Download tax: 5.5 euro cents per GB, but who would pay?

On Friday 30 October 2026, France's National Assembly adopted amendment I-1358 by Laurent Lhardit, an MP from the Socialistes et apparentés group, during the first reading of the 2027 Finance Bill. The official voting record shows 35 participants: 11 votes in favour, 10 against and 14 abstentions.

The government and the budget's general rapporteur opposed it. This adoption concerns an amendment, not a Finance Act that has been definitively passed and promulgated. As of 1 November 2026, this tax is therefore not in force. The parliamentary dossier still places the budget at its first reading in the National Assembly.

The adopted text identifies content providers as liable for the tax. Internet service providers would help measure the volumes, under the supervision of Arcep and the tax authorities.

Individuals would not be directly liable. The formula targets a volume of data, not just purchases: downloads, online video and updates could fall within the mechanism. Steam and console stores illustrate the services potentially affected; the text does not name them specifically.

The multiplication circulating on social media is correct. For a game such as the highly anticipated GTA VI, which might be 200 GB: 200 × 0.055 = €11. But it expresses a theoretical gross amount payable by the sender. It does not establish that a game's price would automatically rise by €11. Here are some purely arithmetic examples:

These amounts are neither a tariff charged to players nor a commercial announcement by Steam, Sony or Microsoft. The final calculation would depend, among other things, on the cap applicable to the company.

Another pitfall: the space occupied on an SSD is not necessarily the amount downloaded. Valve explains in its SteamPipe documentation that data is split into chunks, compressed and encrypted for distribution. Updates may also transfer only part of the files. A game occupying 200 GB when installed therefore does not, on its own, establish 200 GB of traffic.

The viral image linking GTA VI to a 200 GB download remains an illustration: it is not enough to establish the actual download size. The volumes in the table are deliberately independent of any specific game.

For streaming, Netflix states that consumption can reach 7 GB per hour in 4K. Two hours at that maximum would amount to 14 GB, or €0.77 at the proposed rate, again before caps.

The wording provides for 15% of French revenue or 2% of total revenue. It does not clearly explain how these two reference points interact.

These percentages apply to revenue, not profit. The explanatory statement justifies them by referring to activities that transmit large amounts of data per euro of revenue, particularly video games and video on demand.

The planned data collection would be aggregated and anonymised. Operators would report the sending company's identity, its IANA identifier and the volumes, without recording the content or destination. For content delivery networks, or CDNs, the text uses outbound traffic.

The regulator (Arcep) describes a significant difficulty: infrastructure may be shared by several services, while hosting providers and CDNs carry data for third parties. Its statistics therefore do not always allow a traffic flow to be attributed directly to the publisher of the content accessed.

In its 2026 barometer, covering the end of 2025, Akamai, Netflix, Amazon, Google and Meta together account for 48.9% of traffic to end users within the scope studied. But Akamai notably distributes its customers' content. A share of traffic measured at network level does not automatically equal a share of the future tax. Attributing tax liability and verifying volumes would remain decisive aspects of implementation.

In the record of the sitting, Laurent Lhardit argues for an estimated yield of €10 billion and a contribution borne mainly by major international companies. He presents the measure as a way to rebalance their tax contribution relative to businesses based in France. This figure remains the estimate of the amendment's proponent.

Philippe Juvin, the general rapporteur, points to the risk of costs being passed on to advertisers. David Amiel, Minister for Public Action and Accounts, challenges the implementation and estimates that half the burden could fall on smaller providers, particularly French ones. He thus cites €5 billion for those businesses.

Laurent Lhardit replies during the sitting that the cost would be limited for French platforms, citing his own estimate for TF1. The speakers therefore differ on how the levy would be distributed and what effects it would have; their assessments are not definitively established amounts.

Concern extends beyond video games. Frandroid reports that VideoLAN, the association behind VLC, cites more than €1 million per year. Laurent Lhardit counters by pointing to the cap and says the tax would not apply to it. The association disputes that response. The text provides no explicit exemption for free software or associations; this nevertheless does not confirm the amount announced by VideoLAN, which would also depend on the tax base and the caps.

In the cloud sector, Clubic reports on Octave Klaba's analysis in which the OVHcloud founder estimates his company's gross burden at around €70 million per year, before any effect of the caps. This figure is a simulation by the executive, not a final tax assessment. Xavier Niel also publicly criticised the measure on 31 October.

As noted by Frandroid, companies could absorb the cost, change their prices or try to reduce the volumes transmitted. Costs could be passed on, but this is neither mandatory nor quantifiable today. The tax rate alone is not enough to predict a rise in the price of games, video subscriptions or cloud services.

Technical optimisation must also be distinguished from a drop in quality. Valve already documents compression and smaller update downloads; a tax would not create those practices. A deterioration in service would be a possible choice by companies, not a requirement imposed by the amendment. The explanatory statement cites an environmental benefit from reducing volumes; this is a stated objective, not an environmental gain demonstrated by the vote.

The vote on 30 October does not conclude the budget process. Consideration of the first part of the Finance Bill, followed by the rest of the parliamentary procedure, could still change or remove this provision. For it to take effect, it would have to be included in a promulgated law; the technical measurement process would also require the details promised by decree.

For now, downloading a game or watching a video therefore triggers no payment under this new tax. The point to watch is whether it remains in the final budget text.