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

When a commercial practice casts doubt in the mind of the consumer, it can be misleading, mainly because the formula used may be understood in a different way or lead to confusion as to its meaning. Thus, is deemed ambiguous, and therefore misleading, an advertisement that announces “discounts on all traditional store prices”, suggesting that the discount applies to the average prices charged by a …

Ambiguity

Article L. 121-2 (former Article L. 121-1) of the Consumer Code considers as misleading commercial practices that are based on “allegations, indications or presentations” that are false or likely to mislead. A review of the case law allows to identify a number of allegations or indications which, when the advertiser cannot claim them, may result in prosecution.

The most blatant case of misleading commercial practice concerns the misuse of French controlled origin labels ("appellations d'origine contrôlée" (AOC)). In his menu, a restaurant owner cannot offer wines under an AOC they cannot claim ; a cheese without a rind cannot be labelled as “Emmenthal”  and poultry cannot be labelled as “Bresse poultry”, when it has another origin . An advertiser can still less claim an AOC which is simply non-existent . Reserved or regulated appellations and also standards (labels)  are subject to the same rules. A wine producer cannot affix the words “grand cru” on champagne labels, reserved by decree for wines frommunicipalities (communes) classified 100% in the “échelle des crus” percentile rating system, when only 95% of the advertiser's vines are located in these municiplities  or use the term “domaine” in the name of a wine, when it does not meet the requirements of the decree which reserves its use for wine with an appellation of origin and coming from an agricultural holding that actually exists . Marketing a cheese using the term “farmer's” although it does not have the regulatory characteristics  or using the term “porcini mushroom”, accurate in everyday language, but reserved by a text for a particular variety, also falls under the prohibition .  It is also misleading to use the term “bio” within a brand name for non-organic products that do not meet the requirements of Regulation No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products . Finally, the use of the term “caviar” for products which are not made from sturgeon eggs is a misleading commercial practice even though the website on which they are sold, at much lower prices to that of caviar, presents them under the heading “fish roe” and not “caviar” .

The use of unregulated terms may also pose a risk for advertisers. Indeed, the absence of regulations does not preclude the penalty if the terms chosen are likely to mislead the consumer. For example, the use of the term “mountain” on the label of cured meat products may mislead the consumer as to the origin of the raw materials used in its composition . Similarly, a farmer cannot use the term “farmhouse inn” if his establishment mainly uses products that do not come from his farm . Even in the absence of any specific regulations, a professional is guilty of a misleading commercial practice by using the term “émincé” which is understood to mean thinly-sliced cuts of meat, to designate a product composed of shredded meat, even if it is composed of various meats . In the absence of a legal framework, the judge takes into account the perception of the consumer  or industry practices, which is a useful analysis guide .

The choice of the trade name may represent a means of conveying misleading claims on the nature of the advertiser's activity. Thus the adoption of a trade name suggesting that: i) the advertiser is a wholesaler although it is only a small intermediary ; ii) that it can offer mortgage loans although, as it is not a banking institution, it can only intervene as an intermediary to seek financing ; iii) that it is a farmer, although it only has a trade and slaughter activity ; or eggs are produced in the region of Brittany when they are in fact imported , have been sanctioned.

Finally, even accurate information can be a source of criminal liability when manipulated in order to mislead the consumer. This is the case of the truthful claim that the bread sold in a bakery is baked in a wood-heated oven, when it evokes for the consumer a preparation using traditional methods, although the advertiser uses modern techniques , or that the product has obtained a certification where it only relates to the electrical safety and security of the equipment and not its therapeutic effectiveness  or concerning the place of production of an olive oil, highlighted in order to mislead the consumer as to the origin of its components . 

On the other hand, an advertisement cannot be declared misleading with regard to requirements that were neither recommended by the regulations applicable on the date of its publication nor part of the accepted practices existing at that time .

 CA Toulouse, 20 May 1998, LawLex200300001804JBJ; CA Rennes, 4 April 1996, LawLex200300002173JBJ; Cass. crim., 18 November 2003, LawLex200400000233JBJ, upholding CA Aix-en-Provence, 25 September 2002, LawLex200400000523JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 12 October 1999, LawLex200300003264JBJ, upholding CA Chambéry, 5 March 1998, LawLex200300003263JBJ and, in the same case, TGI Annecy, 2 May 1997, LawLex200300002169JBJ.

