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

To obtain compensation for his damage, the professional who considers himself a victim of a misleading commercial practice may not only bring a civil action, but also an action for unfair competition before the civil courts. Several scenarios are possible.
1)  Action by a competitor
Competitors have been quick to bring actions based on the dissemination of misleading advertising before the civil c …

Action by victims of unfair competition

To obtain compensation for his damage, the professional who considers himself a victim of a misleading commercial practice may not only bring a civil action, but also an action for unfair competition before the civil courts. Several scenarios are possible.

Competitors have been quick to bring actions based on the dissemination of misleading advertising before the civil courts, since non-compliance with the the regulations constitutes an act of unfair competition . An action for unfair competition based on the implementation of a misleading commercial practice may be brought even if the perpetrator of the acts is not a competitor stricto sensu of the applicant, provided that the two carry out complementary activities . Thus, the use of the title “professor” by a person without a university degree , the claim of a fictitious patent  , or the attribution of false qualities to products , or falsely claiming that they are the cheapest , constitute unfair competition. Furthermore, it is not necessary, once the commercial practice has been found to be unfair, that it actually have an appreciable adverse effect on the economic behavior of the average consumer who is reasonably informed and reasonably attentive and well informed with regard to the goods or services in question .

The claimant must establish the existence of a fault, which in this case lies in the erroneous nature of the information in the message . Some decisions are very favorable to the applicant and sometimes acknowledge misconduct when the author of the message is unable to demonstrate its veracity . Evidence of the injury must also be provided. This is easier as acts of misleading advertising constituting unfair competition necessarily involve a commercial disorder generating a prejudice, albeit a moral one, even if these acts have had no effect on sales . The moral and commercial prejudice of the competitor is even more evident when the message is not only misleading, but also conveys a disparaging image of its products . The damage is assessed in the light of the gain made by the competitor, the damage to the image of innovation and the status of the victim, and the significance of the advertising investments made to organize a counter-campaign . Thus, the fact that the advertiser's competitor maintains satisfactory results after the dissemination of the misleading advertising does not demonstrate an absence of prejudice, when it could have obtained better results and avoided having its image tarnished in the eyes of customers . The Court of Cassation has ruled that when called upon to rule on the damages for loss resulting from a misleading commercial practice for consumers, which gives the entity responsible an unfair competitive advantage over its competitors, it may take into account the undue savings made by it and adjust them in relation to the respective business volumes of the parties affected by those actions . On the other hand, compensation for damage caused to competitors by misleading advertising cannot be based on a comparison between the market shares which the advertiser would have had in the absence of the practices and those which it actually obtained, since other factors, such as the development of new concepts or poor strategic choices by its competitors, combined with the decline of the distribution channel in question, may explain the increase in its competitive position .The action is also open to a trade union, when it concerns acts which prejudice the collective interest of the profession or the fairness of competition .

2)  Action by the coordinator of a distribution network

Non-approved distributors within selective distribution networks must refrain from marketing the products concerned in conditions that may mislead the consumer as to their origin. Thus, since 1992, the Court of Cassation has held that the fact, for a third party outside the network, of selling branded products mentioning their exclusive sale by approved distributors, is an act of unfair competition . This decision overturned a large body of case law of the trial judges, who considered that no misleading advertising could be attributed to the third-party reseller when the mention was visible to the consumer or the reseller was not involved in its affixing . For the commercial chamber of the Court of Cassation, it does not matter that the third party is not the author of the reference in question, when it does not deny it. Indeed, by its conduct, it misleads consumers as to its status of authorized distributor.

The Law of 3 January 2008 amended Article L. 121-1 (now Article L. 121-2) of the Consumer Code to sanction practices creating confusion with another good or service, trademark, trade name or other distinctive sign of a competitor. The new version of the text thus contributes to bringing the rules concerning misleading commercial practices into line with that of unfair competition. Before the reform, case law already sanctioned on the dual grounds of Articles 1382 (now Article 1240) of the Civil Code and L. 121-1 of the Consumer Code, certain practices reflecting a search for confusion on the part of the advertiser. For example, the AFNOR was able to take action for unfair competition against an operator who unduly used its trademark to make consumers believe that its products benefited from the guarantees presented by devices having been the subject of inspection procedures . Similarly, the use of a trade name that leads to confusion with a major retailer was found to constitute misleading advertising and unfair competition . However, an advertising display for a supermarket using photographs of products made by a caterer escaped the application of these two texts, since it did not contain any claims concerning their origin .

CA Paris, 6 February 2018, LawLex201800000270JBJ; 29 January 2020, LawLex202000000202JBJ.

 CA Paris, 16 January 2015, LawLex201500000041JBJ.

 CA Paris, 16 January 2002, LawLex200200000529JBJ.

 CA Paris, 5 February 2015, LawLex201500000144JBJ.

  CA Versailles, 17 May 2016, LawLex201600001005JBJ.

Cass. com., 12 February 2020, LawLex202000000207JBJ.

CA Paris, 6 February 2019, LawLex201900000174JBJ.

  T. com. Paris, 4 October 2011, LawLex201100001554JBJ; ; T. com. Créteil, 3 December 2019, LawLex202000000374JBJ: misleading communication by a para-pharmacy chain inevitably causes harm to independent pharmacists, amounting to damages of EUR 30 000.

Cass. com., 27 October 1992, LawLex200200001700JBJ, LawLex200400000124JBJ ; 24 November 1992, LawLex200200005956JBJ ; 9 March 1993, LawLex200200005985JBJ ; 21 June 1994, LawLex200200004355JBJ; 10 January 1995, LawLex200200005430JBJ; 9 April 1996, LawLex200200001367JBJ.

 CA Dijon, 19 September 1989, LawLex200200001900JBJ, LawLex200200001902JBJ, LawLex200200001901JBJ; CA Bourges, 3 July 1989, LawLex200200001905JBJ; and, before the reversal, Cass. crim., 15 March 1990, LawLex200200005773JBJ.

 TGI Paris, 31 October 2007, LawLex200900001397JBJ.

 CA Aix-en-Provence, 19 May 1994, LawLex200200001567JBJ.

  CA Paris, 5 June 1996, LawLex200200001354JBJ.

Cass. com., 30 June 1998, LawLex200200001104JBJ.

  CA Colmar, 4 December 2013, LawLex201300001820JBJ.

Cass. com., 12 January 1999, LawLex200200001028JBJ, upholding CA Versailles, 30 January 1997, LawLex200200001298JBJ: mention “fresh compotes” concerning pasteurized products.

  Cass. com., 1 July 2003, LawLex200300002729JBJ.

Cass. com., 14 May 2025, LawLex202500003870JBJ.

 CA Rouen, 12 September 1995, LawLex200300001694JBJ.

  CA Paris, 10 November 1995, LawLex200200001412JBJ.

Cass. com., 28 September 2010, LawLex201000001050JBJ, overturning on this point CA Paris, 25 June 2009, LawLex201000000561JBJ.

French Consumer Law

199. Action by victims of unfair competition

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

199. Action by victims of unfair competition

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

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