In France, the rules applicable to healthcare products (ie, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, blood products, personal protective equipment, and medical instruments) derive from EU law and national law (which is often a transposition of EU law).
The French Public Health Code (FPHC) sets out definitions and rules in relation to healthcare products. More precisely, Part V of the FPCH relates to medical devices and medicinal products.
Regulatory Regime Applicable to Medicinal Products
Directive (CE) No 2001/83, which was transposed under French law (Article L. 5121-1 et seq of the FPHC; and Article R. 5121-1 et seq of the FPHC), sets out the rules applicable to medicinal products.
Regulatory Regime Applicable to Medical Devices
There are specific regulations applicable to particular medical devices. There are also general rules, which apply to all of these products, as set out by Article L. 5211-1 et seq of the FPHC.
Two EU Regulations on medical devices are worth noting:
Regulation (EU) 2017/745 on medical devices was amended in 2023, version which entered into force on 26 May 2024, following the expiry of the transition period (Conformité des dispositifs médicaux au règlement (UE) 2017/745: prorogation de la période transitoire). For some devices, the EU Parliament has voted to extend the transition period until 2028, to ensure that patients can access safe and high-quality medical devices. The new rules set out in these amended regulations aim at extending the scope of the products falling under the definition of “medical device” and strengthening the requirements and criteria for the design and manufacture of medical devices.
For its part, Regulation (EU) 2017/746 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices was implemented by French Act No 2022-1086 dated 29 July 2022. The requirements regarding the safety and efficiency of in vitro diagnostic medical devices, the traceability of these devices, European co-ordination in the field of in vitro diagnostic medical devices, as well as the transparency of the system, have been enhanced (Rapport au Président de la République relatif à l’ordonnance No 2022-1086 of 29 July 2022 portant adaptation du droit français au règlement (UE) 2017/746 du Parlement Européen et du Conseil of 5 April 2017 relatif aux dispositifs médicaux de diagnostic in vitro).
Regulatory Regime Applicable to Cosmetics
Cosmetics were first regulated by Directive No 76/68/ECC, which was transposed into national law under Articles L. 5131-1 to L. 5131-8, Articles L. 5431-1 to L. 5431-9, Articles R. 5131-1 to R. 5131-15, and Articles R. 5431-1 to R. 5431-3 of the FPHC.
Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on cosmetic products has subsequently replaced this Directive.
A French Act is also likely to have an important impact on cosmetics, since a lot of their components are now prohibited (French Act No 2020-105 dated 10 February 2020). Indeed, pursuant to this Act, and since 1 March 2020, 23 chemical substances which are considered toxic or carcinogenic, are forbidden in cosmetics products.
Due to French Act No 2022-1726 of 30 December 2022, cosmetic products are no longer qualified as medical products since 1 January 2024 (Veille permanente, Sortie programmée des produits cosmétiques et des produits de tatouage de la liste des produits de santé).
Regulatory Regime Applicable to Biocides
Biocides are chemical or organic products aimed at destroying, pushing back or annihilating harmful organisms. As such, biocides may have a negative impact on humans and on the environment.
All biocidal products require prior authorisation before being placed on the market, and their active substances should also be approved (Regulation (EU) No 528/2012). There are 22 biocidal product types, which are grouped in four main areas (disinfectants, preservatives, pest control, and other biocidal products).
At the national level, biocides are usually governed by the legislation applicable to chemicals of the French Environmental Code, to the extent they impact the environment.
However, biocides may also be subject to medical regulations. That is the case of medical disinfectants, which may fall under the scope of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, which came into force on 1 September 2013. However, it should be noted that, as a principle, medical disinfectants cannot be characterised as medical devices per se. They may fall into this category to the extent a medical device needs to be disinfected before use (such as contact lenses or endoscope disinfectants).
Regulatory Regime Applicable to Food and Nutrition Supplements
French Decree No 2006-352 of 20 March 2006 has transposed Directive No 2002/46/CE, relating to food supplements, into French law.
The Regulatory Regime Applicable to Pharmaceuticals
Prior to being marketed on the European market, pharmaceuticals require a marketing authorisation (EU Regulation No 2017/745).
Pharmaceuticals are then subject to pharmacovigilance which involves detection, assessment, understanding and prevention of adverse effects or any other medicine-related problem (Articles L. 5121–22 et seq the FPHC).
It should also be noted that there are strict regulations governing the promotion and advertising of pharmaceuticals under French law (Article L. 5122-1 et seq of the FPHC). The aim of such regulation is to ensure that manufacturers, healthcare professionals, and the general public all communicate in a clear, evidence-based manner.
The Regulatory Regime Applicable to Blood Products
In France, blood products are strictly regulated by the FPHC (Article L. 1220-1 et seq, Article L. 1271-1 et seq and Article D. 1221-1 et seq of the FPHC). This strict regulation is the consequence of the infected blood scandal which occurred in France in the 1990s following distribution of blood products contaminated with HIV and Hepatitis C by a medical centre.
