General Overview

French banking and financial services law is largely shaped by European Union (EU) law supplemented by French domestic rules.

In practice, three regulating layers interact, as follows.

• The EU legislative framework, which covers regulations and directives providing core rules.
• French domestic rules, including EU rules incorporated into French law. These are, primarily, the French Monetary and Financial Code (Code monétaire et financier), French government decrees and orders, the French Financial Markets Authority (Autorité des marchés financiers, or AMF), and case law.
• Supervisory guidance, which covers soft law materials issued by the European or French authorities – eg, the European Banking Authority (EBA); the European Central Bank (ECB); the Single Resolution Board (SRB); the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA); the French Financial Markets Authority (AMF); and French Prudential Supervision and Resolution Authority (ACPR).

Banking Core Regime

• Prudential framework – the Capital Requirements Regulation and Directive (CRR/CRD) implement the Basel standards within the EU. In particular, they establish capital and liquidity requirements, internal governance and remuneration principles, fit and proper criteria for members of the management body, and authorisation and passporting rules. At French domestic law level, there are rules that transpose European requirements as well as rules specific to France, such as the so-called “banking monopoly”, the definition of credit transactions and certain aspects of prudential regulation and organisation.

• Supervision – under the Single Supervisory Mechanism Regulation (SSMR), the ECB directly supervises French significant institutions, while the ACPR oversees less significant institutions.
• Resolution and depositor protection – the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) and the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (SRMR) govern recovery and resolution planning, set the Minimum Requirement for Own Funds and Eligible Liabilities (MREL) and provide the main resolution tools under the supervision of the SRB and the ACPR. The French Monetary and Financial Code complements and adapts these provisions in a dedicated section which, in particular, organises the ACPR’s powers with respect to preventing, and, as applicable, managing credit institution failures. It also sets out creditor hierarchy rules in resolution and ordinary insolvency proceedings.

In France, the Fonds de garantie des dépôts et de résolution (FGDR) or Deposit Guarantee and Resolution Fund covers up to EUR100,000 per customer per institution.

Investment Services and Investment Firms

• MiFID II/MiFIR and IFR/IFD core regime. At EU level, the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive and Regulation (MiFID II/MiFIR) establish a harmonised framework relating to the provision of investment services. On prudential aspects, non-bank investment firms are governed by the Investment Firms Regulation and Directive (IFR/IFD). Under this regime, there are three categories of investment firm, based on risk and systemic importance.

At French domestic law level, there are rules implementing this EU framework and rules specific to France, as follows.

• The French Monetary and Financial Code defines investment services and financial instruments and sets out, inter alia, organisational and conduct-of-business requirements; the licensing process; the “investment services monopoly” together with its exceptions; and transparency and market structure rules.
• The AMF General Regulation provides granular conduct-of-business guidance including, inter alia, client categorisation; suitability/appropriateness; “best execution” of orders; inducements; product governance; costs and charges; and conflicts of interest.
• Other significant regulations relate to financial instruments, including, in particular, the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR); the Prospectus Regulation; the Central Securities Depositary Regulation (CSDR) on securities settlement and central securities depositories; the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) which governs, in particular, OTC derivatives clearing, risk-mitigation and reporting; and the Short-Selling Regulation (SSR), which enhances transparency and permits temporary restrictions in periods of stress.

Other Relevant Regimes

Financial institutions are also subject to other specific sets of sector- or topic-specific rules, some of which are further described in this publication, including:

• the Artificial Intelligence framework;
• the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA);
• ESG rules;
• the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA);
• anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing rules; and
• consumer protection law, which covers usury limits and EU frameworks on consumer and mortgage credit as well as the rules on distance marketing of financial services.

Regulated Banking Activities

French “banking monopoly” rules cover two broad types of transactions: the collection of repayable funds from the public and the granting of credit, both of which are reserved for regulated entities.

In accordance with French banking monopoly rules, except in the case of an exemption, in principle the following applies.

• Only credit institutions licensed in France or passported on French territory or authorised branches of third-country credit institutions may, on a regular basis, collect repayable funds from the public. This refers to any situation in which a person receives funds – such as deposits – from a third party with the right to use those funds for their own account and with the obligation to repay them.
• Only credit institutions licensed in France, passported on French territory or authorised branches of third-country credit institutions or French financing companies (sociétés de financement) may, on a regular basis, carry out credit transactions in France. French law adopts a broad definition of credit, which includes any transaction in which one party, for remuneration, makes or promises to make funds available to another, or undertakes commitments on behalf of that party by providing a guarantee or security. The definition is sufficiently broad to encompass, for instance, payment deferrals and the assignment of unmatured receivables.

Any violation of these rules may result in criminal, administrative and civil penalties. It remains to be seen whether this framework will be affected by the forthcoming implementation of Capital Requirements Directive (CRD) VI.

Regulated Investment Services and Financial Instruments

In accordance with the EU’s legislative framework, French law regulates the provision of investment services in respect of financial instruments within two legally defined categories, as follows.

