Credits: AI-generated illustration (OpenAI / DALL·E).
At the Paris criminal court (criminal jurisdiction), on December 9, 2025, former host Vincent Cerutti appeared for acts classified as sexual assault (classification retained), following buttock biting denounced by Caroline Barel, now vice-president of MeTooMedia (association). Prosecutor request: six months suspended sentence and €10,000 fine. Between a schoolboy joke and an invasion of privacy, the hearing shifted the boundary of consent at work.
A Courtroom Under Tension
The correctional courtroom was packed on this December 9, 2025, when Vincent Cerutti, former morning voice of Chérie FM and former face of TF1, took his place before the judges of the Paris criminal court (Paris), the court that tries misdemeanors in France. The benches buzzed with a held murmur, eyes slid over the dark-suited man in his forties who stepped forward to answer for acts described as “sexual assault with violence, coercion, threat or surprise.” At his side, Antoine Vey defends a version in which everything amounted to harmless office fun. In the front row, Hapsatou Sy, present at the hearing, entrepreneur and TV personality, the defendant’s ex-partner, came to testify discreet support, despite a separation he revealed on the stand. Opposite, Caroline Barel, former receptionist, now vice-president of the association MeTooMedia, reiterated her shock, then the long decline that followed.
A rustle of robes, a throat cleared. In this chamber, everyone measures their words. Prosecutor’s request: suspended sentence and fine (six months imprisonment suspended and €10,000 fine), the presiding judge reminds. Pencils fall silent for a moment, then resume their course. The judgment will be handed down on February 4, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. Until then, the host remains presumed innocent.
The Alleged Acts and the Debate Over the Charge
At the heart of the case, two buttock bites were reported. The first, in November 2015, at the Paris offices of Chérie FM (morning show): according to Caroline Barel, Vincent Cerutti grabbed her, pinned her to the floor, hands behind her back, before biting her buttock, causing a bruise documented by a photograph attached to the file. Her screams allegedly drew a colleague. The second occurred in February 2016, during a group photo. At that time, positioned behind her, the host allegedly bit her again, more discreetly. The defendant acknowledges the bites, but disputes their sexual nature. He places these acts in a repertoire of office pranks, a “game” he says was mutual.
The whole issue at the hearing hinges on this shift: where the plaintiff describes non-consensual assaults in a hierarchical setting, the defense speaks of horseplay. The prosecutor, meanwhile, insists: the buttocks are an intimate area, and the act, when imposed, carries a sexual connotation. Hence the retained classification: sexual assault (classification retained), legally distinct from sexual aggression (indictment in 2023). Other media sometimes refer to it imprecisely. The court will decide, and this precision is not merely semantic: it defines the scope of the law and the gradation of penalties.
Testimony at the Stand: Shock, Shame and “Good-Natured Play”
At the stand, Caroline Barel speaks of a humiliation that became lodged. She mentions a work stoppage, psychological follow-up and treatment with antidepressants and anxiolytics. She also speaks of a depressive state and dark thoughts she says she experienced after the incidents. Her voice rises without pathos, but the words remain heavy. She places the episode in a “schoolboy” workplace atmosphere, where alcohol sometimes flowed, where the host liked to “make people laugh,” often at the expense of bodies.
Vincent Cerutti responds by linking these acts to editorial folklore, to the “roughhousing” of a team bonded by the early-morning show. He cites the slogan, “Every tight butt gets its due,” and claims a sense of humor. However, he denies any sexual intent and explains he never reproduced these acts in private. He insists they do not belong to his private life. He adds a career at a standstill, he says, since the publicity around the case: no more studios, no more air, a tarnished image.
A Newsroom Culture Called Into Question
Through the testimonies, a company culture emerges, described as “schoolboy” by several employees. Indeed, team spirit often blurred with physical familiarity. One witness, a former colleague, claims that “90% of the team” experienced these bites. Others describe the discomfort felt, the inappropriateness of such acts in a professional setting. The defense stresses that the plaintiff herself allegedly took part in bite games with colleagues. The plaintiff replies that the “everyone played along” argument does not erase the essential question: who consents, when, and to what?
