**France Intensifies Legal Action Against Online Platform Founders**

**The French legal system is pioneering new laws to hold online platform owners accountable for criminal activity.**

Following the recent high-profile Pelicot rape trial, French authorities have turned their attention to Isaac Steidl, founder of the now-defunct chat platform Coco. This online space had become a hub for anonymous conversations that led to disturbing criminal activities, including the rape of Dominique Pelicot’s ex-wife. The platform was closed last June, but Steidl's impending legal troubles have since intensified, revealing the complexities of holding tech executives accountable under new French laws.

Last summer, the arrest of Pavel Durov, the founder of the messaging app Telegram, set a precedent that French law enforcement is eager to expand. Durov faced charges for allegedly failing to prevent illegal activities on his platform; now, Steidl is navigating similar scrutiny. The connection between Coco and a series of sexual assaults committed by Pelicot and a group of men underscores a growing concern over how such platforms can be abused without sufficient moderation.

The French legal system has enacted legislation aimed specifically at addressing accountability for online platform heads, challenging the traditional protections often afforded to technology executives. In this case, the legal framework allows prosecutors to impose personal liability on individuals leading online services, marking a significant shift in how the judiciary approaches cybercrime.

Steidl had reached out to legal experts seeking to position himself similarly to Durov, indicating an awareness of the potential legal ramifications of his platform’s operations. Legal experts and authorities are now contemplating the efficacy of using such public trials as a deterrent for other online platforms that could be exploited for criminal purposes.

As this case unfolds, it raises critical questions about the responsibilities of online platform creators and the balance between protecting free speech and preventing harm. The outcome of Steidl's case could set important legal precedents and clarify the boundaries of accountability in the digital age.