Specific rules are set out in relation to the donor, transportation, the safety chain and the storage of the product.
Also, the French Blood Establishment (EFS), created in January 2000, has the monopoly, in France, on the collection, testing, preparation, and distribution of labile blood products (Articles L. 1222-1 to L. 1222-16 of the FPHC).
The Regulatory Regime Applicable to Psychedelics
The Vienna Convention of 21 February 1971 sets out the rules on psychedelics substances, which member states (including France) are bound to follow.
Since the enactment of French Act No 2020-1525 on 7 December 2020, the classification of poisonous plants, substances, or preparations as narcotics is set via a decision of the Director of the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety (ANSM) (Article L. 5132-7 of the FPHC). The list of classified narcotic substances, consisting of four annexes, was initially established by a French Decree on 22 February 1990, and has been amended over time.
In principle, narcotics are prohibited – the production, marketing, use, and, in general, all agricultural, artisanal, or commercial operations involving substances or preparations classified as narcotics are prohibited, except in the event express authorisation is granted (Article R. 5132-74 of the FPHC).
The Regulatory Regime Applicable to Cannabidiol (CBD)
In France, there is a general prohibition of any operation (including the production, transport, possession, sale or use) involving cannabis and its derivatives (as provided by Article R. 5132-86 of the FPHC).
By way of exception, the farming, import, export and industrial and commercial use of the seeds and fibres of a variety of Cannabis, the Cannabis sativa L. variety, was previously allowed providing the following conditions were met:
However, in a recent case, this strict regime was challenged before the CJEU. Indeed, in a landmark decision, the court held that CBD is not a narcotic drug and that member states are not allowed to prohibit its marketing (CJEU, 19 November 2020, Case C-66318). In other words, French laws banning hemp-derived CBD were found contrary to EU laws.
The French government refused to apply this European decision and introduced an order dated 30 December 2021, prohibiting the sale of cannabis flower and leaf and revoking the Order of 22 August 1990. However, for the authorised varieties only, this Order also increased the allowed rate of THC to 0.30%.
This Order was partially cancelled as from 29 December 2022, following a decision of the higher court of the administrative system in France; ie, the Conseil d’Etat (CE, 29 December 2022, No 444887). The allowed rate of THC is, to this day, still up to 0.30%.
The French regulation of CBD is still blurred and is likely to evolve in the next few years.
The Regulatory Regime Applicable to Clinical Trials of Medicinal Products
Initially, Directive 2001/20/EC of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use was applicable to clinical trials.
Clinical trials are now regulated by EU Regulation No 536/2014 (Clinical Trials Regulation, CTR) which came into force on 31 January 2022.
However, if the application for clinical trial authorisation is submitted between 31 January 2022, and 31 January 2023, the clinical trial could be initiated in accordance with the 2001 directive (Dictionnaire permanent, Médicaments: essais cliniques, 2023, Sections 2 and 3).
After 31 January 2025, clinical trials will only be subject to EU Regulation No 536/2014.
Regarding domestic legislation, Article L. 1124-1 of the FPHC is the primary source of law for clinical trials.
Regulatory Regime Applicable to Medical Apps
Healthtech businesses have spread rapidly in France, particularly over the last decade. As a result, medical apps have developed and now cover a wide range of activities and specialisations in the health sector.
However, and considering that medical apps are rather recent, there is no specific regulation applicable to these apps.
However, it should be noted that:
To the extent that they do qualify as medical devices, medical apps may be obliged to comply with the applicable regulation, which notably derives from Regulation (EU) No 2017/745. It should be noted that a Medical App may qualify as a medical device if it meets the following cumulative conditions:
On 11 May 2023, the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) imposed a fine of EUR380,000 on the main French medical app, called Doctissimo, for failing to comply with obligations under the GDPR, including the requirement to obtain individuals’ consent for the collection and use of their health data, as well as for not adhering to rules regarding cookies (Veille permanente, Doctissimo sanctionné par la CNIL pour ses manquements au RGPD).
Regulatory Regime Applicable to Telemedicine
Telemedicine is a form of remote medical practice that was introduced into the FPHC under Articles L. 6316-1 and R. 6316-1 et seq of the FPHC.
It was amended by a 2010 Decree (Decree No 2010-1229), implementing a national Act dated 21 July 2009, which reformed the hospital system. The decree defines the medical acts that may be carried out through telemedicine and the different conditions of application of telemedicine (which are teleconsultation, telexpertise, telesurveillance, tele-assistance and medical regulation).
Telexpertise allows health professionals to request the advice of professionals of other specialities, through digital means. Telesurveillance allows the practitioners to interpret health data without examining the patient.
In 2018, the French National Health Insurance Fund allowed the reimbursement of telemedicine (Articles L. 6316-1 et seq of the FPHC).
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and following the public health emergency Act dated 23 March 2020 (which was extended until June 2021), the rules applicable to telemedicine were modified in an attempt to expand the practice and offer greater protection to patients. All teleconsultations were fully reimbursed by public insurance.
Regulatory Regime Applicable to Wearables
Wearables have also spread over the last few years. These objects collect health data on a daily basis, and to that extent, should strictly comply with data protection legislation, including the GDPR. Depending on the device, medical device regulations may also apply.
Regulatory Regime Applicable to Stem Cells
French Act No 2021-1017 of 2 August 2021, relating to bioethics, has furthered the evolution of legislation in favour of stem cell research. Unlike research on embryos, stem cell research is subject only to a prior declaration regime (Dalloz, loi de bioéthique: les grandes lignes d’une réforme attendue).
French Decree No 2022-294 of 1 March 2022, concerning research on stem cells, establishes the conditions for the implementation of this new regime.
The classification of products may sometimes be discussed, especially when said products are destined to be used in different sectors (eg, the environment, the food industry, and the beauty industry). As a result, the correct regime applicable to these products, which may be referred to as “borderline products”, is sometimes difficult to determine.
In order to facilitate the distinction between products, several instruments were put in place. Guidelines were issued by the European Commission and national governments, notably covering the distinctions between cosmetics and medicines.
Moreover, in borderline situations, and in the event a claim arises in this respect, French courts may decide which categories apply to which products on a case-by-case basis.
Finally, the ANSM may also rule on the classification of a product, taking into consideration its composition, its scientific properties, its mode of use, etc.
Manufacturing entities are subject to several requirements both prior to and after the marketing of health sector products, including medical devices, healthcare products and products featuring new technologies. These requirements depend on the product. However, the same steps are generally followed by the manufacturers of the health sector products, as summarised below.
Application (ie, Prior Authorisation or Declaration)
The manufacture of medical products is usually subject to prior authorisation granted by the ANSM.
Manufacturers of blood products are subject to prior authorisation by the ANSM. Indeed, establishments carrying out transfusions must be approved by a decision of the ASNM. Moreover, any activity involving the preparation, storage, distribution, transfer, import or export of tissue, as well as its derivatives, cells and cell therapy preparations from the human body, used for therapeutic purposes, is also subject to prior authorisation from the ANSM.
The preparation, conservation, distribution, or transfer of advanced therapy medicinal products prepared on an ad hoc basis (including experimental medicinal products) is subject to prior authorisation from the ANSM.
However, manufacturers of medical devices (Article L. 5211-3-1 of the FPHC) and cosmetics (Articles L. 5131-2 and R. 5131-1 of the FPHC) are only subject to a declaration (which is distinct from a pre-authorisation) to the ANSM.
It should also be noted that entities other than the ANSM may be involved in this pre-authorisation/declaration process. More precisely, the development of the healthtech sector has led to new requirements in relation to data protection. As a result, any person hosting personal health data in the context of prevention, diagnosis, care, social or medico-social healthcare must be certified as a health data hosting service provider pursuant to Article L. 1111-8 of the FPHC. The conditions of approval are set by decree, and subject to a consultation of the Data Protection Authority (CNIL).
Conditions of Approval
Manufacturing authorisations may be delivered only if the product, the manufacture site and the manufacturer meet the conditions presented under the good manufacturing practice (GMP) guidelines (which – at the EU level – is regulated by Directive No 2017/1572).
Other guidelines may apply depending on the manufacturer’s activity. For instance, the manufacture of medicinal products must be realised by a pharmacist or a company in which a pharmacist participated in the management or board of directors.
Examination of the Application
Both the declaration and the authorisation procedures must be done online up to 60 days before any activity starts. Manufacturing authorisations are granted within 90 days as from the receipt of the application.
Initial authorisations are not subject to any fees.
It should be noted that the application may sometimes be subject to an inspection of the facility by an expert – whose mission is, inter alia, to verify the facility’s ability to carry out its activities in compliance with the applicable requirements.
Period of Authorisation and Renewals
Authorisations are granted for an unlimited period of time.
However, suspensions or withdrawals may be decided by the ANSM following inspections revealing hypothesis of breaches of the applicable standards.
Inspections
Inspections aim at assessing the compliance of manufacturers with good practice and other applicable standards.
In this process, inspectors can analyse samples and can be authorised by a court to seize products.
An inspection report usually summarises the breaches/deviations from required standards. The inspection report is drawn up during a process in the presence of all the parties (ie, an adversarial process) which includes a preliminary report to the operator. As a result of this report, and if the site is deemed not compliant, appropriate decisions may be taken. Moreover, inspections can lead to administrative measures being taken by the ANSM, including injunctions, suspensions, the withdrawal of authorisation or the approval of financial penalties.
There are no specific obligations in respect of corporate social responsibility, environment and sustainability throughout the product life cycle. However, manufacturers are largely encouraged by the French government to take measures in this respect, if practicable. Moreover, manufacturers usually publish measures that they plan on implementing in order to improve their position on social responsibility, the environment and sustainability.