• Financial securities, including shares and other equity instruments, debt securities, and units or shares in undertaking for collective investments.
• Financial contracts, encompassing derivative instruments (options, futures, swaps, contracts for difference, credit or commodity derivatives) and other contract-based instruments defined by law.

Standardised by MiFID II/MiFIR and transposed into French law, investment services include the reception and transmission of orders; the execution of orders on behalf of clients; own-account dealing; underwriting and placing (with or without firm commitment); investment advice; portfolio management; and operation of multilateral and organised trading facilities.

As in the banking sector, unless an exemption applies, these services are subject to the French “investment services monopoly rules” and may, in principle, only be provided on a regular basis by authorised investment service providers (prestataires de services d’investissement) who are licensed or duly passported in France.

France also recognises advice-only providers, intermediaries or agent schemes under dedicated national regimes (eg, investment advisors or banking and payment intermediaries), within a defined framework and subject to specific conduct obligations.

Other Main Financial Services Regulated Activities

• Payment and e-money services – only payment institutions, e-money institutions or credit institutions may provide these services, and must comply with certain prudential, organisational and conduct requirements.
• Collective asset management – the management and marketing of UCITS and AIFs constitute a regulated field in their own right (mainly provided by the Directives on Alternative Investment Funds and Undertakings for Collective Investment), with obligations on authorisation, organisation, risk and liquidity management, depositary oversight and investor protection.
• Credit servicing and NPL transfers –the transfer of non-performing loans is governed by the EU framework on credit servicers and credit purchasers, as implemented in France.
• Canvassing and solicitation (démarchage bancaire et financier) – unsolicited approaches to offer banking, financial or payment services, or to propose transactions in financial instruments, are strictly governed by French rules on banking and financial solicitation intended to protect clients, particularly retail banking clients.

While the French legal framework defines a tight perimeter for banking and investment services, its actual boundaries are shaped by numerous exceptions whose scope and applicability are interpreted in the writings of legal experts and by case law. As a result, determining whether a given transaction falls within or outside the regulated framework often requires a detailed, case-by-case assessment, taking into account law, soft law and case law.

Exceptions to the French “Banking Monopoly” Rules

The French Monetary and Financial Code provides for a number of exceptions, such as the following.

• Certain regulated entities other than banks, such as insurance undertakings, investment firms, e-money institutions or certain alternative investment funds, may carry out banking-type transactions within the limits of their own regulatory regimes.
• Companies may grant payment terms or advances to their commercial counterparties. Although such operations fall within the legal definition of credit, they are not subject to licensing when ancillary to a primary commercial transaction.
• Intragroup treasury operations may be conducted between companies belonging to the same group, subject to specific conditions.
• The acquisition of unmatured receivables – considered a credit transaction under French law – may be carried out by certain non-French regulated entities, subject to specific conditions.

Exemptions From the French “Investment Services Monopoly” Rules

French law also provides for exemptions from the French investment services monopoly rules. In particular, these may apply:

• to certain regulated entities;
• to intragroup transactions;
• to persons engaging solely in proprietary trading, subject to conditions; or
• where a service is provided by a third-country firm exclusively at the initiative of the client (reverse solicitation), noting that this is considered strictly by regulators.

Crypto-assets in France are now governed primarily by the Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation, which is progressively replacing the national framework introduced by a 2019 French law, with phased application dates. MiCA’s main pillars are as follows.

• Issuers and offers – any public offer or admission to trading requires prior publication of a crypto-asset white paper containing detailed information on the issuer, the rights attached to the token, and related risks.
• Token categories – MiCA distinguishes utility tokens, asset-referenced tokens (ARTs) and e-money tokens (EMTs). The latter two are subject to stricter prudential, governance and redemption rules. ART issuance requires prior authorisation (banks are exempt from a separate MiCA licence) and prior approval of the white paper. EMTs may be issued only by credit institutions or e-money institutions, with white papers notified (no prior approval).
• Service providers – entities providing custody, exchange, the operation of trading platforms, portfolio management, advice, or transfer services on crypto-assets must obtain authorisation as crypto-asset service providers (CASPs), meeting EU-wide requirements on conduct, governance, cybersecurity, and capital and benefitting from the possibility to operate on an EU-wide basis (passport).
• Market integrity – MiCA introduces an EU-wide framework against insider dealing, market manipulation and unlawful disclosure.

National supervision in France is provided by the following.

• The AMF, which acts as the competent authority for most crypto-assets and CASPs, handling authorisations, supervision, and enforcement of conduct and market integrity rules. 
• The ACPR, which is the prudential supervisory body for entities issuing asset-referenced or e-money tokens, and for credit and payment institutions providing crypto-asset services. The ACPR also cooperates closely with the AMF for joint supervision of CASPs where relevant.

A transitional regime allows firms previously registered under the French Digital Asset Service Providers (prestataires de services sur actifs numériques, PSAN) framework to continue operating during the phase-in pending MiCA authorisation.

The ACPR and the AMF are France’s two primary financial regulators. Their mandates are complementary and focus on safeguarding financial stability, ensuring market integrity, and protecting clients and investors.

The ACPR – French Prudential Supervision and Resolution Authority

The ACPR is an administrative authority backed by the Bank of France and was created in 2010 through the merger of the former banking and insurance supervisory bodies. The French Monetary and Financial Code guarantees the ACPR’s independence and financial autonomy. Its core mandates are to safeguard financial stability and to protect the customers of the regulated entities that it supervises. It currently oversees the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing frameworks implemented by those entities, even though adjustments are expected as a result of AMLA becoming fully operational. It is also responsible, together with the Single Resolution Board, for establishing and implementing crisis-prevention mechanisms for French banks.

The ACPR licenses, authorises and supervises a broad range of financial institutions, and can exercise enforcement powers over them. They include, in particular: (i) French less significant credit institutions (under the ECB’s oversight and in close cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism); (ii) investment firms in conjunction with the AMF; (iii) insurance undertakings; and (iv) other financial actors, such as payment institutions, e-money institutions, (re)insurers, and provident institutions.

The AMF - French Financial Markets Authority

The AMF an independent public authority created in 2003 from the merger of three supervisory bodies.

Its primary missions are to protect savings (particularly those invested in financial instruments offered to the public or admitted to trading and in other investments marketed to the public), to ensure that investors receive clear and accurate information, and to safeguard the proper functioning, integrity, and transparency of the financial markets.

The AMF’s remit primarily includes: (i) the licensing and supervision of asset management companies; (ii) the supervision of investment services providers (together with the ACPR); (iii) approval of prospectuses and issuer disclosures; and (iv) monitoring for market abuse.

It also oversees the quality of information that asset management companies publish regarding their climate strategies and serves as the lead regulator for emerging domains, including the supervision of crypto-asset service providers, crowdfunding and other digital-asset activities. Finally, where necessary, it is empowered to inspect, investigate, and impose sanctions on any person or company whose practices contravene the laws and regulations within its jurisdiction.

Both the ACPR and the AMF issue professional rules, publish doctrine and guidance, conduct public consultations, and operate financial ombudsman services within their respective remits. They cooperate closely, primarily through a joint unit focused on business conduct, financial product distribution, and end-client protection. This collaboration promotes consistent inspections, public warnings, and standards across the financial institutions they supervise. At European and international level, both authorities contribute to the work of regulatory bodies – eg, the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs), the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) and the Financial Stability Board (FSB) – and to the development of common standards and guidance.

Other Bodies and Regulators

Other bodies and non-French regulators or authorities are involved in the day-to-day oversight of French financial institutions, as follows.

• The ORIAS (French register of insurance, banking and finance intermediaries) records French financial and insurance intermediaries and administers EU passporting procedures for these entities.
• The Bank of France is tasked with various duties to support the financial system, such as the supervision of cashless means of payment and the support of customers facing financial exclusion.
• Other European regulators/authorities, such as the European Central Bank and European Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA), also exercise direct supervisory authority over certain French financial institutions within the scope of their respective mandates.

The French regulators publish their rules and guidance on their websites, which serve as the authoritative repositories for their interpretive materials and supervisory expectations.

The ACPR’s Supervisory Guidance

The ACPR maintains a suite of instruments to inform supervised entities and the public of its policy positions and of its interpretations of the regulations that it is responsible for enforcing. In particular:

• it publishes general analytical and interpretative materials (such as prudential notices and AML/CFT guidelines) providing guidance as to how it expects regulatory texts to be implemented, and issues “positions” or targeted outputs on isolated points of law that the ACPR considers relevant, as well as Q&As;
• for its ongoing supervisory mission, it may adopt and publish technical documentation, notes, and methodological guides of a general and binding nature governing, for example, information it receives or requests from the financial institutions it supervises; and 
• it is tasked by the French Monetary and Financial Code to promulgate recommendations that it identifies or considers to be good practices, and to approve professional codes of conduct proposed by industry associations.

The AMF’s Supervisory Guidance

The AMF publishes several types of binding rules and soft law pieces.

• It has been the delegated as the rulemaking authority to regulate matters within its remit, its main tool being the AMF General Regulation, published in the French Journal officiel following ministerial approval. It also publishes instructions that clarify and interpret the AMF General Regulation.
• Its policy framework constitutes a substantial body of soft law, including positions, recommendations, Q&As, and rulings that indicate how it applies EU and domestic rules in supervision and enforcement matters.

In addition, both the ACPR and AMF:

• have published charters governing the conduct of inspections and enforcement procedures, enhancing predictability and due process for inspected entities;
• publish notices setting out their intent to implement fully or partially the European Supervisory Authorities’ orientations, recommendations and guidance; and
• issue warnings where they become aware of certain illegal activities or practices they consider to be potentially prejudicial or detrimental to the public.

Other

In addition to the above, supervisory guidance and pieces of soft law are published by other French bodies such as the Haut Conseil de stabilité financière (HCSF), Comité consultatif du secteur financier (CCSF), Comité consultatif de la législation et de la réglementation financières (CCLRF) and EU regulators (ECB, EBA, ESMA).

