Since the judicial closure of coco.gg, orchestrated by the Paris prosecutor’s office, thousands of users are looking for where to continue anonymous discussions online without turning to risky platforms. The Digital Services Act (DSA) does not prohibit the use of a pseudonym, but it requires operators to have a system for reporting illegal content and a capacity to respond to judicial requests.
Comparing the available alternatives therefore involves examining what each service offers in terms of moderation, age verification, and data protection.
Legal anonymous chat: comparison of compliance criteria
The platforms that present themselves as successors to coco.gg do not tick the same regulatory boxes. The table below summarizes the verifiable parameters of the most cited services in French-speaking searches.
| Platform | Registration required | Active moderation | Age verification | Encryption of exchanges |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Signal (with pseudonym) | Number required, pseudonym possible | None (private messaging) | No | End-to-end encryption |
| Session | None (random identifier) | None (private messaging) | No | Onion routing |
| Bounty | No | Insufficiently reported by Arcom | Declaration on honor | No |
| Chaat.fr / ZonChat | No or minimal | Variable depending on the rooms | Declaration on honor | No |
The most discriminating column remains that of active and verifiable moderation. Encrypted messaging services like Signal or Session do not moderate content, but they also do not expose it publicly. Open chats, on the other hand, support a flow visible to all, which places them directly under the obligations of the DSA.
Searching for an alternative to coco.gg means arbitrating between two distinct models: encrypted private messaging or a public discussion room with moderation.
Moderation and Arcom compliance: what separates Bounty from encrypted messaging
Bounty has captured a visible share of traffic after the closure of coco.gg. Its operation without registration and without significant moderation reproduces the model that led to the judicial closure of its predecessor. Arcom has already reported the shortcomings of this platform.
The problem does not lie in anonymity itself. It is the capacity for moderation and judicial cooperation that determines compliance, not the absence of a visible real name. A platform can allow pseudonyms while respecting the legal framework, provided it has a functional reporting system and can transmit technical data to authorities upon request.
Signal and Session operate in a different register. They are not public chats but private messaging tools. Signal now allows communication via a username without revealing the phone number to the interlocutor. Session goes further: no number or email address required, a random identifier is generated, and messages pass through a network of nodes using onion routing.
Limits of private messaging for social chat
These tools do not meet the same need as public discussion rooms. They are suitable for targeted exchanges between people who have already identified each other, not for the random discovery of contacts. To regain the “open room” function of coco.gg, compliant options under the DSA remain limited in France.
Age verification on anonymous chats: the regulatory loophole
The majority of “no registration” alternatives rely on a declaration on honor to verify users’ ages. This mechanism does not provide a guarantee, especially on platforms where adult content circulates.
Services open to minors must integrate enhanced security guarantees, while platforms with adult content are pushed towards age verification mechanisms via a trusted third party. This third party can preserve the user’s anonymity from the platform while confirming their majority.
The criteria to check before using an anonymous chat:
- Does the service have an accessible reporting button on each exchange, in accordance with the DSA?
- Does age verification go through a technical mechanism (trusted third party, identity verification) or just a simple checkbox?
- Does the operator publish information about its moderation decisions, as required by European regulations?
- Is the service hosted in a jurisdiction where French judicial requests are enforceable?
None of the French open chat platforms currently offer age verification through a trusted third party. This point represents the main regulatory loophole of the self-proclaimed successors of coco.gg.
Anonymity and pseudonymity: what the DSA really allows
A common confusion is to associate online anonymity with illegality. The DSA does not prohibit pseudonymity among participants. It regulates the operator’s obligations, not the nominal behavior of the user.
In practical terms, a chat service can allow its users to never disclose their civil identity, provided that the operator itself is able to:
- Receive and process reports of illegal content within a reasonable timeframe
- Cooperate with judicial authorities by providing technical metadata (IP addresses, timestamps) upon request
- Publicly explain certain moderation decisions, particularly content removals
User anonymity and operator transparency are not contradictory. Platforms that claim to offer total anonymity, including from authorities, fall outside the European legal framework. In contrast, those that protect their users’ privacy while respecting reporting and judicial cooperation obligations remain compliant.
The distinction between pseudonymization and complete anonymization takes on great importance here. A pseudonym associated with a traceable IP address upon request constitutes pseudonymity, which remains legal. A system designed to make any identification technically impossible, even by the operator, raises more complex legal questions, particularly in France after the judicial precedents related to coco.gg.
The choice of an anonymous discussion platform relies less on the name of the service than on three verifiable data points: the presence of a reporting system compliant with the DSA, the type of age verification used, and the hosting jurisdiction. These three parameters determine whether the service will survive an Arcom review or follow the same path as coco.gg.
