Body Minute’s founder, Jean-Christophe David, is pursuing legal action against influencer Laurène Lévy for a satirical TikTok video mocking the company’s hair removal services. Despite limited views, the video gained traction online, provoking David to claim the hashtag #bodyminute is being ridiculed. While Lévy has received support from users defending free speech, legal experts warn that the company’s lawsuit may face difficulties, as courts tend to favor freedom of expression. David’s efforts to remove the video have been unsuccessful.
In a dramatic turn of events, the head of Body Minute has taken extensive measures to eliminate a satirical TikTok video created by influencer Laurène Lévy. This includes pursuing legal action for ‘denigration’ at the Paris commercial court, with the hearing set to take place this Thursday.
The controversy ignited back in October 2022, when Lévy humorously depicted the challenges associated with hair removal services at Body Minute, the leading beauty salon chain in France. This kind of parody has become common on social media as a way to critique brands.
Despite garnering only a modest number of views, the video has gained significant traction in search engine results due to the hashtag #bodyminute. Jean-Christophe David, the founder of Body Minute and son of renowned hairdresser Jean-Louis David, found himself unable to suppress the video—a fundamental challenge of social media platforms.
Two years later, David remains irate. “We are losing control over our hashtag; it’s being subjected to public ridicule!” he expressed in an interview with AFP.
While many brands choose to respond with humor or silence, David has launched an all-out campaign to defend the 2,200 young beauticians working in his 450 franchised locations.
“Towards the end of 2022, I had beauticians coming to me, visibly upset, showing me a video where the influencer is mocking our aesthetics staff. I realized we couldn’t let this slide. We reached out to her to address the issue, but she ignored us. Then, we contacted her employer, a communications agency, warning them about the problematic video,” he explained.
Lévy, who did not respond to AFP’s inquiries, has publicly shared her side of the story: “They even sent bailiffs to my workplace to investigate my computers, supposedly to find evidence that my employer had instructed me to disparage Body Minute on behalf of a rival. But that was entirely untrue!”
She has found herself receiving backing from outraged internet users, who view this as an attempt to stifle free speech on social media.
As her video continues to gain popularity, Body Minute finds itself in the spotlight for a legal battle.
“Feel free to share your negative experiences with Body Minute, because apparently, discussing them is not allowed!” one user sarcastically remarked.
This situation exemplifies the so-called ‘Streisand effect,’ where an attempt to suppress information only serves to amplify it.
Efforts to Suppress the Video
David has made unsuccessful attempts to have TikTok remove the video and has even urged his employees to pressure Lévy, who was referred to internally as ‘Laurène La Haine.’
“I instructed all my staff to reach out to her and ask her to take it down. However, they found her intimidating and hesitated,” he shared.
Two beauticians decided to alert Lévy about the pressure tactics, prompting her to publicly denounce the actions of Body Minute.
In response, David ramped up the release of promotional videos, even one that accused the influencer of posting fake comments about the brand.
Despite these efforts, Lévy’s video continues to circulate.
“All the specialized TikTok agencies I consulted—three in two years—promised me they could get it removed. It cost me around 300,000 euros!” he lamented. TikTok even offered him a sponsored video to boost visibility at the cost of 60,000 euros.
TikTok has declined to comment on the matter.
The Right to Criticize
In December, Body Minute finally filed a lawsuit against Lévy for ‘denigration,’ a term primarily aimed at competitors, claiming she was profiting from the controversy by gaining additional followers—now totaling 339,000.
Legal experts caution that this move is risky, as case law tends to favor freedom of expression.
“The judiciary often weighs the balance between freedom of expression and trademark rights. However, consumer protection is increasingly being prioritized,” explained Me Yann-Maël Larher.
“The fundamental principle of free speech supports the right to criticize, even through humor, although this isn’t an unrestricted license,” added Me Basile Ader from the August Debouzy law firm, who refrained from commenting specifically on the case. “The judicial system is leaning more towards protecting freedom of expression, particularly with recent laws aimed at curbing SLAPPs designed to silence lawful discourse.”
Typically, companies prefer to issue threats of legal action, which often proves effective due to the ambiguity surrounding what is permissible, according to Me Ader.