Status of Implementation

France has implemented the Basel capital adequacy standards through directly applicable EU legislation and supervision by the ECB (for significant institutions/groups) and the ACPR (for less significant institutions/groups). The core Capital Requirements Regulation/Capital Requirements Directive (CRR/CRD) rules were updated by the EU’s final Basel III reforms in the 2024 banking package (CRR III/CRD VI). These rules mostly took effect from 1 January 2025, and there will be phased transitions over the coming years. French institutions are expected to meet the revised requirements according to this timetable, subject to firm‑specific Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP) outcomes and macro‑prudential buffer decisions by the HCSF.

Key Features of CRR III/CRD VI as Implemented into French Law

The change often considered as most significant is the phased introduction of the aggregate output floor, capping modelled risk‑weighted assets at a percentage of the standardised amount, rising to 72.5% at the end of the transition. The package also revises the standardised approach and constrains internal models for credit risk, overhauls the operational risk framework, refines the credit valuation adjustment regime, and strengthens the leverage ratio, including a leverage buffer for Global Systemically Important Banks (G‑SIBs). It also introduces a new transitional method for the prudential treatment of crypto asset exposures.

As in other jurisdictions, there is a question mark generally over whether to maintain expensive and complex internal models, given their reduced prudential benefits in light of these changes.

Aside from these constraints, entities remain subject to various buffers, notably the capital conservation buffer, the countercyclical buffer set in France by the HCSF, and systemic buffers for Other Systemically Important Institutions (O‑SIIs)/Global Systemically Important Institutions (G‑SIIs), as applicable. 

Supervisory Application and Parallel Priorities

The ECB and ACPR continue to set institution‑specific Pillar 2 requirements and guidance through the SREP, with emphasis on model risk, interest‑rate risk in the banking book (IRRBB), and governance/risk‑data aggregation. Liquidity requirements are unchanged: the minimum liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) and net stable funding ratio (NSFR) remain at 100%. 

In response to the above changes, in 2025, French banks had largely adjusted internal models, risk weights, and capital planning to accommodate the output floor and other changes, while continuing to refine issuance programmes and their Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process (ICAAP)/Internal Liquidity Adequacy Assessment Process (ILAAP) to reflect the new regime and prevailing market conditions. In particular, French groups continue to dynamically manage their regulatory capital requirements, including via the issuance of AT1/T2 capital.

Current Cycle

France operates within the EU post trade framework. As of 2025, France has not implemented a T+1 settlement cycle for cash equities. The Euronext Paris and related French markets continue to settle on T+2, consistent with the prevailing EU standard and the operating procedures of central securities depositories (notably Euroclear France within the T2S environment).

Future T+1 Settlements

Following the US’ move to T+1 in 2024, EU institutions (the European Commission, ESMA and the European System of Central Banks), market infrastructures and industry bodies have been assessing an EU-wide migration in the form of a coordinated, single date transition across the EU to avoid fragmentation, preserve cross border efficiency and align with TARGET2 Securities processes.

The legal basis for this assessment was established by the Central Securities Depositories Regulation (CSDR) refit which mandated ESMA in 2023 to conduct a T+1 feasibility report; following its publication in 2024, the European Parliament and the Council reached a political agreement on 18 June 2025 amending the CSDR to set a target to implement the new cycle by 11 October 2027. However, the new settlement cycle will not apply to securities financing transactions.

Outlook

The French authorities and participants are now actively engaged in the EU process and industry forums, conducting readiness assessments and scenario planning for liquidity, collateral and FX management under T+1.

While the new settlement cycle will reduce counterparty risk and the need for margin requirements for market participants, it also triggers new regulatory risks, due, for example, to the increased potential for settlement fails, the need for significant operational and IT system upgrades to meet faster processing times or the mismatch with the T+2 settlement cycle for FX transactions.

At the same time, a consolidation process is on the way as the settlement of equity trades is currently fragmented across more than 30 different central securities depositories across Europe which complicates T+1 settlements even further; Euronext has, for example, announced that Euronext Securities will be designated as the central securities depository for the settlement of Euronext Amsterdam, Brussels and Paris equity trades by the second half of 2026.

In the interim, France remains aligned with T+2, and firms are focused on efficiency measures (matching and affirmation earlier in the trade day straight through processing, and use of central confirmation platforms) to reduce settlement fails and ease the eventual transition.

Regulatory Architecture

France’s framework largely derives from EU texts, supplemented by ACPR/AMF supervision and guidance, as follows.

• The Taxonomy Regulation, the SFDR and its regulatory technical standards, and the Benchmarks Regulation (low carbon and Paris-aligned benchmarks) continue to apply to French institutions and products.
• The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), phased in from 2024, with the first ESG-based reports published in 2025 for many in-scope groups, expanding sustainability reporting across the value chain and interacting with prudential Pillar 3 ESG disclosures.
• At prudential level, the ECB has, for banking groups, integrated climate and environmental risks into Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP) expectations.

Supervisory Expectations for Banks

The ACPR and ECB expect institutions to embed climate and broader ESG risks across governance, strategy, risk management and ICAAP/ILAAP. Priority areas include robust risk identification, scenario analysis and stress testing, alignment of risk appetite and limits, and transition planning. Supervisors have conducted climate stress tests and follow-up, and continue to assess emissions metrics or sectoral concentration risk. Pillar 3 ESG templates are expanding in scope and granularity, and institutions are expected to improve transparency on exposures to climate sensitive sectors and alignment metrics.

Funds, Product Labelling and Greenwashing

At EU level, the supervisory agenda on greenwashing has accelerated, with common positions and supervisory priorities aimed at ensuring that sustainability statements are fair, clear and not misleading, and that SFDR/Taxonomy disclosures are coherent and evidence based. In particular, in 2024, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) issued guidelines on the use of ESG- or sustainability-related terms in fund names, and the AMF declared that it would apply these. Under this framework, at least 80% of a fund’s assets must be invested to meet its sustainability objective or its environmental or social characteristics. The guidelines also impose exclusion criteria on certain terms used in fund names. As a result, some funds have removed ESG or sustainability references from their names.

At national level in France, on the fund and products side, the AMF has tightened expectations for ESG-related claims in prospectuses and marketing, including doctrine updates on names and investment approaches, with enhanced review of Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) classifications.

The AMF and ACPR have issued joint monitoring reports on the climate commitments and practices of French institutions and have communicated supervisory priorities around substantiation of claims and governance of sustainability data. In particular, the AMF has launched thematic controls on this topic and initiated disciplinary procedures against fund managers whose policies do not comply with ESG criteria requirements. 

Enforcement

Civil society pressure has also intensified in France. In June 2024, several non-governmental organisations, including Reclaim Finance, issued on open letter urging the AMF to pursue stronger enforcement against alleged greenwashing in funds marketed as “sustainable” while retaining fossil-fuel exposure. Separately, ClientEarth filed a formal complaint with the AMF in October 2024 concerning a series of retail investment funds promoted as sustainable, signalling growing scrutiny of ESG claims not only from regulators but also external stakeholders.

Outlook

While scrutiny of ESG disclosures and marketing has intensified, and competent authorities have required that firms amend disclosures, align marketing with investment processes and remediate governance or data control weaknesses, there is an active EU policy debate on certain frameworks such as the SFDR framework following an easing of ESG requirements on a worldwide basis. Following the EU Commission’s consultations, which began in 2025 and targeted reviews, stakeholders are split between those wanting to more clearly redesign the framework and to label like product categories and those warning against “back-tracking” or diluting the regime’s objectives.

Points of discussion include: (i) the continued use of the SFDR’s Article 8/9 labels without proper assessment; (ii) the burden and comparability of principal adverse impact indicators; (iii) treatment of transition strategies; and (iv) the risk that lowering or simplifying thresholds could encourage reclassification without improving sustainability outcomes. French supervisors have acknowledged the need for greater clarity while advocating robust anti-greenwashing safeguards.

In parallel, certain measures to alleviate the regulatory pressure regarding ESG have already been taken. In particular, the 2025 Omnibus I package aims to ease the reporting obligations incumbent upon EU entities, notably by revising the timetable and applicable thresholds provided for in the CSRD and the EU taxonomy regulation.

In France specifically, French law No 2025 391 of 30 April 2025 (“the DDADUE Law”), has granted some transitional relief by postponing certain reporting/due diligence deadlines under the CSRD.

Current Status

The ACPR and the AMF are aligning their approaches to artificial intelligence (AI) with the EU AI Act, while relying at the same time on existing, technology‑neutral sectoral regulations. Their message is consistent:

• AI offers opportunities but introduces material risks;
• supervisory expectations focus on strong governance, risk management, data quality, transparency, and meaningful human oversight; and
• implementation of the EU AI Act to the financial services sector will be coordinated at EU and national levels to avoid duplication with existing regulations.

Furthermore, in June 2025, the Paris Financial Market Law Committee (Haut Comité Juridique de la Place Financière de Paris, or HCJP), on which the ACPR and the AMF sit, issued a comprehensive report advocating effective articulation of the EU AI Act with financial sector law, recognising equivalences with existing sectoral rules, identifying genuine “gaps”, and calling for clarification of the EU AI Act on the high‑risk framework, possible opt‑outs and interfaces with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)and Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA).

Roles of the French Regulators

The ACPR is expected to act as France’s market surveillance authority for supervising the EU AI Act with respect to financial services. Its preparations focus on the supervision of “high‑risk” AI systems in two finance‑specific use cases – creditworthiness assessments/credit-scoring of natural persons and risk assessments/pricing in life and health insurance.

• Internally, the ACPR has set up a cross‑functional task force working on legal articulation of the EU AI Act with existing sectoral rules, AI audit methodologies (including fairness and explainability), EU/national coordination, supervisory organisation, and industry reporting.
• Externally, the ACPR runs workshops for banks, insurers and fintechs to assess preparedness and co‑develop audit practices.

The AMF supervises AI primarily through existing investor‑protection, operational‑resilience, and governance requirements. Its 2024 risk map flags AI’s persistent cyber, market‑functioning, and data risks. The AMF’s approach to AI is consistent with ESMA’s public statement on AI in retail investment services, emphasising senior management governance, data quality, client transparency, and avoiding “AI washing”. In parallel, the AMF also uses AI internally to identify market abuse behaviours and to review industry reporting, illustrating how AI can sharpen supervisory reviews and support automated monitoring.

Outlook

Looking ahead, near‑term plans include the following.

• For the ACPR – formal designation as a market surveillance authority by the French Parliament; continued industry workshops; practical guidance aligned with EU deliverables on the high‑risk framework and standards; and operationalisation of a dedicated internal AI‑supervision hub. 
• For the AMF – deeper analysis of AI’s impact on services and market functioning; expansion of pilots and machine‑readable reporting initiatives; and continued contributions to ESMA/IOSCO (International Organization of Securities Commissions) work on AI regulation in the financial sector.

In the coming months, it can therefore be expected that French regulators will issue sustained supervisory communications, co-developed audit methodologies, and targeted clarifications as the EU AI Act implementation timeline advances.

Regulatory Attitude to Fintechs in France

There is no standalone regulatory regime for fintechs (ie, no sandbox principle) in France. Consistent with the principle of “same activities, same risks, same rules” and a technology‑neutral approach, fintech companies are subject to regulatory regimes tailored to their specific products and services or to the same regulatory frameworks that apply to traditional banking, financial and insurance institutions when their products and services fall within the scope of such frameworks. However, while the baseline obligations of these regulations apply equally to all relevant in-scope firms, the principle of proportionality laid down in most of them allows regulatory and supervisory adjustments for innovative business models where appropriate.

The French regulators pursue a facilitative supervisory posture grounded in early and continuous engagement. The ACPR and AMF maintain dedicated fintech teams and practical guidance to help fintechs understand authorisation pathways and compliance expectations. This approach aims to combine legal certainty with supervisory openness without waiving core prudential or conduct-of-business protections.

Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) Initiative in France

France has been a leading proponent of a wholesale (ie, interbank) CBDC within the Eurosystem. Since 2020, the Bank of France has conducted an extensive programme of “real-conditions” wholesale CBDC experiments to preserve central bank money as the settlement asset in tokenised markets and to enhance cross-border payments, including by developing its own distributed ledger technology. These experiments have demonstrated the operational feasibility and efficiency of using a wholesale CBDC for delivery versus payment of tokenised securities and payment versus payment for cross-currency settlement. Building on this groundwork, the Bank of France contributed to the ECB’s exploratory wholesale CBDC work in 2024 and will support the ECB’s two-phase wholesale CBDC implementation plan announced on 1 July 2025.

On retail CBDC, the Bank of France supports the ECB’s digital euro project, which entered its preparatory phase in November 2023 pending EU legislation envisaged by early 2026. The Bank of France considers that a retail digital euro is essential to monetary sovereignty and privacy preserving digital cash, even though the French banking industry has expressed concerns about bank disintermediation, costs and market impact.

More broadly, the Bank of France views unchecked growth of US dollar-denominated stablecoins as a strategic risk, and advocates both strengthening MiCA for significant issuers and delivering a functional wholesale CBDC, complemented by inter-operable euro-denominated stablecoins or tokenised deposits issued by EU banks.

Overview of the French Regime

French banking and financial regulation afford robust protections to retail/consumer clients through a dual framework that combines sector‑specific rules with general consumer law, as follows.

• Financial institutions are subject to organisational and conduct requirements covering product governance, suitability and appropriateness assessments, disclosures, asset safekeeping, complaints handling, and fair marketing.
• Where clients qualify as consumers, mandatory consumer‑protection rules, notably with respect to pre‑contractual information, unfair terms, distance contracting, mediation, and over‑indebtedness, also apply, including where the contract is governed by foreign law.

This layered structure creates multiple, cumulative safeguards for vulnerable clients.

Supervisory Actions

These legal protections are reinforced by the French regulator’s regular guidance on marketing practices and client relationship management that firms must follow when serving retail/consumer clients. In addition, French regulators also actively monitor markets, including online activity, to detect illegal offerings. Public warnings and blacklists complement official registers and whitelists that allow verification of authorised status. These tools are particularly valuable for vulnerable clients, who are often targeted by scams and high‑risk products.

Targeted product interventions further mitigate harm. For instance, since 2019, the AMF has imposed prohibitions or restrictions on the marketing of certain derivatives – such as binary options and CFDs – to retail investors.

Parallel constraints address financial solicitation and aggressive electronic advertising, as well as sponsorship, patronage, and commercial influence related to such derivatives and crypto‑assets. In the investment sphere, these measures align with broader investment product marketing and distribution controls, reducing exposure of vulnerable populations to speculative or complex instruments.

The AMF and ACPR have also devoted particular supervisory attention to protecting elderly clients. Following a 2021 call for heightened vigilance, follow-up work in 2022–23 indicated that adoption of internal safeguards by banks and insurers was growing, albeit unevenly. In this context, regulators have pointed out a number of emerging good practices and areas for improvement.

Preventive and remedial support are also supervisory priorities. Regulators offer educational materials tailored to higher-risk groups, including younger and elderly investors, to build risk awareness and encourage sound financial behaviour. The AMF operates a public contact point to field queries, provide guidance in suspected fraud situations, and assist with complaints.

