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

The consumer must not be misled as to the scope of the professional's commitments. Since the adoption of the Climate Law of 22 August 2021, the scope of the advertiser's environmental commitments is directly covered by the provisions of Article L. 121-2. 
In practice, such a deception may result when the promotional message is accompanied by restrictions that affect the very existence or scope of  …

Existence of restrictions

The consumer must not be misled as to the scope of the professional's commitments. Since the adoption of the Climate Law of 22 August 2021, the scope of the advertiser's environmental commitments is directly covered by the provisions of Article L. 121-2. 

In practice, such a deception may result when the promotional message is accompanied by restrictions that affect the very existence or scope of the offer. The conditions that may call into question the reality of the offer are varied: the advertiser offers a free product although its delivery is subject to a concomitant purchase  or to a multitude of conditions making the offer random ; the offer is presented as unconditional although it is left to the sole discretion of the advertiser . However, an advertisement for a loan offer was not deemed misleading as it clearly showed that it was subject to the bank's consent, and not only the application submitted by the customer .

The concealment of restrictions that affect the scope of the offer is sanctioned. This is the case when an access provider offers unlimited access to the internet although it has set up a system for disconnecting users every thirty minutes  or when telephone operators advertise a long communication time although they set up tariff bands which lead to surcharges ; when an antenna vendor leads consumers to believe that its system will allow them to receive a large number of television channels, free of charge and with no time limit, although some of them, encrypted or included in satellite packages, are only free for a year ; when a website advertises a sale on hundreds of items, although the offer only relates to a single reference available in several hundred units , or asserts that a robot searches for the best prices in the databases of all merchant sites, although the search is actually limited to sites referenced against payment . Similarly, a health insurance company cannot suggest that it is competent throughout the national territory when it is approved only at regional level  and an insurer cannot create confusion on the scope of the guarantees offered by its policy .

The concealment of conditions which cancel the effect of the offer or limit its scope may result in presentation artifices which make it difficult to consult. This is the case when restrictions to the message are only mentioned inside the packaging of the product . Although well-established case law exempts the advertiser from liability when it indicates the existence of conditions which the consumer is invited to read in separate documents or media , it has nevertheless been held that the mention “see conditions inside the box” is not sufficient to dispel the misleading nature of a “satisfied or exchanged” offer as although it provides information on the existence of conditions, it does not make it possible to know the exact content before the act of purchase . This is also the case for semantic and grammatical precautions taken by the author of the message to minimize its scope, when they are insufficient to dispel the overall impression given to the consumer on the exceptional qualities of the product . Finally, the absence of an explicit indication as to the submission of the offer to conditions does not incur the liability of the advertiser when the message cannot be otherwise understood .

 Cass. crim., 3 January 1983, LawLex200400000098JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 18 May 1994, LawLex200300003792JBJ, upholding CA Rennes, January 21, 1993, LawLex200300001646JBJ: buy-back operation promoted as a “free purchase”.

 CA Paris, 7 June 2000, LawLex200300001259JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 22 May 2002, LawLex200300001309JBJ, upholding CA Paris, 12 November 1999, LawLex200300001291JBJ.

 TGI Nanterre, 6 April 1993, LawLex200300001648JBJ; 6 February 2004, LawLex200400002155JBJ: advertising offering a service subject to certain conditions accompanied by the mention “conditions at” followed by a telephone number; CA Paris, 16 May 2008, LawLex201200001318JBJ: mention that the supplier's rates are subject to conditions and invitation to consumers to discover them on its website, by telephone or in its agencies.

 CA Paris, 6 February 2009, LawLex201200001072JBJ.

 CA Paris, 21 May 2014, LawLex201400002016JBJ, which holds that the duration of the dissemination of certain allegations, their repetition in banners showing the laudatory mentions in larger type and the pseudo-scientific approval by study diverted from its subject, as elements likely to mislead the consumer as to the scope of the professional's commitments.

 Cass. com., 24 October 2000, LawLex200200000721JBJ, upholding CA Rennes, 24 June 1998, LawLex200200001106JBJ. Cf. when this is not the case: CA Bordeaux, 27 June 1995, LawLex200300001690JBJ; TGI Rennes, 4 March 1999, LawLex200300003847JBJ.

 Cass. crim., 27 November 1996, LawLex200300003794JBJ.

 CA Paris, 18 June 2002, LawLex200300002248JBJ.

 TGI Nanterre, 20 February 2001, LawLex200300004027JBJ. See also Cass. com., 9 March 2004, LawLex200400000603JBJ; Also see Cass. com., 9 March 2004, LawLex200400000603JBJ; CA Paris, 27 September 2024, LawLex202400007312JBJ: a telephone operator is guilty of misleading commercial practices in the marketing of ”4G/5G packages from its internet site, in that it provides incomplete information concerning the availability of its service, since it does not enable the consumer to ascertain the accessibility of the 5G network in a given place of use, without the consumer being duly informed of the de facto limited scope of its service commitment, this lack of information being all the more detrimental as the 4G/5G package, which includes a 12-month minimum contract period, cannot be freely terminated in favor of a better-suited and less expensive package, in the event that the user realizes a posteriori that he does not have access to the 5G network.

 TGI Nanterre, 22 May 2002, LawLex200300001369JBJ and LawLex200200000536JBJ.

 CA  Riom, 6 March 2008, LawLex201200000981JBJ.

 CA Lyon, 2 October 2009, LawLex201200000997JBJ. See also Cass. crim., 20 November 2012, LawLex201300000017JBJ: radio message announcing the liquidation of a wide range of goods, although the promotion actually concerns only earthenware.

 CA Grenoble, 21 October 2010, LawLex201000001367JBJ.

 CA  Fort-de-France, 27 June 2008, LawLex201200001292JBJ; CA Paris, 28 March 2012, LawLex201200001166JBJ.

French Consumer Law

160. Existence of restrictions

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

160. Existence of restrictions

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