Applicable Rules on Advertising and Product Claims Under French Law
Under French law, the FPHC strictly regulates advertising and product claims in respect of healthcare products and medical devices. Moreover, the French Consumer Code, which is also applicable in the heath sector, prohibits unfair, misleading practices and comparative advertising (Article L. 121-1 et seq, and Article L.122-1 et seq of the French Consumer Code).
There is also soft law on this subject:
This code aims at regulating all aspects of the industry’s relationship with healthcare professionals and healthcare organisations, at ensuring that all interactions are ethical and professional at all times and at maintaining the trust of regulators, and – most importantly – patients. As such, the code contains rules on advertising which are applicable to all members (the MedTech Europe corporate members became signatories of this Code on 1 January 2017).
Finally, it is worth noting that a French ministerial order laying down a Charter on the quality of professional practices for the presentation, information or promotion of medical devices for individual use, other health products and any associated services was published on 8 March 2022. This Charter sets out a new framework for providing information and carrying out promotional practices in relation to reimbursed medical devices. It applies to products and services reimbursed by the French social security system and is used, notably, in pharmacies and health institutions. Non-compliance with the Charter by a company can lead to a financial penalty.
Presentation of the Requirements in Respect of Advertising and Product Claims Under French Law
Medical advertising requires a prior authorisation (an “advertising visa”) or a certification. Products must comply with the marketing authorisation or certification and the therapeutic strategies recommended by the French National Authority for Health (HAS). The advertisement of the product must be objective and not misleading or endanger public health and/or consumer safety.
The advertising requirements for products vary depending on the audience (general public or healthcare professionals), the payers and the reimbursement systems for those products.
Pursuant to the Toubon Act No 94-665 dated 4 August 1994, the use of French language is compulsory. The aim is to protect French consumers, as well as to preserve the French language, and promote French culture. A failure to comply with this Act may lead to a fine of EUR3,750 for a legal entity per non-compliant product.
The FPHC has provisions for penalties for advertising violations that can go up to a EUR750,000 fine and two years in prison for the company’s legal representative. For the companies involved, fines can be five times as high.
French Act 2023-451 of 9 June 2023, applicable from 17 February 2024, subjects online influencers to the same rules governing advertising.
Examples of Specific Requirements
The advertisement of biocides, which may be particularly dangerous for the environment, is strictly regulated (Articles L. 522-18 to L. 522-19 and Articles R. 522-16 to R. 522-17 of the French Environment Code). Decree 2019-642 of 26 June 2019 specifies the types of biocides which may be commercialised and the form of advertisement that a biocide product may take.
The advertisement of food and cosmetics is not subject to prior authorisation by the ANSM. However, some rules must be respected by the advertiser. For instance, the advertisement cannot mislead consumers. Moreover, the presentation of the product must not refer to the product as being able to cure or prevent diseases (in this event, it could be considered as a medicine by the regulators).
Under French law, several requirements must be met for a product to be validly placed on the market.
Indeed, in order to be placed on the French market, medicinal products must receive prior authorisation (AMM) issued either by the Director General of the ANSM or by the European Commission after evaluation by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMA).
For medicinal products intended to be sold in European countries, specific procedures should be followed. The access to the market should be made either through:
To obtain an AMM, the manufacturer of a medicinal product must submit a file containing all the scientific results obtained during the development of the product, as well as the clinical studies. The file must contain proof of the quality, safety, and efficacy of the drug, with a favourable benefit/risk ratio.
In France, national marketing authorisations granted by the ANSM are valid for a period of five years, renewable without time limits.
It should also be noted that after obtaining the authorisation and after putting their product on the market, the manufacturers of a medicinal product must appoint an internal representative for pharmacovigilance, whose contact details must be shared with the ANSM. A periodic report must also be given to the ANSM detailing any adverse reactions to the product, and any prohibition or restriction regarding the product that could have been imposed by the competent authority. Finally, if any incident happens, if any serious risk occurs of if a recall happens, manufacturers should also notify the ANSM.
Other products should also obtain authorisation in order to be placed on the market:
Internationalisation plans may be put in place by French manufacturers of health products. Indeed, manufacturers may decide to export and sell their products to other countries.
However, the circulation of health products is not unlimited and is subject to strict conditions. For instance, in a decision related to the circulation of a medical product, the CJEU held that a medicinal product, which is not subject to prescription in one member state, may not be placed on the market in another member state, unless that member state has granted its marketing authorisation (Case C-178/20, 8 July 2021). Therefore, the European principle of freedom of movement does not seem to be applicable to health products.
At the international (non-European level), health products should also meet the conditions of the foreign country to which they are exported, in order to be marketed in such country.
This may be explained by the fact that countries have different health policies and regulations.
The French regulatory authorities of the healthcare sector are invested with a general mission of surveillance and, as such, should ensure that the products placed on the market present, on balance, more benefits than risks. In this context, healthcare agencies should also verify the quality and the safety of the products.
For instance, the ANSM has established several surveillance systems such as:
If needed, corrective actions can be taken to reinforce the products’ safety which can also lead to their being recalled from the market.