French regulators generally take a risk-based approach to shadow banking (also referred to as non-bank financial intermediation or NBFI), recognising its contribution to the financing of the economy and addressing the risks it poses.

Identification of NBFIs

NBFI encompasses institutions and activities that finance the economy without holding a bank license. French regulators typically identify NBFIs as entities that engage in maturity or liquidity transformation, employ leverage, or transfer credit risk, and are not subject to bank-like prudential requirements. Typically, the scope of NBFIs includes entities that collect capital with deposit-like features, undertake maturity or liquidity transformation, enable credit-risk transfer, or use leverage. Since 1 January 2025, CRR III defines a “shadow banking entity” as an entity that carries out banking activities outside the regulated framework.

French Regulators’ Supervisory Approach to NBFIs

On the one hand, French regulators traditionally view NBFIs as providing an alternative offer that is complementary to traditional bank intermediation, thereby fostering innovation, broadening funding sources, and supporting economic growth. On the other hand, they acknowledge that NBFIs present risks, such as liquidity stress, contagion across interconnected participants, credit risk, and concerns (related to AML/CFT) often exacerbated by complex structures.

In the past, the ACPR proposed that the framework for supervision of NBFIs should include three complementary lines: (i) extending banking regulation where needed; (ii) applying tailored measures directly to NBFIs; and (iii) regulating interconnections between banks and NBFIs to reduce systemic risk. This policy has been implemented at both legislative and supervisory levels. French credit institutions, financing companies, and certain investment firms are subject to exposure limits to shadow banking, which they must monitor as part of their risk management systems. The framework is further strengthened with CRR III imposing new disclosure obligations on credit institutions and investment firms concerning their exposures to shadow banking.

Outlook

Looking ahead, the Bank of France and the ACPR advocate strengthening resilience through a dedicated macroprudential framework for NBFIs, complementing existing microprudential and investor-protection rules. They are actively engaged in European and international work, including the Eurosystem’s common response to the European Commission’s consultation and initiatives at the FSB and the ESRB, to better prevent and manage systemic risks amid growing bank-NBFI interconnectedness.

The licensing process for regulated entities in France differs depending on the type of licence applied for, although there are some common features to all.

French financial regulation law provides that an application for approval as a regulated entity must be submitted to the competent authority, which, if the application is deemed complete, will acknowledge receipt and examine it within a specified statutory review period.

However, in practice, the licensing process typically entails multiple exchanges with the competent regulator and unfolds across several phases, including the following:

• confirmation of the robustness of the business model and characterisation of the regulated services to determine the appropriate licence type;
• a courtesy meeting with the regulator to present the project and discuss the anticipated timeline;
• preparation and submission of the application, usually through communication back and forth with the regulator; and
• final approval, granted once the regulator is satisfied that the entity meets all applicable conditions and can operate safely and in compliance with regulatory requirements.

While French law sets indicative timelines that vary by licence type, in practice, the duration to obtain regulatory approval/authorisation depends on multiple factors, including the specific regulatory status sought, the complexity of the business model, the characteristics of the target client base, the associated risk profile, the completeness of the application and responsiveness throughout the process.

For example, for banks and investment firms, the timeframe frequently observed for standard and low-risk business models is around 12 months from first outreach to the regulator to final approval. More complex business models (eg, involving cross-border elements, innovative products, requiring specific prudential permissions or targeting retail clients) can extend beyond 12 months.

As regards the costs relating to the licensing, it should first be noted that French regulators do not charge fees upon deposit of the application. Professional support is often needed to prepare the application and to secure the necessary license, particularly where internal or group resources are unavailable or limited. In this case, it is prudent to budget for legal counsel, a specialist compliance consultancy, and financial or prudential advisers in order to provide technical assistance on capital requirements, to prepare the policies and procedures, ensure a compliant business model and adequate governance arrangements.

Finally, fees and contributions will be payable (notably to the ECB, ACPR or AMF) on an annual basis after licensing. Additional contributions may be due depending on the regulatory status and activities of the financial institution. These are based on several criteria, including the firm’s regulatory status, the volume of its activities, and the services it provides.

French financial regulation laws, in line with sectoral EU directives, subject senior individuals within authorised financial institutions to direct regulation that imposes specific, enforceable obligations on defined roles. Such rules vary depending on the type of license. 

• The “fit and proper” rule – generally, executive directors of French financial institutions must satisfy suitability standards, including being of good repute, having appropriate knowledge, skills and experience as well as a time commitment. For significant credit institutions and investment firms, limits on the number of directorships also apply. Depending on the regulatory status of the institution, these rules also apply to non-executive directors and to other senior individuals (such as key function holders). Financial institutions bear primary responsibility for ensuring that newly appointed, or re-appointed, individuals meet these criteria. The French regulator generally assesses suitability on an ex-post basis and may require removal if the conditions are not met. In practice, firms may notify the regulator of governance changes prior to their effective date. For banks, specifically, the framework may evolve upon implementation of CRD VI, notably introducing prior approvals for large institutions’ executive and non-executive directors by the competent regulator with assessments of key function holders.

