Ist die Gigabyte-Steuer beschlossen?

Nein. Die Nationalversammlung hat den Änderungsantrag I-1358 am 30. Oktober 2026 im Plenum angenommen. Über den Haushalt 2027 wird am 3. und 17. November 2026 abgestimmt.

Wer müsste die Steuer zahlen?

Anbieter von Inhalten, die Daten an Anschlüsse in Frankreich ausliefern. Internetanbieter messen nur die Menge. Der Antrag grenzt die Zielgruppe nicht ein.

Wie hoch wäre die Steuer pro Download?

0,055 Euro pro Gigabyte vor Obergrenzen. Ein 100-Gigabyte-Download entspräche 5,50 Euro Abgabe.

Warum ist Open Source betroffen?

Der Antrag grenzt die Zahlpflichtigen nicht ein. VideoLAN, die Organisation hinter VLC, beziffert die mögliche Belastung auf über 1 Million Euro pro Jahr.

France Plans an Internet Tax: 5.5 Cents per Gigabyte

Stream of GB data cubes turning into euro coins, held by a hand with a blue-white-red sleeve — The proposal: every gigabyte that providers deliver to users in France would cost 5.5 cents. (Image: QLTY media)

What does the proposal say?

An amendment by the socialist group to France's 2027 budget proposes a tax on digital data streams. The rule is one sentence: internet service providers measure the gigabytes delivered, the tax is 0.055 euros per gigabyte. According to regulator ARCEP, 200 billion gigabytes flow to France each year – half of it from Google, Meta, Amazon, Netflix and Akamai.

The tax is capped at 15 percent of France revenue or 2 percent of global revenue. Arithmetically that would be 11 billion euros; the authors expect 10.

The National Assembly adopted the amendment on 30 October 2026 – 11 in favour, 10 against, 14 abstentions. Next the budget itself is voted: part 1 on 3 November, part 2 plus the final vote on 17 November. Until then, everything can change or disappear.

Rate: 0.055 euros per gigabyte delivered to connections in France (Amendment I-1358 to the 2027 budget bill).
Caps: At most 15 percent of the provider's France revenue or 2 percent of its global revenue.
Traffic volume: 200 billion gigabytes per year, an ARCEP estimate cited in the amendment; half of it falls on Google, Meta, Amazon, Netflix and Akamai.
Expected revenue: 10 billion euros per year according to the authors. Before caps, the rate would arithmetically yield around 11 billion euros.
Vote: Adopted in the National Assembly plenary on 30 October 2026 with 11 to 10 votes and 14 abstentions. Budget votes: 3 and 17 November 2026.

Who would pay?

The content provider pays, not the internet service provider. ISPs become the measuring point: they record the gigabytes anonymously and report them quarterly to the tax authority. Content is never inspected. The technical details are left to a later decree.

And who counts as a content provider? The amendment does not say. Any company delivering via its own IP addresses to France falls under it. The VideoLAN dispute shows the consequence: the organisation behind VLC puts its possible burden at more than 1 million euros per year. A socialist MP countered on X that the caps would not bite here. Whether they truly spare a non-profit with negligible revenue is open. The amendment targets the large platforms – but does not limit who pays.

Which questions remain open?

The core numbers are settled. Five questions remain open:

Attribution through third-party networks. The amendment covers delivery networks that cache content close to the user: the delivered volume counts as dispatched once it leaves the delivery network. Boxes that providers such as Netflix operate directly inside ISP networks are explicitly mentioned in the rationale. What stays open is the cascade for rented cloud addresses: when traffic leaves an address belonging to a cloud service, someone must identify and hold accountable the content provider behind it. A decree is to settle the details.
VPN and tunnels. A tunnel shifts the visible sender address to the operator of the tunnel service. Whether that operator then counts as the content provider is not regulated. For streaming this is likely to remain a niche phenomenon; for software downloads it is a real definitional question.
Revenue as reference size. The caps refer to France revenue and global revenue. How the France revenue of an international group is precisely attributed is a tax law detail. Revenue attribution through national subsidiaries is common among corporations and contested.
Exit instead of payment. Providers could block content for IP ranges in France. Users know the pattern from US media after the GDPR. A mirror server abroad does not change the tax reference as long as delivery to users in France continues. Blocking would hit French users, not the treasury.
Enforcement against providers without a local presence. For groups without a French establishment the amendment provides its own procedure: tax assessment and payment deadline. Whether assessments against companies without a presence in France can be enforced remains to be seen. The French precedent is the 2019 digital services tax: it triggered a trade dispute with the United States, but according to the finance ministry it actually raised 474 million euros in 2021, 621 million in 2022 and 680 million in 2023. Its future is contested following the international negotiations on a corporate minimum tax.