Moreover, French regulatory authorities usually conduct inspections to ensure that the rules are being properly followed and regulations properly applied. Inspections may result in administrative actions forcing the manufacturers to comply and can vary from an injunction to financial fines. These sanctions can even lead to the suspension of activity.
In France, there are several regulatory authorities intervening in the health sector. The mission of these health agencies is to regulate the health sector; ie, to set and define rules applicable to medical devices, healthcare products and any other related products.
The role and mission of each of these agencies are governed by the French Act No 2016-41 dated 26 January 2016.
In France, the main health agencies are:
There are also specific health agencies such as:
In order to allow effective regulation of the healthcare sector, French regulatory agencies are granted several powers of investigation and control. They may also send reports to the ministry/authority they depend on, and request measures if and when necessary.
It should be noted that the ANSM has increased powers since French Act No 2011-2012 of 29 December 2011, since it is entitled, inter alia, to:
The other health agencies also have significant powers. For instance, the CNIL is entitled to alert the public in the case of a breach of the applicable rules but also to carry out investigations and impose sanctions if needed.
The FPHC sets out the criminal offences and monetary penalties that may be pronounced in the case of a breach of the applicable rules and regulations (fourth part and fourth book of the FPHC).
The sanctions may apply in case of breach of several rules, set out in the FPHC, such as a failure to comply with the rules applicable to medical devices, cosmetics or in vitro diagnostic devices.
The sanctions that may be imposed are of both a criminal and civil nature and are usually pronounced by the ANSM.
Criminal penalties depend on the nature of the breach. For instance, advertising of medical products and devices with early authorisation may lead to a sanction of one year’s imprisonment and a EUR150,000 fine. The distribution, production, brokage, advertising, sale, import or export of falsified medicine can be sanctioned by a EUR375,000 fine and five years in prison.
The FPHC also provides for monetary penalties in the case of infringements of certain rules (Articles L.5421-8, L.5422-18, L.5423-8, L.5461-9, L.5462-8, R.5461-4 and R.5462-4 of the FPHC).
These financial sanctions cannot exceed 10% of the gross turnover, up to EUR1 million, for a company, and EUR150,000 for a natural person. The daily fine for a delay in performance or compliance with an ASNM order cannot exceed EUR2,500 per day.
In 2021, the ASNM ordered six penalties for a total amount of EUR508,048. On 27 April 2022, the ANSM published a report announcing it might decide to apply penalties in cases of falsification of advice from a hospital’s ethics committee and research on human subjects without prior authorisation.
Under French law, claims based on the defect of a product should be exclusively grounded on the product liability regime (Article 1245 et seq of the French Civil Code – FCC). Indeed, the product liability regime, which derives from a transposition of Directive No 85/374/EEC, cannot be contractually waived if the cause of the damage allegedly suffered is the defect of the product. This regime applies even in the presence of a contract between the parties. This Directive may be amended by a project of Directive adopted by the European Parliament on 14 December 2023, which has yet to be approved by the Council.
In the case of an alleged defect in a product, a party may also bring a claim on the basis of the warranty for latent defect regime (Articles 1641 et seq of the FCC). It should be noted that the time limitation applicable to this type of claim is shorter than the one applicable to product liability claims (two years as from the discovery of the defect for the warranty for latent defect regime and three years as from the discovery of the defect, the identity of the producer and the damage in the context of the product liability regime).
If the claim is not related to the defect of the product, it may be grounded on:
It is also worth noting that under the product liability regime, producers are exempted from liability when, at the time they put the product into circulation, the state of scientific and technical knowledge did not allow for the detection of the defect. This exemption for “development risk” is in favour of technological advancements (Faut-il repenser l’exonération pour risque de développement? – Marie Cartapanis – RTD civ. 2021. 523). To address the risks that this may entail, public authorities sometimes establish compensation funds in cases of serial damage (Faut-il repenser l’exonération pour risque de développement? – Marie Cartapanis – RTD civ. 2021. 523).
In France, rules on jurisdiction of the courts derive from European law, when and if applicable, and more precisely from the Regulation No 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis). These rules may also result from the provisions of the French Code of civil procedure (FCCP), which applies in national and international (non-European) matters.
A claimant should first determine the nature of their claim (civil or commercial) to identify the competent jurisdiction. In civil matters, the claimant should seize the court of the defendant’s domicile (Articles 42–48 of the FCCP). This principle applies to cross-border litigation (French Supreme Court, 1st Civ. 14 March 2006, No 05-13.820).
There is an exception to this rule applicable to consumers. Indeed, a consumer may seize the court of the place of its domicile under Article 18 of the Brussels I bis Regulation. Under Article R.631-3 of the French Consumer Code, a consumer may also decide to bring the case before the Court located where they were domiciled when the agreement was entered into, or the court located where they resided when the damage arose.
The “loser pays” principle is not as strong in France as it can be in common law countries.
