Can a company seek a prior injunction to prevent the broadcast of an investigative report?

Many business owners wonder whether they can pre-emptively prohibit a media organization from broadcasting a potentially harmful report. The answer is theoretically yes, since (public) broadcasters are also bound as businesses by the rules on fair market practices from the Code of Economic Law Code (CEL). In practice, however, such a preventive ban is very difficult to enforce because one must prove in advance with hard evidence what the exact, unlawful content of the broadcast will be.

The facts and legal context

The non-profit organization Ecole de Clerheid, a youth center recognized by the French Community, became embroiled in a criminal investigation following a complaint for allegedly violating the sexual integrity of a minor on the property. The French-language public broadcaster RTBF (Radio-Télévision Belge de la Communauté Française) decided to devote an episode to this in its research program #Investigation.

The non-profit soon noticed the negative effects of the media coverage, including cancellations of scheduled forest classes. Fearing further damage to its reputation and a breach of the confidentiality of the criminal investigation, the non-profit organisation sought to have the planned broadcast on 8 April 2026 banned through summary proceedings. In the alternative, the non-profit asked that at least certain elements be removed, such as images of minors, details from the criminal record and copyrighted material.

The court's decision

On April 8, 2026, the president of the Brussels French-speaking Enterprise Court ruled that the non-profit organization's claim, while admissible, was unfounded. Consequently, the request to prohibit the broadcast was rejected.

The court noted, on the one hand, that RTBF is indisputably a business and must therefore comply with the provisions of Book VI of the Code of Economic Law (CEL), even when it makes journalistic productions. RTBF could not demonstrate that its capacity as a media body would exempt it from these economic regulations.

On the other hand, the claim foundered on the burden of proof. The judge emphasized that there is currently no evidence before him of the potentially illegal content of the planned broadcast. The claimant relied on mere conjecture which is insufficient to characterize with precision an imminent tort justifying a preventive injunction.

Legal analysis and interpretation

Although the outcome of the ruling safeguards freedom of the press, the court's reasoning is open to criticism. This ruling illustrates the delicate balance between freedom of speech and freedom of the press (enshrined in Article 10 of the ECHR) and the protection of businesses from unfair market practices such as defamation (enshrined in the Code of Economic Law).

1. The specter of preventive censorship (Art. 25 Constitution)

The Belgian Constitution states unequivocally in Article 25: “The printing press is free; censorship can never be introduced”. Nevertheless, this court ruled that the injunction claim from economic law (Art. XVII.9 CEL) provides a sufficient legal basis for preventive intervention in journalistic publications. This runs counter to the prevailing view that media companies can only be held accountable retrospectively under general liability law (art. 6.5 CC). A preventive broadcast ban is de facto censorship.

2. Is journalism a “market practice”?

The court ruled that editorial choices of a media company can be tested against the prohibition of ‘unfair market practices’ and ‘defamation'. However, this can be seen as an undesirable stretching of business law, which is primarily intended to regulate fair competition between businesses, and not to censor social journalistic debate.

Nevertheless, the Court of Cassation in a ruling dated September 23, 2021 applies a strict filter: a cease-and-desist order is possible only if it relates to a “clearly defined act.” Because the non-profit expressed only suspicions, the claim failed.

What this specifically means

• For media and journalists: You are not immune from business law. Investigative journalism that harms the professional interests of another company can also be tested under the prohibition against unfair market practices, particularly defamation.
• For companies in crisis: Trying to stop a negative broadcast or publication in advance is extremely complex. Without conclusive evidence about the exact (unlawful) content, a court will not proceed with pre-emptive censorship. Your strategy in such cases is often better focused on demanding a right of reply, preparing crisis communications, or filing a claim for damages afterwards if the limits of press freedom were effectively exceeded.

Frequently asked questions (faq)

Can a media company always hide behind freedom of the press?
No, at least not when they harm the interests of another company. Media organizations are legally considered businesses and are therefore bound by the Code of Economic Law (CEL). Their publications can be tested against strict B2B rules on unfair market practices and the 'defamation'' of another company.

Can a court preemptively ban a TV broadcast?
Theoretically, case law leaves an opening for this through the Code of Economic Law, but in practice this is extremely rare because of the constitutional prohibition against censorship.

What does it take to get a report banned in advance?
To obtain a preventive injunction through the enterprise court, you must provide tangible evidence (concrete evidence) of the impending, clearly defined violation. Mere suspicions or assumptions about substance are insufficient.

Can the press just broadcast details from an ongoing criminal investigation?
This is a complex balancing act. Although the secrecy of the criminal investigation applies, the social interest of press freedom often prevails. If a company wants to stop publication for violation of the investigation, it will have to prove beforehand very precisely what secret information the journalist is threatening to publish unlawfully.

Conclusion

Preemptively banning a TV report or news article is legally possible, but comes up against a sky-high burden of proof. Media organizations are bound by the Code of Economic Law, but the courts in Belgium are strict in ensuring that preventive injunctions actions do not degenerate into unauthorized censorship. It is therefore important to be very well prepared and determine the right legal strategy, preferably before the damage escalates.