In post-#MeToo French society, these scenes, once tolerated, face heightened vigilance. Consent has become a cardinal guide at work, in newsrooms as elsewhere. The hearing inadvertently recalled the hierarchy of offenses, underlining the importance of the power held by a media figure. Indeed, his influence on juniors is significant. The presiding judge reminds that a joke, to remain such, requires equal freedom among participants. The joke stops when it hurts.
A Long Procedure, With Successive Forks
The judicial path illustrates the slowness and thresholds of a sensitive file. December 2017: first complaint by Caroline Barel. June 2019: dismissal. May 2020: new complaint with civil party constitution, which opens a judicial investigation. In 2023, Vincent Cerutti is indicted for sexual aggression (indictment in 2023). He was then referred to the correctional court for sexual assault (classification retained). December 9, 2025: hearing in the heart of the Paris winter, full courtroom, witnesses and lawyers take turns. This timeline is not just a string of dates: it tells of the resilience of versions, the weight of words, the demand for proof.
Lines of Defense and the Strategy of Doubt
For Antoine Vey, the aim is to defuse the sexualization of the act. He argues clumsiness, casualness, team culture, and an absence of intent to harm. He denounces a “media lynching” and the polarization of public debate around sexual violence in audiovisual media. He also underlines a growing confusion between freedom of tone and criminally punishable transgression. The argument unfolds in two parts: minimize the impact of the bites, relativize the symbolic weight of the body part targeted.
The public prosecutor insists on the repetition of the acts, their target and their context: a colleague, in a workplace, outside any consensual game. The plaintiff’s counsel, represented by Samya Bouiche, narrates the psychic impact, the shock, the shame and the endangerment of an employee who felt she had no leverage. Beyond the specific case, the lawyer recalls the asymmetry between a star host and team members. She also stresses the difficulty for witnesses to name what they feel when the atmosphere “derails.”
A Separation Made Public On the Stand
In the course of personality questions, Vincent Cerutti confirmed he had separated from Hapsatou Sy about a year and a half ago. He was careful to stress the maintenance of good terms for the education of their children, Abbie and Isaac. He also emphasized that these acts have no place in his private life. The information, given solely in the hearing, functions here as contextual: it illuminates a period of life, but says nothing about the merits. The presiding judge refocuses. Questions resume, and the discussion returns to the law.
Consent, Culture and Responsibility
The hearing reminded that consent is not an unspoken ambient signal, but a clear expression. Moreover, it can be withdrawn at any time. A game ceases to be one if one person refuses. Furthermore, silence never meant agreement. Also, fear or hierarchy constrain. A professional setting requires particular vigilance, especially when one holds a visible or authoritative position.
In audiovisual media as elsewhere, fame does not exempt one from the common rule. MeTooMedia (association), of which Caroline Barel became vice-president, campaigns to ensure this reminder stops being experienced as prudish embarrassment and is understood as a safety norm. The association cites emerging prevention and training formats in newsrooms. Managements, for their part, are learning to document breaches, to listen without disqualifying, to act without excess.
The Weight of Words and the Time of Justice
At a time when networks compress everything into hashtags, the court, it expands. It reinscribes words into the law: “assault” is not “aggression,” “joke” is not “consent.” It recalibrates the workplace as a protected space. After the prosecutor’s request, looks meet, journalists take notes, lawyers recompose. The host reiterates that, for him, it was only an office joke unfortunately misunderstood. The plaintiff asks that the suffering endured stop being treated as a non-event.
On February 4, 2026, the verdict will say what, in law, separates ribaldry from assault, familiarity from constraint. Until then, the presumption of innocence applies, and caution in words is also required. It is the responsibility of anyone writing about these suspended lives.
This article reports on a public hearing and conflicting positions. Vincent Cerutti is presumed innocent until the judgment is pronounced in February 2026.