There are, however, some costs rules applicable to French claims (which are not limited to product liability claims). More precisely:
The parties are free to claim any amount under Article 700 of the FCCP but should justify their request. The court will then rule, on a case-by-case basis, whether this amount should be granted, in light of the representations made by the parties and also of the equity between the parties.
Most of the decisions of regulatory bodies can be challenged before administrative courts. This does not concern preparatory acts, advice or recommendations which are not binding (guidelines, etc).
Class actions are not allowed per se under French law. However, group actions may be issued before the courts.
The group action mechanism is quite recent in France since it was introduced by the Hamon Act of 17 March 2014. Under the provisions introduced by this Act, consumer associations are entitled to bring claims in respect of consumer law and competition law breaches, providing at least two of the consumers suffered the same damage. In order to validly bring proceedings, the consumer association should also have the capacity to issue such proceedings.
On 26 January 2016, the group action mechanism was extended to the healthcare products and cosmetic fields (Article L. 1143-1 of the FPHC). It is on the basis of this new regime that the Depakine cases were brought before French Courts. In a recent decision dated 5 January 2022, the Paris Judicial Court held Sanofi liable for the damage caused as a result of the administration of Depakine to pregnant women, since it failed to observe its obligation of vigilance and information on the risks attached to this medicine. This is a landmark decision since it is the first decision relating to a group action in the health sector.
Even though there is no public listing of group actions, it should be noted that some actions are still pending and relate to consumer goods, health products, data protection, housing and discrimination. However, group actions are still rare in France and a 2020 Parliamentary report No 3085 found that only 32 group actions took place since the creation of this scheme.
EU Directive 2020/1828/EU for the protection of the collective interests of consumers dated 25 November 2020 required member states to introduce a mechanism for group actions in consumer law.
The directive has been transposed into French law through an act dated 15 December 2022. The bill has been passed by one chamber of the French Parliament on 6 February 2024 but is currently under review by the second chamber for a second review after amendments. The proposed law modifies the current regime and harmonises the framework for all collective redress actions.
In France, it is not mandatory to try to settle a case through an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism before issuing proceedings before the courts.
There are exceptions to this principle:
The parties are bound by their agreement and the court may reject a party’s claim in the absence of any attempt to settle the dispute prior to a trial.
Claims in relation to product safety compliance may be brought before civil, criminal or administrative courts.
Civil litigants may also report to any regulatory authority any violation of law or regulations.
Product safety and product liability in respect of environmental impact is governed by the French Act No 2020-105 of 10 February 2020, which was issued to prevent waste and to achieve zero single-use plastic by 2040, as well as to end the use of micro-plastic by 2040.
In order to avoid wasting medicine and medical products, the law states that pharmacies have been able to sell medicines individually from January 2022 (Article 40 of the French Act No 2020-105).
The EU regulations applicable to medical devices (EU Regulation No 2017/745) and in vitro devices (EU Regulation No 2017/746) were recently amended.
The aims of these amendments were, inter alia, to:
The EU regulations on Medical Devices were to apply from 26 May 2021. However, due to the pandemic, the European Parliament handed down a decision postponing the beginning of their application by a year, until 26 May 2022. The transitional period, during which member states will have to implement the provisions of the Regulation into their national law, ended on 26 May 2024. To date, only medical devices for which manufacturers have submitted an application for European certification to a notified body, or those that already comply with the 2017 regulation, can be marketed.
No similar decision has been handed down by the European Parliament regarding the EU In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation, which applied from 26 May 2022.
Since then, the European Parliament has not issued any similar decision regarding the EU In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation.
EU Regulations (No 2017/745 and 2017/746) govern the market access of AI-based diagnostic or treatment systems falling under the definition of medical devices (Présentation du Syndicat National de l’Industrie des Technologies Médicales (SNITEM). Catherine Maurain, Fasc. 1–20 : GÉNÉRALITÉS. – Droit pharmaceutique. Mouvements et perspectives, Section 15).
In 2020, the National Commission for the Evaluation of Medical Devices and Health Technologies (CNEDiMTS) proposed an analytical framework for manufacturers of medical devices utilising AI, particularly those seeking reimbursement from the public health insurance system after prescription (CNEDiMTS, Grille descriptive des fonctionnalités des dispositifs médicaux embarquant un système avec apprentissage automatique (intelligence artificielle)).
European AI regulation is also evolving in terms of risk prevention and addressing damages. On 28 September 2022, two directive proposals were published by the EU – one concerning liability for defective products and another for adapting tort liability rules to the field of AI (Produits défectueux – Responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux et intelligence artificielle : une proposition presque parfaite – Etude par Céline Mangematin. Intelligence artificielle – Responsabilité civile et intelligence artificielle – une proposition de directive européenne a minima? – Focus par Philippe PIERRE). The objective is to ensure that victims of AI-related damages receive the same level of protection as with other technologies. The regulation on AI was adopted on 21 May 2024 and will enter into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the EU and will be fully applicable 24 months after its entry into force.
