French Consumer Law is a comprehensive and comparative overview of French and EU law in this field, covering: advertising, unfair commercial practices, conditions for the validity of contracts, unfair terms, product conformity, latent defects, product safety.

French Consumer Law

New Title II of Book V of the Consumer Code deals with measures taken after controls are carried out. The first three chapters - which concern measures likely to be taken by the administration, the implementation of the administrative sanctions procedure, and settlements - relate to the application of provisions prior to the setting in motion of public action while the following chapters deal with …

Post investigation measures

New Title II of Book V of the Consumer Code deals with measures taken after controls are carried out. The first three chapters - which concern measures likely to be taken by the administration, the implementation of the administrative sanctions procedure, and settlements - relate to the application of provisions prior to the setting in motion of public action while the following chapters deal with referrals to the civil or administrative courts and proceedings before the courts.

The injunction to bring into conformity laid down in Articles L. 521-1 et seq. figures in the first line of measures available to the authorities. Under the terms of this provision, if the authorized agents find a breach or an infringement of Book V, they may, subject to the respect of the adversarial principle, order a trader to comply with its obligations within a reasonable time-period. Under the same conditions, they can enjoin a trader to cease any unlawful conduct or to remove any illegal or prohibited contract clause ; the injunction can be made public at the trader's expense (Article L. 521-2). The code then goes on to distinguish between enforcement measures applicable to establishments and products (Article L. 521-5 to L. 521-18) and those specific to services (Article L. 521-19 to L. 521-26).

In addition, Article L. 521-3, as amended by the Law on purchasing power , also provides that when the authorized officials observe a breach of Articles L. 511-5, L. 511-6 and L. 511-7, as well as of the rules relating to the conformity and safety of products from an online interface, and the perpetrator of the practice cannot be identified or has not complied with an injunction issued in application of Article L. 521-1, the administrative authority in charge of competition and consumer affairs may, by way of ordinance, order the operators of online platforms or those operating software allowing access to an online interface to warn consumers of the risk of harm incurred when they access the manifestly illicit content. In addition, if the infringement found is punishable by a sentence of at least two years' imprisonment and of such a nature as to seriously undermine the fairness of transactions or the interests of consumers, it may be ordered: 

a) for platform operators: after notification of the electronic addresses of the online interfaces whose contents are clearly illicit, to take any useful measure intended to ensure that they are no longer referenced;

b) for internet access providers: to take all appropriate measures to limit access to the interfaces in question;

b) for domain registrars: to block the domain name concerned, initially for a maximum period of three months, renewable once, followed, if the infringement persists, by deletion or transfer of the domain name to the competent authority.

2) Procedure for administrative sanctions

The procedure for administrative sanctions which was previously dealt with under the regulatory part of the Code (Art. R. 141-1 et seq.) can now be found in the legislative part in Articles L. 522-1 et seq. Article L. 522-1 confers to the administrative authority responsible for competition and consumer affairs the power to hand down administrative fines to punish breaches in the areas of provision of pre-contractual information, commercial practices, contracts and credit referred to in Articles L. 511-5, L. 511-6 and L. 511-7, as well as the failure to comply with injunctions issued in relation to those breaches . Article R. 521-1 assigns jurisdiction to the head of the national investigative service of the Directorate General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Repression of Fraud, to the Regional Director of companies, competition, consumer affairs, of labor and of the employment or to the Director of the departmental directorate responsible for the protection of populations, subject to delegation to category A officials placed under their authority. Actions by the public authorities for the sanction of a breach subject to an administrative fine exceeding EUR 3 000 for a natural person or EUR 15 000 for a legal entity are time-barred three years from the date of the commission of the offense if, within that period, no action has been taken to investigate, ascertain or sanction the breach . If the fine incurred is below that threshold, the limitation period is one year . Before any decision, the person in question is informed in writing of the sanction incurred and the possibility of being assisted by counsel and presenting its observations within a time-limit fixed by decree. Once this period has expired, the fine is imposed by reasoned decision . Where a number of sanctions are handed down, they are executed consecutively although they cannot exceed the legal maximum limit of the highest one of them .

The procedure for settlements is governed by Articles L. 523-1 to L. 523-4 (formerly L. 141-2) and R. 523-1 to R. 523-4 (formerly R. 141-3) of the Consumer Code . Before any public action is engaged, the public authorities  may propose a settlement for those guilty of a minor offense ("contravention") provided for in Books I, II, III and IV or any misdemeanor ("délit") not punishable by a term of imprisonment provided for in Books I, II and III, and for the infringements provided for in Articles L. 121-2 to L. 121-4. To that end, it must transfer the settlement offer to the Public Prosecutor within a period of three months from the closing of the minutes ascertaining the offense . The document specifies the amount that the perpetrator of the offense will be asked to pay to the Public Treasury, the payment deadline and, if applicable, any other obligations that may arise from the acceptance of the settlement . If the Public Prosecutor consents, the public authorities send two copies of the settlement offer to the perpetrator of the offense. This notification must inform the recipient that if he does not pay within the time-limit, or does not meet the other obligations by which it may be bound, the Public Prosecutor may decide, unless new factors come to light, to initiate proceedings against that party. The perpetrator has one month, from the date of the notification, to respond. If the settlement is accepted, the perpetrator sends a signed copy of the proposal to the administrative authority and the Public Prosecutor is informed in case of express or implied refusal or default of payment . Once the obligations resulting from the settlement are carried out, all public action is extinguished.

CA Paris, 12 October 2018, LawLex201800001505JBJ, holding that the departmental director for the protection of populations may ask the court to declare unwritten terms in contracts proposed to consumers by an internet service provider (ISP); CAA Bordeaux, 23 August 2016, LawLex201600001404JBJ: where there are unfair terms in a lease agreement, the Director of Business, Competition, Consumer Affairs, Labor and Employment may instruct the lessor to withdraw the relevant stipulations from any new standard form lease agreement and to refrain from enforcing against existing tenants. Cf. CA Paris, 14 September 2016, LawLex201600001507JBJ, stating that the Administration is not competent to request the deletion of clauses proposed not to consumers, but to a syndicate of co-owners, a legal person that cannot claim the status of consumer.

Law No 2022-1158 of 16 August 2022 on urgent measures to protect purchasing power, OJ 189 of 17 August 2022.

In June 2019, the DGCCRF announced that it had settled in a case concerning a misleading commercial practices with an insurer and imposed an additional obligation on the insurer to compensate consumers who had made a claim in connection with the proceedings. According to press reports, the settlement amounted to the record sum of EUR 10 million.

According to the Constitutional Council, Articles L. 132-2 and L. 522-1 of the Consumer Code do not give rise to the complaint of cumulation of proceedings (criminal and administrative), since the second provision does not impose sanctions but only designates the authority competent to impose them, see Cons. Constit. decision No 2019-790 QPC, LawLex201900000799JBJ.

The settlement procedure arises from the Chatel Law of 3 January 2008 for the development of competition to the benefit of consumers, OJ of 4 January 2008, 258. 

The competent administrative authority is the head of the national investigative service of the Directorate General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Repression of Fraud, the Regional Director of companies, competition, consumer affairs, labor and employment or the Director of the departmental directorate responsible for the protection of populations, which may delegate signatures to category A officials placed under their authority (Consumer Code, Article R. 523-1)

French Consumer Law

19. Post investigation measures

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

19. Post investigation measures

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise