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 duty to advise caution or to warn, which extends the obligation to inform, is more burdensome than the latter since it requires the manufacturer, presumed to know the risks and limitations of the use of its products , and the seller, to draw the buyer's attention to the risks incurred due to the use of the product acquired. For example, the professional seller of a tank must, under its duty to …

Obligation to warn

The duty to advise caution or to warn, which extends the obligation to inform, is more burdensome than the latter since it requires the manufacturer, presumed to know the risks and limitations of the use of its products , and the seller, to draw the buyer's attention to the risks incurred due to the use of the product acquired. For example, the professional seller of a tank must, under its duty to warn, inform the buyer, following a first accident that has damaged it, of the risks he incurs if he uses it in the same conditions . The same applies to the manufacturer of a glue which, when asked by a customer about the difficulties encountered in the use of its product, must inquire about his intended purpose of the product and alert the customer to its unsuitability for this use . The Court of Cassation has ruled that the obligation of professional sellers to provide information and warnings must take into consideration the characteristics of the materials sold and the reasonably foreseeable conditions of their transportation by a non-professional .

According to the Court of Cassation, the manufacturer and the seller are required to inform consumers of the hazards inherent in the product, of its conditions of use and the care to be taken for its maintenance, even if on the date of the facts, no regulations imposed the delivery of an operating manual for this type of product . The manufacturer and seller of technical and complex equipment must, when new technical documentation which provides important details on the conditions of maintenance of the equipment sold is published shortly after the sale, bring it to the attention of the buyer . To demonstrate that it has effectively satisfied its obligation to warn concerning compliance with the technical rules for the installation of a dangerous device and the need to have it carried out by a professional or certified person, the seller cannot merely rely on its provision of the user manual .

The duty to warn primarily concerns hazardous  or potentially hazardous  products - in particular highly flammable products  or whose safe use requires a specific installation  -, complex products, such as financial operations with risks , and new or recently marketed products . The manufacturer of a products, which may prove harmful, must provide a coherent, clear and unambiguous notice . Thus, an importer of hot water bottles, the gel-filled chamber of which may rupture if overheated, has not failed to fulfill the obligation to provide information insofar as each item carries a warning regarding the hot and cold use of the product and provides a recommended heating time . Further, the supplier of a new and complex product must provide the buyer, whether a professional user of the equipment, with full and fair information on the conditions of use of the product . The duty to warn is not, however, without limits. The manufacturer of a toboggan, which is in conformity in terms of its design and manufacture, and which has issued a notice of use prohibiting the position imposed by the operator on users, at the origin of the victim's injury, cannot be held liable for failure to comply with its obligation to warn . Thus, in the case of medicinal products, the obligation of the producer only extends, under Article L. 5121-9 of the Public Health Code , to the contraindications and side effects of the product known at the time of its introduction on the market, or brought to the knowledge of the laboratory since this date . A laboratory cannot be criticized for not having mentioned, on the notice of a medicinal product, a risk rare at the time of its marketing, which is not serious and reversible . The same is true when the notice of a medicinal product merely mentions simple cutaneous manifestations, even though there is a risk of developing a serious syndrome . The courts also consider that a doctor should advise his patients of the risks of adverse effects and their severity, even if they are exceptional, related to taking a medicinal product, and the immediate precautions to take if they occur .

 Cass. 1re civ., 13 May 1986, LawLex200500006103JBJ.

   CA Amiens, 8 November 2007, LawLex200800001442JBJ.

  See  CA Nancy, 7 January 2013, LawLex201300001099JBJ, precautions for installation of an insert.

 On the banker's duty to caution, when he proposes a complex speculative transaction to an uninformed client that is likely to expose him to a significant risk of loss the extent of which of which the latter is unaware, see for example Cass. com., 22 September 2015, LawLex201500001529JBJ; Cass. civ. 1re, 30 March 2022, LawLex202200001894JBJ; 7 September 2022, LawLex202200006670JBJ : placing the onus on the banker, when granting a loan drawn up in a foreign currency, stipulating that that currency is the currency of account and that the euro is the currency of payment and having the effect of placing the foreign exchange risk on the borrower, as the obligation to provide sufficient and accurate information enables the borrower to understand the actual operation of the financial mechanism in question and thus to assess the risk of the potentially significant negative economic consequences of such a clause on his or her financial obligations throughout the term of the contract. 