39 rue de la Bienfaisance
75008 Paris
France
+33 184 793 780
+33 145 636 172
Aurelia.Cadain@kennedyslaw.com www.kennedyslaw.comWearable Devices, Artificial Intelligence and Telesurgery – Trends and Latest Developments From a French Law Perspective
Improving treatment and quality of life for patients is a major challenge in France, as it is in many parts of the world. The French healthcare system faces numerous obstacles, including an ageing population and a prevalence of chronic diseases, thus increasing healthcare costs.
In response to these challenges, healthtech businesses have spread rapidly across the country, particularly over the last decade. This sector’s growth has been fuelled by significant advancements in technology, leading to the development of a wide array of connected devices.
These devices often integrate cutting-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, enhancing their capabilities and effectiveness. Wearable devices, in particular, have become increasingly common, providing continuous health monitoring and real-time data collection. This technology covers a vast range of activities and specialisations within the health sector, from tracking vital signs to monitoring chronic conditions, and even managing mental health.
Moreover, the advent of connected devices has revolutionised surgical practices, giving rise to telesurgery. Telesurgery enables health professionals to perform surgical procedures remotely, leveraging digital means and robotic systems. This advancement not only expands the reach of medical expertise to remote or underserved areas but also enhances precision and reduces the risks associated with traditional surgery.
Overall, the integration of these innovative technologies in healthcare represents a significant step forward in improving patient outcomes and quality of life in France. As healthtech continues to evolve, it promises to address many of the current healthcare challenges, paving the way for a more efficient and effective healthcare system.
Wearable devices
Today, the legal classification under French law of wearable devices has become a key and multifaceted legal issue. As wearable technology becomes increasingly prevalent in healthcare, fitness, and everyday life, determining their legal status is essential for ensuring compliance with regulatory standards and establishing clear guidelines for liability.
From a regulatory standpoint, it is crucial to determine whether these devices fall under the category of medical devices. This determination affects the standards they must meet, including safety, efficiency, and data protection requirements.
Moreover, wearable devices also raise the question of the applicable liability regime pursuant to the French Civil Code. In cases where a device causes harm or fails to function as intended, the classification determines who can be held liable and on what grounds.
Applicable regime from a regulatory point of view
Considering that wearable devices are rather recent, there is no specific regulation applicable to wearable devices.
However, it should be noted that:
To the extent that they do qualify as medical devices, wearable devices may be obliged to comply with the applicable regulation, which notably derives from Regulation (EU) No 2017/745, which was amended in 2023 to a version which entered into force on 26 May 2024, following the expiry of the transition period (Conformité des dispositifs médicaux au règlement (UE) 2017/745: prorogation de la période transitoire). For some devices, the EU Parliament has voted to extend the transition period until 2028, to ensure that patients can access safe and high-quality medical devices. The new rules set out in these amended regulations aim at extending the scope of the products falling under the definition of “medical device” and strengthening the requirements and criteria for the design and manufacture of medical devices.
As such, it is important for manufacturers to determine whether the wearable device is a medical device.
Applicable liability regime pursuant to the French Civil Code
Article 1242 of the French Civil Code provides, inter alia, that “a person is liable:
Firstly, pursuant to the above provision, it would a priori seem that wearable devices could be assimilated to a thing in one’s custody and could possibly trigger liability in the event of damage caused by the wearable device.
Under French law, custody is characterised by the use, direction and control of the thing/object.
However, the fact that wearable devices have a certain degree of autonomy and that their proper functioning depends on external players raises the question of whether a liability regime for things in one’s custody is suitable.
Indeed, it could be considered that the user of a wearable device is being deprived of his/her power of control and direction over the wearable device – even in part – and consequently that he/she could not be held liable for its failure/shortcomings.
In addition, the question arises of determining the person who has custody of the structure (the physical wearable device in itself) and custody of the behaviour of the wearable device and, consequently, that of a possible joint liability.
These uncertainties and issues will most likely give rise to long and complex liability disputes in the coming years.
Secondly, the question arises of the wearable device itself being liable for its “own act” or if it could be considered as “a person” for whom the user should be responsible.
In this regard, it could be considered that wearable devices are not fully autonomous and thus that they cannot be liable for their “own acts” or that they could be considered as “a person” for whom the user should be responsible.
Thirdly, the increasing sophistication, degree of invasiveness and permanence in the human body of wearable devices raises the question of whether they could be considered as an extension of the person.
Finally, the question arises of the applicability of the strict product liability regime (without fault) based on Article 1245 et seq of the French Civil Code which would enable the victim to act directly against the “manufacturer” of the wearable device.
However, the application of such a liability regime could prove to be tricky regarding wearable devices since in practice the loss often results from the service provided by the wearable and, as things stand, the defective product regime only relates to movable property and is not intended to apply to services. In addition, wearable devices evolve as they are used by each user of the particular wearable device: it “learns”. Thus, it is conceivable that it could have become defective, or even dangerous, as a result of its user’s behaviour.
