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

Online advertising which violates Articles L. 122-8 and L. 122-9 (former Articles L. 121-15-1 and L. 121-15-2) of the Consumer Code exposes the advertiser to a fine not exceeding EUR 3 000 for a natural persons and EUR 15 000 for legal persons (Consumer Code, Article L. 132-26, former Article L. 121-15-3, paragraph 2).
Like all advertising messages, online advertising is also subject to all French …

Sanctions

Online advertising which violates Articles L. 122-8 and L. 122-9 (former Articles L. 121-15-1 and L. 121-15-2) of the Consumer Code exposes the advertiser to a fine not exceeding EUR 3 000 for a natural persons and EUR 15 000 for legal persons (Consumer Code, Article L. 132-26, former Article L. 121-15-3, paragraph 2).

Like all advertising messages, online advertising is also subject to all French legislation governing advertising. Advertising via electronic means must therefore comply with:

- the provisions pertaining to use of the French language;

- the provisions relating to certain products or particular sectors, such as advertising of alcoholic drinks, tobacco products, or even for credit subscriptions;

- the provisions on unfair  or misleading  commercial practices and comparative advertising. 

Thus, when an electronic advertisement is not clearly identified as such, it can be qualified as a misleading commercial practice punishable under Article L. 132-2 (formerly L. 121-6, paragraph 1) of the Consumer Code by a two-year prison sentence and a fine of EUR 300 000.  

Online advertising can also constitute unfair competition .

Lastly, in the event of non-compliance with the anti-spamming regulations, and depending on whether or not the regulator of the electronic communications and postal sector (ARCEP) implements its power of sanction, the administrative authority in charge of competition and consumer affairs  imposes a maximum administrative fine of EUR 75,000 for natural persons and EUR 375 000 for legal persons (Article L. 34-5, paragraph 9, Post and Telecommunications Code). If the ARCEP intervenes and also imposes a fine, it must ensure that the total amount of fines against the same person does not exceed the highest maximum legal amount. 

Court of Cassation, 4 December 2012, LawLex201200002444JBJ: the absence of clear identification as an advertisement of a priority listing, by being likely to materially distort the economic behavior of consumers, constitutes an unfair and misleading commercial practice; CA Grenoble, 21 October 2010, LawLex201000001367JBJ, holding that by not clearly identifying its site as an advertising site, the advertiser's actions must be qualified as misleading within the meaning of the provisions of Article L. 121-1 of the Consumer Code and which constitutes an unfair commercial practice within the meaning of the provisions of Article L. 120-1 of the same code; CA Paris, 28 October 2011, LawLex201200000994JBJ: the practice of displaying the trade mark of a third-party company on the home page of one's internet site and using it in its search engine to directs users to commercial websites with no connection to that undertaking, constitutes a misleading advertisement, if it is such as to create a belief in the minds of users that they are on the website of a trading partner of that company and that they will be connected to the commercial sites of that company.

CA Paris, 28 October 2011, LawLex201200000994JBJ, see above; Court of Cassation, 29 November 2011, LawLex201100001905JBJ, holding that a court of appeal cannot qualify as unfair commercial practices the fact that a price comparison site fails to identify itself as an advertising site, to update prices in real time, to state the periods of validity of bids, to provide the delivery and/or removal costs, to provide the conditions of the warranty of the products, to state the main characteristics of the products or services offered, without reviewing whether such omissions are likely to likely to materially distort the economic behavior of the consumer.

On the use of another's trade mark and a search engine referencing keyword, see Cases C-236/08, C-238/08 Google France SARL v Vuitton, Judgment of 23 March 2010, LawLex201100000505JBJ, holding that "the proprietor of a trade mark is entitled to prohibit an advertiser from advertising, on the basis of a keyword identical with that trade mark which that advertiser has, without the consent of the proprietor, selected in connection with an internet referencing service, goods or services identical with those for which that mark is registered, in the case where that ad does not enable an average internet user, or enables that user only with difficulty, to ascertain whether the goods or services referred to therein originate from the proprietor of the trade mark or an undertaking economically connected to it or, on the contrary, originate from a third party". In other words, if the online advertisement allows users to distinguish the trade-marked products from infringing products, choosing a competing brand as a keyword is not unlawful. See also Court of Cassation, 25 September 2012, LawLex201200002044JBJ, having found that the use by advertisers of keywords corresponding to the trade marks, the company name and the trade name of the complainant company is not unlawful, where the ads, classified under the heading "commercial links" and appearing on a column clearly separate from that related to the natural results of the research conducted with those keywords on the Google search engine, with no implicit or explicit reference to the trade marks, are sufficiently precise for the average internet user to know that the products or services referred to were not products of the complainant company or any company economically linked to it but, on the contrary, those of a third party relative to the proprietor of the trade marks; CA Aix-en-provence, 3 April 2014, LawLex201400001118JBJ: in the absence of circumstances characterizing a risk of confusion between the internet sites of the two competing companies, canvassing the clientele of others through the purchase of a keyword consisting of the trade  mark or the company name of the third party is lawful where no an unfair act is committed; CA Paris, 15 May 2014, LawLex201400001995JBJ: the simple use of terms consisting of the domain name of a competitor as keywords in the context of an advertising referencing service is not unfair in the absence of any likelihood of confusion between the websites concerned.

This administrative sanction procedure, introduced by the Hamon Law, No 2014-344 of 17 March 2014, replaces the criminal offenses applicable previously and the penalties relating to those offenses have been repealed. In application of Article R. 465-2 of the Commercial Code, the administrative authority which may impose an administrative sanction is, depending on the case, the persons designated below or their representative designated by name: - the Director General of Competition, Consumer Affairs and the Repression of fraud; - the head of the national investigative service of the Directorate General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Repression of Fraud (DGCCRF); - the Regional Director of Companies, Competition, Consumer Affairs, Work and Employment), the Director of Companies, Competition, Consumer Affairs, Work and Employment (DIRECCTE - directions régionales des entreprises, de la concurrence, de la consommation, du travail et de l’emploi).

French Consumer Law

80. Sanctions

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

80. Sanctions

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