CA Paris, 17 January 2020, LawLex202000000071JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 25 September 2001, LawLex200300004454JBJ, upholding CA Dijon, 6 December 2000, LawLex200300004543JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 25 November 1998, LawLex200300003617JBJ, upholding CA Lyon, 1 October 1997, LawLex200300002181JBJ.

Cass. crim., 28 January 2020, LawLex202000000200JBJ.

 CA Paris, 26 June 1996, LawLex200300002210JBJ: when the average consumer knows that the products of a major brand are industrially produced, he cannot be misled on the scope of the term “farmer's”; Cass. crim., 4 November 2003, LawLex200300004467JBJ, upholding CA Aix-en-Provence, October 20, 2002, LawLex200300004104JBJ, finding, despite the fact that the decree establishing the reserved denomination of “foie gras” was declared unlawful by the Court of Justice, the misleading nature of the use of this term without being able to claim it, as the public perception should be taken into consideration and not the texts in force. But, considering that the allegation “of a new breed of hares” could mislead the specialized public to which the advertising was directed, see Cass. crim., 26 March 1992, LawLex200300003611JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 7 October 1998, LawLex200300003380JBJ, upholding CA Pau, 18 June 1997, LawLex200300002175JBJ: the term “moules de bouchot”, reserved for a type of superior-quality mussel by the interprofessional committee of shellfish, and whose widespread definition has become a commercial practice.

 Cass. crim., 14 November 1991, LawLex200300003803JBJ, upholding CA Rennes, 19 December 1990, LawLex200300001632JBJ.

 TGI Lille, 3 December 1999, LawLex200300001206JBJ.

  Cass. crim., 12 March 2002, LawLex200300003268JBJ.

  Cass. crim., 19 October 2004, LawLex200400002836JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 21 November 1989, LawLex200300003752JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 9 November 1992, LawLex200300003661JBJ.

 CA  Grenoble, 17 May 2000, LawLex200300004034JBJ, upholding TGI Valence, 23 March 1999, LawLex200300004236JBJ.

Cass. com., 20 November 2019, LawLex201900001446JBJ,

 CA  Paris, 9 May 2006, LawLex200700000196JBJ.

CA Amiens, 20 June 2024, LawLex202400004723JBJ: the consumer, who, in view of the “recognized guarantor of the environment”  (RGE) label on the invoice for the installation of windows, believed that he was contracting with an undertaking that had such a label entitling it to a tax credit, when that was not the case, and was therefore the victim of a misleading commercial practice.

 Cass. crim., 1 June 1999, LawLex200300003659JBJ, upholding CA Reims, 14 January 1998 LawLex200300001935JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 5 April 2005, LawLex200500005765JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 17 June 1998, LawLex200300003616JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 3 May 1990, LawLex200300003379JBJ.

Cass. com, 10 January 2024, LawLex202400000499JBJ, holding that a court of appeal cannot simply hold that fertilizing substances and cultivation aids, designated under the disputed trademark which uses the diminutive “bio”, do not fall within the scope of Regulation No 834/2007 on organic production and the labeling of organic products, since they are derived from animal faeces and blood, and cannot, by their very nature, be considered as organically produced within the meaning of the regulation, since, by the very fact of their exclusion from the scope of the regulation, fertilizing substances and cultivation aids cannot be presented as organically produced and therefore the use of the diminutive “bio” within a brand name referring to such products will mislead consumers as to the nature and quality of those products.

Allegations/Indications

Advertising discourse arises from slogans intended to produce the greatest possible impact in order to make an impression and stand out from competitors. Exaggeration in the field of advertising is treated with a certain benevolence by the courts, which consider that excessiveness does not mislead anyone. In this case, the advertisement is qualified as “emphatic” or “hyperbolic”.