• Ongoing training obligations – senior individuals are typically subject to ongoing training obligations. These commonly entail structured onboarding, periodic refresher training, and targeted upskilling when there are changes in the firm’s activities, risk profile or the regulatory environment.
• Remuneration – certain individuals characterised as “material risk-takers” within certain financial institutions (particularly credit institutions and investment firms) are directly subject to binding remuneration rules shaping the structure of fixed and variable pay. These constraints are designed to promote sound and effective risk management and discourage excessive risk-taking, thereby aligning individual incentives with the firm’s long-term safety and compliance. In practice, this framework makes senior individuals accountable for governance quality, risk oversight and culture, and makes their appointment, conduct and incentives subject to regulatory scrutiny consistent with European prudential and conduct standards as implemented in France.

CRR III/CRD VI

The EU’s final Basel III package has applied since 1 January 2025 through the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR III) and the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD VI), with certain measures phased in over time.

France is expected to complete transposition promptly, largely by ordinance under the DDADUE Law, with important choices ahead – particularly regarding the transposition of CRD VI’s third-country branch regime and, more specifically, the reverse solicitation exemption and its articulation with the so-called French “banking monopoly”.

In June 2025, the European Commission adopted a new delegated act deferring application of the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB) until 1 January 2027.

Crisis Management and Depositor Protection — CMDI

On 25 June 2025, the co-legislators reached a political agreement on the Crisis Management and Deposit Insurance (CMDI) package to make bank resolution more usable, in particular for mid-sized institutions, and to clarify when deposit guarantee scheme funds may support resolution under lower cost safeguards. Formal adoption of the amendments to BRRD, the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation and the Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive is expected in the coming months.

MiFIR/MiFID Review

The review of the Markets in Financial Instruments framework entered into force on 28 March 2024 – (Regulation (EU) 2024/791 and Directive (EU) 2024/790). It enables consolidated tapes (bonds first, then shares/ETFs) to deliver near real time data, recalibrates transparency and trading obligation rules, and prohibits payment for order flow EU wide.

In France, the DDADUE law has already implemented elements (including the PFOF – “payment for order flow” – ban) and empowers the French government to complete transposition by ordinance.

EMIR 3

Regulation (EU) 2024/2987 (EMIR 3) has applied since 24 December 2024. Among the most significant changes are: (i) a revamped clearing threshold methodology; (ii) permanent margin exemptions for single stock and equity index options; and (iii) the Active Account Requirement, under which in scope counterparties must maintain and use accounts at EU central counterparties for specified EUR/PLN interest-rate derivatives. Operational and “representativeness” details will apply once the European Commission endorses ESMA’s regulatory technical standards.

Payment Services Reform

In accordance with the Instant Payments Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2024/886), payment service providers in the euro area must be able to receive instant credit transfers by 9 January 2025 and to send them, with Verification of Payee (name check), by 9 October 2025. In addition, the forthcoming payments package – a directly applicable Payment Services Regulation and a new Payment Services Directive (PSD3) – entered trilogues in June 2025. Expected contributions include stronger fraud prevention and name-check frameworks, improvements to open banking access, and supervisory convergence.

Anti-Money-Laundering Package

Adopted in May/June 2024, the package significantly strengthens EU level harmonisation and supervision. It comprises the Single Rulebook Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2024/1624), directly applicable from 10 July 2027; Directive (EU) 2024/1640, to be transposed by 10 July 2027; and the Regulation establishing the Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) in Frankfurt (Regulation (EU) 2024/1620), applicable from 1 July 2025, with operational ramp-up and phased direct supervision of selected high-risk entities thereafter.

DORA

The Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) has applied since 17 January 2025, harmonising Information and Communication Technology (ICT) risk management, incident reporting, resilience testing (including threat-led tests) and oversight of critical third-party providers. The European Supervisory Authorities are rolling out the corresponding Level 2 measures and guidance.

Consumer Protection Reforms

The recast Consumer Credit Directive (Directive (EU) 2023/2225) must be transposed by 20 November 2025 and apply from 20 November 2026. In addition, the new rules on distance financial services (Directive (EU) 2023/2673), which modernise pre-contractual information and withdrawal rights for online contracts, must be transposed by 19 December 2025 and apply from 19 June 2026. Both directives should be transposed into French Law by ordinance under the DDADUE Law.

Financial Data Access Regulation (FIDA)

The proposed regulation would establish a customer-centric open-finance framework, requiring banks, insurers, investment firms to make specified customer data available via standardised interfaces, and creating an authorisation regime for financial information service providers to access and use such data. Trilogue negotiations began in 2025, with parts of the industry expressing concerns.

Savings and Investments Union

On 19 March 2025, the European Commission unveiled the Savings and Investments Union plan, aimed at channelling savings into productive investment. Interesting priorities include: (i) reviving securitisation; (ii) integrating pre- and post-trade infrastructures; (iii) reducing residual fragmentation in asset management; and (iv) further harmonising capital markets supervision. These changes, as well as those envisaged for pension funds, could create opportunities in France given the country’s particularly high savings rate.