic Storm
At the heart of this investigation are two complaints, filed on January 12, 2025, which accuse X of algorithmic manipulation that allegedly enabled foreign actors to distort democratic discourse in France.
The first complaint was lodged by Eric Bothorel, a centrist lawmaker and prominent cybersecurity advocate within President Emmanuel Macron’s Renaissance party. Known for his work on regulating online platforms and defending digital rights, Bothorel did not mince words in his filing. He expressed alarm over what he described as a “subtle but deeply consequential shift in the platform’s algorithm,” claiming it had led to the suppression of diverse political opinions, while amplifying divisive, extremist, and sometimes foreign-sponsored content.
“There is now a real danger and a threat for our democracies,” Bothorel warned, “not only due to what is being said, but because of what is being hidden or silenced.”
The second complaint came from a senior cybersecurity director in the French public administration. According to reporting by investigative weekly Le Canard Enchaîné, the official raised concerns over “a major modification in the algorithm used by the X platform,” accusing the changes of favoring content that is “hateful, racist, anti-LGBTQ or homophobic,” and contributing to a widening distortion of political discourse in the French Republic.
Together, these complaints formed the basis for the prosecutor’s decision to initiate a full investigation — not just into the technicalities of X’s algorithm, but into the intentions and accountability structures behind it.
II. A Legal Framework for a Digital Crisis
France’s legal machinery is responding to a challenge that is both novel and urgent. While the law currently does not explicitly classify algorithmic tampering as “foreign interference,” prosecutor Laure Beccuau has clarified that the investigation is proceeding under statutes related to “organised data system manipulation.”
This designation allows authorities to explore whether changes to X’s platform infrastructure were made in a way that could unlawfully influence public discourse — a charge that, if substantiated, could prompt lawmakers to revise France’s evolving digital laws under the 2024 “Souveraineté Numérique” Act.
YOU MAY READ
UBA Targets Expansion into France, Saudi Arabia After Boosting Capital Base to N355 Billion
France has long been a vocal proponent of strict digital regulation, positioning itself at the forefront of the European Union’s efforts to rein in the power of Big Tech. The Digital Services Act (DSA), adopted by the EU in 2022 and fully enforced from 2024, mandates large online platforms to demonstrate algorithmic transparency, conduct risk assessments, and actively mitigate disinformation.
This ongoing probe into X may therefore set a precedent for interpreting and enforcing the DSA’s provisions at the national level, especially regarding algorithmic decision-making and political content amplification.
III. The Musk Factor: Tech Billionaire, Political Actor
Although the French prosecutor did not explicitly name Elon Musk in her announcement, his presence looms large in the background of this investigation. Since acquiring Twitter in late 2022 and rebranding it as “X,” Musk has reshaped the platform into a bastion of his own ideology — libertarian, contrarian, and fiercely anti-regulation.
Observers note that Musk’s personal interventions in content moderation, account reinstatement, and platform policy have blurred the lines between platform governance and political influence. From reinstating controversial figures like Donald Trump to dismantling the Trust and Safety Council, Musk’s tenure has been marked by an aggressive rollback of content moderation policies.
In France, Musk raised eyebrows in mid-2024 when he appeared to endorse the far-right Rassemblement National (RN) and expressed support for Eurosceptic movements. These actions prompted former EU digital commissioner Thierry Breton, himself a French national, to warn that Musk was veering dangerously into the territory of “foreign interference.”
“When a non-European billionaire uses his control of a global platform to interfere in democratic elections, we must act,” Breton said in a widely shared statement last year.
IV. What Is “Foreign Interference” in the Algorithmic Age?
The investigation into X raises profound questions about the nature of foreign interference in a world where propaganda is not just disseminated by state-backed trolls but orchestrated through opaque lines of code.
Traditionally, foreign interference involved espionage, disinformation campaigns, or state-sponsored cyberattacks. Today, however, algorithmic design — how platforms prioritize or suppress information — is emerging as a subtle yet powerful tool of influence.
Researchers at Sciences Po and École Polytechnique in France have been examining shifts in X’s recommendation algorithms. In a preliminary study leaked to Le Monde, researchers documented a spike in amplification of far-right content, conspiracy theories, and divisive narratives, particularly ahead of France’s regional elections in early 2025. The researchers noted that these spikes correlated with algorithmic changes introduced shortly after Musk’s takeover.