For example, in a very famous case, the Court of Cassation approved the trial court for having exempted an advertiser whose television spot showed bulldozers playing football with a suitcase to demonstrate its strength. According to the Court of Cassation, “by interpreting Article 44 of the Law of 27 December 1973 (currently codified in Articles L. 121-2 and L. 121-3 of the Consumer Code) as not prohibiting “hyperbolic advertising” reflected in “parody” or “emphasis”, when it is established, by reference to “the perspective of the average consumer” and taking into account “the degree of discernment and critical thinking of the average consumer”, that the excessiveness or exaggeration of the advertising image “can ultimately mislead no one”, the judges justified their decision” . Regarding the formula “crise du logement, connais pas” (housing crisis? what housing crisis?), the Court of Cassation also overturned the judgment which had convicted the advertiser as the law does not prohibit emphatic advertising . Similarly, the expression “free purchase” used by a company carrying out the practice of “buy back” was not considered likely to mislead an informed consumer due to its emphatic nature . Also escaping the prohibition is advertising which promises weight loss without effort and dramatic results  or the assertions of documents relating to a lottery whose excessive nature allows the recipient to understand that he is not necessarily the winner of a valuable prize . The many qualities attributed to a newcomer on the market by the advertising offer are necessarily of a hyperbolic nature, when it is established that the consumer was perfectly aware of the offer of the competitor, the market leader . Finally, the use of superlatives such as “superior” , “exceptional prices” , “unbeatable prices” , “the best” , “the least expensive of the year”  does not constitute a misleading practice in itself, in the same way as the use of very general assertions .

However, hyperbole or emphasis in advertising have their limits in areas characterized by a certain technicality, or when they evoke a scientific or mathematical reality. Thus, according to the Paris Court of Appeal, there is no place for emphasis when the advertising is based on figures . An advertisement that suggests that cheeses are matured for three months in natural caves, although they are the subject of such treatment only for a fortnight, then stored in a cold room, is of a misleading nature, and not emphatic . The advertiser who claims to have carried out “the biggest test in Europe” must be able to justify the merits of its allegations . A radio cannot, under the guise of hyperbole, claim to be “No 1” when this statement does not relate to a high audience share, when based on figures, its advertising must meet the criteria of rigor and certainty inherent in any statement expressing a technically measurable truth . An internet service provider cannot extrapolate the results of tests carried out in two municipalities to suggest that it is the leading operator nationally . The advertiser who asserts the effectiveness of its product relying on scientific tests - which proved false - cannot seek shelter behind the hyperbolic nature of its advertising . The audience targeted also determines if there is emphasis or misleading advertising. The advertisement that presents a drug as “a godsend”, with “virtually miraculous” properties, although its effectiveness is not demonstrated, is misleading and not emphatic advertising, when it is aimed at a particularly vulnerable public .

Finally, Article L. 121-2 comes into its own when emphasis is used to support or reinforce false claims, by giving them a plausible nature . The invocation of the hyperbolic nature of advertising offering “all the fax machines in the world” and “the best fax machines in the world” is insufficient to justify the acquittal of the advertiser with regard to the unavailability of some models . Nevertheless, the advertiser who claims to have agencies throughout France, although there are none in two major regions, is not guilty of misleading advertising when its advertisement contains a list of its agencies in Metropolitan France, attenuating the hyperbolic nature of the assertion .  Similarly, the fact that there is significant and ongoing public debate on the respective merits of organic agriculture and other sectors of production puts into perspective the peremptory and emphatic statements disseminated by an organic product chain .

  Cass. crim., 21 May 1984, LawLex200300003863JBJ. See also, repeating the formula, CA Grenoble, 21 October 2010, LawLex201000001367JBJ.

  Cass. crim., 5 April 1990, LawLex200300003586JBJ.

 CA Paris, 22 October 2014, LawLex201400001177JBJ, even if 10 references out of 600 are more expensive than announced.

 CA Paris, 7 November 2014, LawLex201400001376JBJ: use of the terms "optimize", "boost", "solutions […] with high added value".

 CA Paris, 26 September 1991, LawLex200200001789JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 2 May 2001, LawLex200300003266JBJ.

 Cass. com., 25 April 2001, LawLex200200000479JBJ. See also CA Paris, 6 April 1998, LawLex200300000972JBJ, finding that the fact for an advertiser to qualify its products as indestructible does not constitute hyperbolic advertising exempting it from criminal liability, but misleading advertising, if it is unable to prove the veracity of this allegation.

 CA Paris, 25 April 2007, LawLex200700002002JBJ.

 CA Paris, 26 February 2013, LawLex201300000253JBJ.

