On October 30, 2026, France’s National Assembly adopted amendment I-1358 by 11 votes to 10, with 14 abstentions and 35 deputies voting, according to the Assembly’s official record. The vote adopted an amendment to the 2027 budget bill; it did not itself put the proposed per-gigabyte levy into effect.
The reported proposal would charge content providers €0.055 for each gigabyte delivered to users in France. It would not directly bill internet users, though providers could choose to pass costs along.
How the proposed levy would work
Dealroom reported that internet service providers would measure traffic quarterly by content provider and content delivery network, with oversight from Arcep, France’s telecom regulator, and the tax administration. Its account also described proposed limits of 15% of a provider’s French revenue or 2% of its global revenue.
The proposal names Google, Meta, Amazon, Netflix and Akamai. Dealroom also said gaming stores, cloud storage, software updates and AI model hosts such as Hugging Face could fall within its potential scope. Those examples matter because the proposal is not limited to video streaming, but they do not establish that any particular company would owe the levy.
What the revenue estimates mean
Dealroom cited an Arcep estimate of about 200 billion gigabytes of annual traffic to French internet service providers. Applying the reported rate to that full volume gives €11 billion: 200 billion GB × €0.055 per GB. That is simple arithmetic before the reported caps and any adjustments to the taxable volume, not a forecast of revenue collected.
The amendment’s authors estimated annual revenue of about €10 billion, while public accounts minister David Amiel reportedly estimated about €5 billion. Both are attributed estimates, not receipts. The difference between them and the €11 billion calculation reflects why multiplying a headline rate by total traffic does not by itself establish the amount a tax would collect.
Data records and the question of smaller providers
Heise online reported that the proposal’s sponsors described the planned collection as anonymized traffic-volume measurement, without examining content or subscribers’ personal information. The report also said the format of records kept for tax purposes was not specified.
The same report said VideoLAN feared a potential bill exceeding €1 million a year. A Socialist politician disputed that VideoLAN would be affected, and the report did not explain VideoLAN’s calculation. The exchange illustrates the practical stakes of determining which providers and business models fall within the proposal, without settling VideoLAN’s liability.
The budget route described on November 1
In a November 1, 2026 account, heise online said further budget proceedings and Senate consideration remained part of the legislative path. It also described Article 49.3 as a possible route for the government to advance the budget without a vote and leave the amendment out. That was a reported possibility, not an action the account said had occurred.