See Cass. 1re civ., 29 May 2001, LawLex200800001450JBJ, on the absence of any indication of any contraindication to the use of the Gaucho insecticide;  CA Toulouse, 7 March 2002, LawLex200800001484JBJ, concerning another insecticide. See also  CA Nîmes, 20 February 2003, LawLex200800001474JBJ; 7 September 2022, LawLex202200006670JBJ: the manufacturer of a new product cannot be considered as having failed to fulfill his pre-contractual information obligation for not having indicated to the buyer, an experienced pilot in a very restricted environment, of the exceptional nature of the product, and by not having anticipated a change of position of the Administration, on the consequences of its use.

   CA Aix-en-Provence, 27 September 2001, LawLex200800001507JBJ.

 CA Paris, 27 February 2017, LawLex201700000447JBJ.

   CA Rennes, 17 May 2013, LawLex201500001506JBJ.

Cass. 1st civ. 9 January 2019, LawLex201900001037JBJ.

Public Health Code, Article L. 5121-9: “The authorization provided for in Article L. 5121-8 is refused when it appears that the assessment of the positive therapeutic effects of the drug or product in view of the risks to the health of the patient or public health related to its quality, safety or effectiveness is not considered favorable, or that it does not have the stated qualitative and quantitative composition, or that the therapeutic effect advertised is lacking or insufficiently demonstrated by the applicant. It is also refused where the documentation and information provided are not consistent with the record to be submitted in support of the application. However, in exceptional circumstances and subject to the fulfillment of specific obligations laid down by the regulations, such as the safety of the medicinal product, notification to the National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products of any incident related to its use and the measures to be taken in this case, the marketing authorization may be issued to an applicant who demonstrates that he is unable to provide complete information on the efficacy and safety of the medicinal product in normal conditions of use. The maintenance of this authorization shall be decided by the agency on the basis of an annual reassessment of these obligations and of their observance by the holder. The authorization provided for in Article L. 5121-8 shall be suspended, withdrawn or amended under conditions determined by decree of the Council of State, in particular for one of the following reasons: 1° The medicinal product is harmful; 2° The medicinal product does not produce therapeutic results; 3° The ratio between the benefits and risks is not favorable; 4° The specialty does not have the qualitative and quantitative composition declared; 5° The holder of the marketing authorization does not comply with the conditions laid down in Article L. 5121-8 or the obligations imposed on him under Articles ;L. 5121-8-1 and L. 5121-24. The suspension, the withdrawal or modification provided for in the fourth paragraph of this Article as well as any refusal of the authorization provided for in Article L. 5121-8 shall be made public without delay, at the expense of the holder or applicant of the marketing authorization, by any means enabling it to be widely disseminated to the general public and health professionals and institutions. The refusal to take this decision is also made public under the same conditions, at the agency's expense”. 

  Cass. 1re civ., 8 April 1986, LawLex200500006104JBJ.

  CA Paris, 18 March 2004, LawLex200800001563JBJ.

  CA Riom, 14 February 2007, LawLex200800001565JBJ.

  See Cass. 1re civ., 6 October 2011, LawLex201300001120JBJ: a drug manufacturer cannot be exempted from liability on the grounds that he has fulfilled his duty to inform about the risk of Lyell syndrome presented by a drug, when it is established that only Annex I to the marketing authorization (MA), reserved for professionals, mentioned such a risk, while Annex II, intended for the public, only mentioned, under undesirable effects, mere “cutaneous manifestations”.

  CA  Versailles, 27 May 2010, LawLex201200001260JBJ.

Cass. civ. 1re, 19 June 2024, LawLex202400004570JBJ.

  Cass. 1re civ., 3 February 2011, LawLex201200001255JBJ.

   CA Montpellier, 25 March 2003, LawLex200800001459JBJ.

  Cass. 1re civ., 18 June 2014, LawLex201400001138JBJ.

  See, with regard to a dangerous vehicle,  CA Rouen, 7 January 2010, LawLex201200001099JBJ.

 See however,  CA Rennes, 12 December 2007, LawLex200800001439JBJ, a seller of riding saddles does not breach its duty to inform by failing to advise the buyer on the risk involved in the practice of the sport.

 See Cass. 1re civ., 11 October 1983, LawLex200500006107JBJ;  CA Amiens, 15 September 2011, LawLex201200001627JBJ: a company that sold equipment that caused a fire after being rinsed with gas oil failed to fulfil its obligation to inform, when the instructions for use failed to specify the danger of such a rinsing, which a non-chemist buyer could not guess the existence of.

French Consumer Law

387. Obligation to warn

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

387. Obligation to warn

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