 TGI  Paris, 11 December 1996, LawLex200300002218JBJ; CA Bordeaux, 12 January 1999, LawLex200400000011JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 5 February 1997, LawLex200300003392JBJ, upholding CA Paris, 20 November 1995, LawLex200300001698JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 15 October 1997, LawLex200300003614JBJ, upholding CA Aix-en-Provence, 20 September 1995, LawLex200300001695JBJ: the choice of superlative formulas to convince potential customers of the exceptional nature of the services is not in the nature of a parody, but rather demonstrates the intent to mislead the consumer; Cass. crim., 21 March 2006, LawLex200600001182JBJ, considering that an advertisement extolling the draining properties of food supplements composed of natural products is not of an emphatic nature allowing the advertiser to escape prosecution on the grounds of misleading advertising.

  CA Rennes, 21 January 1993, LawLex200300001646JBJ, upholding TGI Quimper, 28 July 1992, LawLex200300001642JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 7 April 1994, LawLex200300003464JBJ.

CA Paris, 15 December 1992, LawLex200300001605JBJ.

TGI Paris, 21 September 2016, LawLex201600001769JBJ.

 CA  Paris, 8 October 1997, LawLex200300003281JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 12 October 1999, LawLex200300002447JBJ, upholding CA Aix-en-Provence, 18 March 1998, LawLex200300003301JBJ.

 T. com. Paris, 9 January 2004, LawLex200400000174JBJ: the slogans "the channel of very first times on TV" and "the channel of major cinema and sport exclusives", even if contain the article "the" and not "a", do not appear likely to mislead consumers in relation to a channel which, notoriously, is not the leader.

 TGI Paris, 28 September 2005, LawLex200500009924JBJ.

 CA Aix-en-Provence, 6 February 2007, LawLex201200001282JBJ.

 TGI Paris, 27 January 2017,  LawLex201700000285JBJ, upheld by CA Paris, 5 July 2019, LawLex201900000909JBJ.

 CA Versailles, 11 February 2009, LawLex201200001377JBJ: advertiser claiming to be the "best price comparison site"; CA Grenoble, 21 October 2010, LawLex201000001367JBJ: mentions "at the best price", "in the best online stores" or "best offer of products and services online".

Emphasis

When a commercial practice casts doubt in the mind of the consumer, it can be misleading, mainly because the formula used may be understood in a different way or lead to confusion as to its meaning. Thus, is deemed ambiguous, and therefore misleading, an advertisement that announces “discounts on all traditional store prices”, suggesting that the discount applies to the average prices charged by all competitors, although this is not the case , the advertiser who announces a discount without specifying the reference price, thus creating ambiguity on the element to which the announced reduction applies  or which implies that the operation in question is a liquidation sale, although it is a stock clearance sale . The advertisement which combines the terms “included” to designate the services covered by the price offered and the term “access” for those which involve the payment of a supplement  or the advertisement which qualifies a radio station as “No 1 for sport” when consumers and advertisers are led to interpret this claim in terms of audience shares, although it refers to the air time devoted to sport , are also misleading. An advertiser also cannot use a name leading to confusion with a protected title  or distribute edited, inaccurate, vague and ambiguous forms likely to create confusion as to their origin or the nature of the service proposed . Finally, the ambiguous nature of an advertisement as to the status of individual or professional of the subscriber of the policy offered and the type of insurance policy necessary for the exercise of the proposed activity makes it a misleading commercial practice .

Conversely, the ambiguity created sometimes allows the advertiser to be exempted from liability. This is the case when there is a contradiction in the terms of the message, which draws the consumer's attention to the need to question its real meaning. This includes, for example, the words “alcohol-free wine”  or advertising aimed at a professional public which associates the mention of an ISO certification with a sales pitch which contradicts it . The expression “turnkey”, which evokes the idea of a package deal, also cannot be condemned, even if the service provider charges additional costs, when the existence of these costs is clearly mentioned . Likewise, the posting of prices on the internet which are inaccurate on the date of consultation but are preceded by the words “scale for 2007” does not mislead consumers as their attention is drawn to the potential obsolescence of the information . However, the contradictory statement must be sufficiently marked to rule out any deception. Despite warnings to the “potential winner”, the documents accompanying a sweepstake are misleading when the message is directed at a named consumer . Similarly, the use of the term “accreditation” to advertise a private educational institution, which has in fact only received a simple authorization to open, is a source of error when the clarification that it is an independent private institution is insufficient to dispel the impression created . The visual confusion between foie gras and reconstituted foie gras in an advertising catalogue is also not dispelled by the use of the terms “50% pieces”, difficult to decipher for the consumer, or by the barely legible mention that it is reconstituted foie gras .