If proven, such algorithmic preference patterns could point to what scholars are now calling “algorithmic foreign influence” — influence that may not originate from a foreign government, but which has the effect of weakening national cohesion, inflaming polarization, and undermining trust in democratic institutions.
V. X’s Defense: Transparency or Obfuscation?
In response to the growing criticism, X’s France director, Laurent Buanec, issued a statement in January defending the platform’s practices. He argued that the company’s algorithm was “designed to avoid surfacing hateful content” and that X remained committed to open dialogue and free speech.
“We have strict, clear, and public rules to protect the platform from hateful discourse and disinformation,” Buanec said.
However, critics argue that such assurances lack substance. Since Musk’s acquisition, X has removed several transparency tools, including the public API used by researchers to study content flows. The platform also no longer publishes detailed reports on content moderation, citing “resource constraints” and “company restructuring.”
This perceived retreat from transparency has fueled suspicions that the company is unwilling — or unable — to police harmful content in a way consistent with European laws.
VI. European Regulators Circle the Platform
The French investigation is not occurring in isolation. It comes against the backdrop of wider scrutiny from EU institutions. In December 2023, the European Commission opened its own probe into X’s alleged violations of the DSA, accusing the platform of failing to tackle illegal content, provide data access to regulators, and comply with risk mitigation duties.
By July 2024, EU officials went further, stating that X could face penalties amounting to billions of euros if found to have willfully disregarded its obligations. The EU’s competition watchdog is also reviewing whether X’s content moderation policies amount to anti-competitive practices, by privileging certain types of political speech over others.
France’s national probe may therefore become a litmus test for whether EU digital sovereignty is enforceable — and whether tech giants can continue to shape civic discourse in the region without checks and balances.
VII. Domestic Political Repercussions in France
The investigation is politically sensitive for President Emmanuel Macron’s government. Although the initial complaint came from a member of his own Renaissance party, Macron’s administration has often walked a fine line between courting tech investments and advocating for robust regulation.
Critics from the left and the far-right alike have accused the government of being too lenient on Big Tech, especially during the 2024 parliamentary campaign season. Opposition leaders such as Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Marine Le Pen have long complained about “algorithmic censorship” and “platform bias,” albeit from opposing ideological standpoints.
This probe may therefore offer Macron a chance to demonstrate toughness on digital accountability without appearing to stifle free speech. For the French public, still reeling from years of political polarization, misinformation, and cyberthreats, the investigation represents an important step toward reestablishing trust in the information ecosystem.
VIII. What’s at Stake: Free Speech vs Algorithmic Responsibility
The French investigation into X underscores a growing global dilemma: how to balance the ideals of free expression with the need to safeguard public discourse from manipulation.
Musk and his defenders often frame the debate as a battle for free speech against a culture of censorship. Critics argue that this view ignores the power asymmetries introduced by algorithms. When a private company, guided by opaque design choices, controls the flow of information for hundreds of millions, free speech risks becoming an illusion — filtered, curated, and commodified.
Legal scholars argue that algorithmic accountability must now become a core tenet of democratic governance. In a recent white paper by the European Center for Digital Rights, experts proposed a new doctrine called “algorithmic fiduciary duty,” requiring platforms to act in the public interest when managing civic content — particularly during election cycles.
If adopted, such frameworks could shift the conversation from censorship vs. liberty to responsibility vs. neglect — a more constructive lens for the digital age.
IX. Conclusion: A Digital Turning Point for France and Beyond
France’s investigation into X may well become a defining case in the 21st-century struggle for digital democracy. By directly confronting the question of whether algorithmic design can constitute foreign interference, French prosecutors are stepping into uncharted legal territory — but doing so with clarity of purpose.
This move represents a bold assertion of national sovereignty in an age where borders are porous but data flows are not. It also challenges the long-standing impunity of global tech companies, especially those led by billionaire founders whose personal ideologies shape global conversations.
As Europe’s most centralised democracy, France may now set the tone for how democracies respond to digital threats — not just through rhetoric, but through robust legal action.
If France succeeds in holding X accountable, it could prompt a domino effect of investigations, legal reforms, and public debates in other countries. If it fails or falters, it risks sending the message that platform power is too vast — and too shielded — to challenge.
Whatever the outcome, one thing is certain: the age of algorithmic impunity is facing its most serious reckoning yet.