In light of this situation, on 28 September 2022, the European Commission published a Directive proposal revising Directive No 85/374/EEC on liability for defective products (transposed into French law at Article 1245 et seq of the French Civil Code). The aim of this new directive is to adapt existing rules of law to recent technological developments, including new uses of artificial intelligence, to provide greater legal certainty for businesses, on the one hand, and to protect consumers in the event of damage, on the other hand.
In particular and in a nutshell, the European Commission proposes, inter alia, that the following revisions be made to the liability for defective products regime:
The proposed Directive was adopted by the European Parliament on 14 December 2023 and has yet to be approved by the Council.
Artificial intelligence
EU Regulations (No 2017/745 and 2017/746) govern the market access of AI-based diagnostic or treatment systems falling under the definition of medical devices (Présentation du Syndicat National de l’Industrie des Technologies Médicales (SNITEM). Catherine Maurain, Fasc. 1-20 : GÉNÉRALITÉS. – Droit pharmaceutique. Mouvements et perspectives, Section 15).
In 2020, the National Commission for the Evaluation of Medical Devices and Health Technologies (CNEDiMTS) proposed an analytical framework for manufacturers of medical devices utilising AI, particularly those seeking reimbursement from the public health insurance system after prescription (CNEDiMTS, Grille descriptive des fonctionnalités des dispositifs médicaux embarquant un système avec apprentissage automatique (intelligence artificielle)).
European AI regulation is also evolving in terms of risk prevention and addressing damages. On 28 September 2022, two directive proposals were published by the EU – one concerning liability for defective products and another for adapting tort liability rules to the field of AI (Produits défectueux – Responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux et intelligence artificielle : une proposition presque parfaite – Etude par Céline Mangematin. Intelligence artificielle – Responsabilité civile et intelligence artificielle – une proposition de Directive Européenne a minima? – Focus par Philippe PIERRE). The objective is to ensure that victims of AI-related damages receive the same level of protection as with other technologies.
The regulation on AI was adopted on 21 May 2024 and will enter into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the EU and will be fully applicable 24 months after its entry into force.
Telesurgery
Telesurgery is not a new phenomenon in France. Indeed, as early as September 2001, a team of French surgeons based in New York successfully operated (removal of gall bladder) on a patient based in Strasbourg (France) using a remote-controlled robot.
However, to date, there is no specific regulation applicable to telesurgery and case law on liability relating to telesurgery is a recent phenomenon.
On 13 October 2023, the administrative Supreme Court in France (“Conseil d’Etat” in French) (CE, 13 October 2023, No 464464) handed down the very first decision in France relating to telesurgery.
The claimant underwent surgery at a hospital in Paris, during which one of the surgeons who operated did so remotely whilst based in Italy. The surgery resulted in a perforation of the colon and the creation of a fistula, leading to multiple complications. The claimant brought a claim for compensation for the resulting damage against the hospital in Paris in which she underwent the surgery. In particular, the claimant argued that she was not informed of the identity of the surgeon who performed the operation in question, and that she only discovered that it had been performed by a surgeon based in Italy and who was not registered with the French Order of Physicians, on the day of the operation and without obtaining her prior consent.
The hospital was held liable by both the first instance and appeal courts for medical fault during the procedure.
Regarding the question of the operation being carried out remotely by a surgeon based in Italy without the patient’s prior consent, the court of appeal considered that “the patient, who in any case had no right to give her consent to the choice of her surgeon and who [had signed] a document [prior to the operation] in which she expressly certified that she “had been informed [...] that [...] the operation would be carried out in collaboration with French and international experts [...]” cannot therefore rely on a fault constituted by the fact that she was not previously informed of the name of the surgeon who operated on her”.
The hospital appealed the decision before the French administrative Supreme Court (“Conseil d’Etat” in French), which, whilst rejecting the appeal and confirming the AP-HP (Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris) hospital’s liability, held there was no failure to provide information.
This decision shows that, for the time being, while telesurgery is undoubtedly a great medical innovation, the issue of the surgeon’s fault/liability remains very classic.
However, and whilst it is not the case here, in the event of a technology-related failure, telesurgery inevitably raises the question of potential liability of a manufacturer and/or another third party (for example, the internet provider). If this were to be the case, joint liability cannot be excluded.
With this consideration comes not just the element of liability, but that of reliability of the equipment used. If something goes wrong, as can happen during purely human-based surgery, no matter how skilled the surgeon, was it due to inadequate technology, or was it still human error? As anyone in modern society would know, it is not uncommon for technology to fail, no matter how advanced. Zero risk does not exist, so the great potential of telesurgery needs to be met with an equally high level of precision on all fronts, or risk the inevitable legal and, indeed, possibly life-changing consequences.
39 rue de la Bienfaisance
75008 Paris
France
+33 184 793 780
+33 145 636 172
aurelia.cadain@kennedyslaw.com www.kennedyslaw.com