Sometimes, the ambiguity created is insufficient to convict the advertiser taking into account the degree of discernment of the consumer to whom the message is directed. For example, the fact that some of the nutritional information on the packaging of a product is expressed as a percentage per 100g of product, while other information is given per portion, does not make the first misleading to the average consumer . The offense is also not committed when the conditional mentions of a game enable the average consumer, normally attentive and intelligent, to understand that he is not necessarily the winner of a prize . Similarly, an advertisement which refers to the inaccessibility of mailboxes in residential buildings cannot, according to the court, be understood by its recipients, informed professionals, as meaning that the advertiser is the only distributor of advertising leaflets that can gain access to premises . Finally, the use of ambiguous wording such as “anti-redness”, concerning an industrial wax, cannot distort the economic behavior of the average consumer due to its lack of reliability . 

 Cass. crim., 30 November 2004, LawLex200500004071JBJ, upholding CA Versailles, 6 May 2004, LawLex200500004940JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 15 December 1993, LawLex200300003590JBJ: in this case, the advertisement announced "special price - discount X 25% - 998 francs": the offer could be understood as concerning an unknown reference price or as applying to a price announced in the advertisement.

 CA Paris, 2 December 1993, LawLex200400001572JBJ.

 CA Paris, 17 January 2017, LawLex201700000131JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 26 June 2001, LawLex200300004446JBJ, upholding CA Besançon, 23 November 2000, LawLex200400004628JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 6 February 2001, LawLex200300004457JBJ, upholding CA Lyon, 17 May 2000, LawLex200300004545JBJ.

 CA Paris, 26 November 2008, LawLex200900000936JBJ.

 CA Paris, 26 November 2010, LawLex201200001172JBJ.

 CA Rouen, 3 April 1996, LawLex200300002171JBJ.

 CA Versailles, 29 March 2001, LawLex200200000653JBJ.

 CA Paris, 19 February 2016, LawLex201600000374JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 2 December 2014, LawLex201400001489JBJ.

 CA Paris, 31 January 2012, LawLex201200001333JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 18 October 1995, LawLex200300003398JBJ: possible confusion between the qualification "master roaster" and the title of master craftsman. Sanctioning the same risk of confusion by use of the term "master pyrotechnist", see CA Lyon, 4 April 1997, LawLex200200001274JBJ.

Cass. crim., 3 May 2017, LawLex201700000840JBJ.

 CA Paris, 7 December 2015, LawLex201600000324JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 10 May 1993, LawLex200300003612JBJ, upholding CA Montpellier, 24 June 1992, LawLex200300001601JBJ.

 TGI  Paris, 19 May 2005, LawLex200500010357JBJ.

Under Article L. 121-2 of the Commercial Code, “a commercial practice is misleading […] when it is based on […] presentations that are false or likely to mislead”. Operators frequently use presentation devices to conceal the restrictions shown on the advertisement or cause confusion in the consumer's mind.

1)  Lack of visibility and accessibility of restrictions

The advertiser may be tempted to use the technique of disproportionate characters for the attractive and restrictive mentions of its advertisement and/or insert a barely visible reference to the restrictive mentions, in particular by the use of asterisks.

Disproportionality of characters does not in itself constitute a misleading commercial practice: it is for the trial courts to assess the readability of the message . The courts take into account the visual difference between the size of the restriction mentions and that of the attractive mention. A difference of 25% between the size of fonts used justifies a sanction . Whatever the advertising medium, display on the public highway or roadside, press , advertising leaflets , product labels , the price reduction announcement that directs all the consumer's attention to the biggest discount by using very large type, while the lower discounts are indicated in much smaller letters, making their reading difficult and awkward, characterizes a misleading commercial practice . The same applies to the attractive mentions of an advertisement displayed on the roadside, tempered by mentions in type that is illegible for motorists  or those placed on the packaging of the product in a font size that is barely legible, vertically and not horizontally, as advocated by the ARPP . It has also been held  that the insertion of a scrolling text banner in a television commercial stating “for your health eat at least five fruits or vegetables a day” which is barely hardly legible to the average viewer, was not sufficient to dispel the misleading impression caused by the main advertising message .

