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

Articles 1245-10 to 1245-13 (former Articles 1386-11 to 1386-14) of the Civil Code set out the causes of exemption of the producer's liability. In accordance with Article 8 of Directive No 85/374 of 25 July 1985, the French legislator provided for a limitation of liability in the event of fault on the part of the victim and not on the part of the third party, and reiterated the cases of exemption set out in Article 7 of the directive, i.e. the producer has not put the product into circulation, the defect existed before it was put into circulation, the product is not intended for sale , development risk, the non-compliance of the product with mandatory legal or regulatory requirements and the liability of the product designer, when the defect product has been incorporated .

According to the Court of Justice, Article 7 of Directive No 85/374, which exhaustively lists the causes of exemption of the producer's liability, must be strictly interpreted . As the burden of proof lies with the producer, who is automatically liable for the defect in its product , it cannot, to escape its liability, avail itself of its absence of fault which is not among the causes of exemption exhaustively listed in Articles 1245-10 and 1245-11 (former Articles 1386-11 and 1386-12) . 

 The exception based on the producer's lack of economic interest in the manufacture of the product implies the pursuit of a purely voluntary activity, see  Case C-203/99 Henning Veedfald, Judgment of 10 May 2001, LawLex200900001108JBJ, stating that “the fact that products manufactured for a specific medical benefit which is not paid directly by the patient, but which is financed by public funds paid into by taxpayers, cannot be of such a nature as to deprive the manufacture of these products of its economic and professional character.”

 Civil Code, Article 1245-10 (former Article 1386-11): “The producer of the component part is not liable either if he can prove that the defect is attributable to the design of the product in which the component was incorporated or to the instructions given by the producer of that product.” For an application, see CA Douai, March 14, 2013, LawLex201600000981JBJ: holding that a producer of a component of a defective prosthesis who merely assumes that there might be a problem of compatibility between its various sub-elements, fails to prove that the defect originates from the design of the prosthesis;  CA Lyon, 7 November 2023, LawLex202300013728JBJ ; 21 November 2023, LawLex202300014164JBJ, noting that a producer of defective raw milk is not entitled to argue that there are no regulations applicable to milk intended for the manufacture of cheese, and to maintain that the obligation to comply with microbiological criteria requiring the absence of salmonella in a 25 g sample of raw milk cheese falls on the cheese producer alone, to the exclusion of the dairy producer, whereas Article 3 of Regulation No 2073/2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs stipulates that the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the relevant microbiological criteria must be taken by food business operators at all stages of the production, processing and distribution of foodstuffs.

 Case C-203/99 Henning Veedfald, Judgment of 10 May 2001, LawLex200900001108JBJ.

 CA Rouen, 9 June 2010, LawLex201200001874JBJ.

 CA  Bastia, 9 March 2011, LawLex201200001565JBJ

678. Grounds for exemption