What does this mean for providers?

The tax is not law yet. The amendment has been adopted, the budget has not, and the votes on 3 and 17 November decide the procedure. The direction is still worth taking seriously: data traffic as a tax base would be a precedent other states could copy. Anyone delivering content to Europe should know how much traffic originates in France and which infrastructure it runs on.

For our work this means: video and image formats have a data volume, and better compression lowers the calculated tax burden. But only as long as the calculated amount stays below the caps. Until a law exists, this is a calculation variable, not a fact.

Comment: Who pays in the end

Formally, the provider pays. Our assessment: the burden lands on users in France. Three reasons.

First: 5.5 cents per gigabyte are unit costs for video providers. They can be passed on – through subscription prices, lower bitrates, more advertising. Those who want to stream keep streaming; demand is rigid. A tax that starts at the company ends up in the user's price. A 4K film corresponds to 0.77 euros. That is not an abstract figure, it is a line item in the calculation.

Second: those who do not want to pay, block. Locking out French IP ranges costs nothing. Then the user does not get the content, and the treasury gets no money. VideoLAN shows the pattern in its purest form: either more than one million euros per year or withdrawal. In both cases France's users pay – with access, not with money.

Third: 10 billion euros are expected. The last national digital tax brought 680 million in 2023. That is a factor of 15. Between them lie exactly the problems the proposal does not solve: attribution through cloud addresses, VPN endpoints, shifted revenues, enforcement without a local presence.

The addressees of the tax have options: raise prices, block, sue, wait. Users do not. That is why the proposal is probably nonsense – and still hits home. That is exactly the pattern.

Frequently asked questions about the internet tax

Has the gigabyte tax been decided?

No. The National Assembly adopted Amendment I-1358 in plenary on 30 October 2026. The 2027 budget will be voted on 3 and 17 November 2026. Until then the amendment can be changed or dropped.

Who would have to pay the tax?

Providers of content delivering data to connections in France. Internet service providers only measure the volume and report it to the tax authority. The amendment does not limit its target group by size or business model.

How high would the cost per download be?

The rate is 0.055 euros per gigabyte, before caps. A 100-gigabyte download would correspond to 5.50 euros in tax, a two-hour 4K film at an assumed 14 gigabytes to about 0.77 euros. Whether providers pass such amounts on to customers would be their decision.

Why the talk about VLC and open source?

VideoLAN, the organisation behind VLC and x264, puts its possible burden at more than 1 million euros per year. A member of parliament disagreed, pointing to the caps. The dispute shows the blur of the proposal: it names the large platforms as its target but does not limit the circle of those liable to pay.

What did the earlier digital services tax achieve?

France introduced a tax on digital revenues of large corporations in 2019. According to the French finance ministry it raised 474 million euros in 2021, 621 million in 2022 and 680 million in 2023. It triggered a trade dispute with the United States; in parallel the OECD negotiated an international corporate minimum tax. The example shows: national digital taxes work legally, but their yields stay behind the theoretical arithmetic.

Sources: Amendment I-1358, Assemblée nationale (2027 budget bill) and official vote record of 30 October 2026 (both accessed 1 November 2026), VideoLAN on X, October 2026, DGFiP, statistical annual report 2023 (PDF, page 21), heise online, 31 October 2026, Apollo News, 31 October 2026.