The referral by asterisk to restrictions in small print is, in the same way, likely to mislead the consumer . Although the asterisk draws his attention to the existence of restrictions, the advertiser can be convicted if the clarification provided is not sufficiently clear . This is the case when explanations provided in the reference to the introductory pages of a catalogue are drowned by other advertisements which distract the reader by diluting the information . However, recent case law seems to favor a less stringent position. For example, the Court of Reims considers that the use of an asterisk referring to sales conditions written in small print is not misleading, when it is a common communication technique, lawful and known to the consumer with an average capacity of understanding . The ARPP adopted a “Mentions and references” recommendation in which it advocates a number of best practices relating to the readability and comprehensibility of references .

Finally, restrictions to the offer may not be physically accessible, as they are inserted in the product packaging. As they are only visible once the product has been purchased, they confer a misleading nature on the practice .

A commercial practice may be misleading because of the very appearance of the message. Such is the case when the trader creates a visual confusion between its promotional products and official documents - invoice issued by the INPI  or France Télécom , trade register  - or uses the same graphics for the prices of products assigned to an allegedly promotional offer and those of products not included in the promotion . The advertiser must also be careful not to obscure the existence of check boxes so as not to be committed  or, conversely, to pre-check all the boxes so as to automatically commit the consumer . Visual confusion can still be sought through the use of concordance lists which place its products on the same level as those of major brands . Finally, confusion may arise from the physical arrangement of products on shelves or their classification in a catalogue. For example, the commercial practice is misleading when a trader places a table wine on the shelves reserved for high-quality wines , places meat of a category in refrigerated display cases containing meat of other categories  or puts food supplements alongside medicines . The same applies when bottles of sparkling wine are classified in the page of a catalogue devoted to champagnes . However, the fact that non-discounted products are placed alongside discounted products is not a source of confusion when the first are not accompanied by the double labeling reserved for the latter .

 Cass. crim., 28 October 1992, LawLex200300003861JBJ, upholding CA Douai, 7 February 1990, LawLex200300001595JBJ; Cass. crim., 3 September 2002, LawLex200300003759JBJ: a label on a bottle of wine, mentioning in sufficiently legible characters that it is "flavored wine", cannot create any confusion with Port wine, as a normally attentive consumer cannot fail to be aware of this mention. See also CA Paris, 16 May 2008, LawLex201200001318JBJ; CA Douai, 5 February 2010, LawLex201200001180JBJ; CA Paris, 22 October 2014, LawLex201400001177JBJ: subordinating the benefits announced by an advertisement to the possession of a loyalty card and limiting the operation to certain stores is not of a nature to mislead the consumer, as he is informed by a legible mention on all the leaflets distributed, which explain the procedure to follow and the restrictive conditions.

 Cass. crim., 13 May 2003, LawLex200300004188JBJ, upholding CA Paris, 21 May 2002, LawLex200300004181JBJ: advertisement announcing the sale of computers at an exceptional price, while non-apparently, it is specified that the offer only applies if an additional Internet subscription is purchased.

 TGI Paris, 11 December 1996, LawLex200300002220JBJ; CA Paris, 24 September 2003, LawLex200400000426JBJ: sanctioning the barely understandable nature of the details provided, when a confusion was created on the conditions of the offer by the presence of many other asterisks relating to the payment terms.

 TGI Créteil, 11 June 2010, LawLex201000001098JBJ.

  CA Reims, 13 November 2012, LawLex201200002364JBJ; see also, CA Paris, 26 February 2013, LawLex201300000253JBJ.

 Thus, mentions and references in advertisements should be placed horizontally, in a sufficient size, in a font allowing easy reading, without, however, this font being uniform in the entire advertisement, in a color that contrasts with that used for the background of the advertisement, with characters that are normally spaced. The ARPP also recommends, when a sign is used as a reference, such as an asterisk, that its size, presented alongside the pitch and/or claim, is sufficiently large to still be readable in normal reading conditions.

  Cass. com., 22 May 2002, LawLex200300001309JBJ, upholding CA Paris, 12 November 1999, LawLex200300001291JBJ: conditions for the exchange offer inside the software packaging; CA Paris, 5 February 2015, LawLex201500000144JBJ: specifying in the instructions for use of a fryer that it is necessary to add oil to cook fresh fries does not restrict the slogan "the tastiest fries without oil", when this mention is only accessible to consumers once the product has been purchased and unpacked.

 TGI Paris, 18 October 2000, LawLex200300002379JBJ.

  Cass. crim., 23 March 1994, LawLex200300003579JBJ, upholding CA Lyon, 18 November 1992, LawLex200300001619JBJ.

  CA Paris, 5 March 2015, LawLex201500000302JBJ.

 TGI  Créteil, 11 June 2010, LawLex201000001098JBJ.

  Cass. crim., 14 February 1996, LawLex200300003397JBJ, upholding CA Paris, 7 December 1994, LawLex200300001679JBJ.

 CA Rouen, 24 February 1994, LawLex200300001653JBJ; Cass. crim., 30 March 1994, LawLex200300003791JBJ, upholding CA Pau, 27 April 1993, LawLex200300001621JBJ; TGI Nanterre, 16 September 1998, LawLex200300001965JBJ: an advertising campaign in two magazines offering the provision of funds within 24 hours with a restrictive text printed in type so small that it is practically illegible submitting the payment to the acceptance of the application by the credit institution; Cass. crim., 2 May 2001, LawLex200300004448JBJ: telephone service presented as free, although information in barely legible type specifies that the cost of the audiotel communication is charged to the consumer.

 CA Paris, 29 May 2007, LawLex201200001303JBJ.

  For perfumes: Cass. crim., 4 November 2003, LawLex200400000330JBJ; CA Aix-en-Provence, 23 February 1994, LawLex200300001652JBJ.

 CA Rennes, 5 September 1996, LawLex200300002212JBJ.

CA Douai, 17 November 2009, LawLex201200001288JBJ.

 CA Paris, 22 May 2006, LawLex200600002526JBJ.

 CA  Paris, 17 January 2001, LawLex200300001260JBJ.

  CA Paris, 5 November 1999, LawLex200300003270JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 17 September 2002, LawLex200300001028JBJ, upholding CA Rennes, 21 June 2001, LawLex200400000149JBJ: advertisements mentioning a discount of one month's wages are, by the disproportion between this enticing advertisement printed in very large type and obscure information in very small type, likely to mislead the consumer; Cass. crim., 31 October  2006, LawLex200600002348JBJ, approving CA Pau, 5 April 2004, LawLex200600002560JBJ: the disproportion between enticing mentions in an advertising leaflet, suggesting that a reduction will be given on all items in a store, and the restrictive mentions, marked by an asterisk, according to which the discounts are applied only to a selection of items, is likely to mislead.

 Cass. crim., 23 March 2004, LawLex200400000808JBJ, upholding CA Lyon, 26 March 2003, LawLex200400001082JBJ: a manufacturer of cured meat products commits the offense of misleading advertising by using labels marked "truffled" although its products only contain truffle chippings or peelings and are partly composed of black mushrooms, regardless of whether the list of ingredients, written in very small characters, provides the full details.

 CA Amiens, 30 September 2009, LawLex201200001319JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 27 November 1990, LawLex200300003451JBJ, upholding CA Orléans, 5 March 1990, LawLex200300001611JBJ; CA Angers, 2 February 1993, LawLex200300001647JBJ; Cass. crim., 12 October 1994, LawLex200300003390JBJ, upholding CA Versailles, 8 July  1993, LawLex200300001607JBJ: use of very small letters and colors making the restrictions illegible for motorists.

 CA Versailles, 17 May 2016, LawLex201600001005JBJ; CA Paris, 6 February 2019, LawLex201900000193JBJ.

CA Paris, 6 February 2019, LawLex201900000193JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 20 December 1988, LawLex200300003780JBJ; 12 October 1994, LawLex200300003390JBJ; 14 September 1999, LawLex200300002446JBJ; 15 December 2009, LawLex201200000741JBJ, upholding CA Paris, 23 March 2009, LawLex201200001310JBJ.

French Consumer Law

139. Ambiguity

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

139. Ambiguity

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