In France, product safety is governed by several regulations, depending on the nature of the products and their intended use, as well as by general or sector-specific legislation. Consumer law, understood as all the legal and regulatory provisions designed to protect the consumer (any natural person acting for purposes that do not fall within the scope of their commercial, industrial, craft, liberal or agricultural activity) has been particularly developed under the influence of EU law.

The Consumer Code has been comprehensively overhauled, to make the texts easier to read and the regulations more accessible, by the Order of 14 March 2016 for the legislative part and the Decree of 29 June 2016 for the regulatory part. It is now divided into eight books dealing with:

• consumer information and commercial practices;
• the formation and performance of contracts;
• credit;
• the conformity and safety of products and services;
• powers of investigation and follow-up to inspections;
• dispute resolution;
• the handling of over-indebtedness; and
• approved consumer protection associations and consumer institutions.

The Code is regularly the subject of reform.

The new European Regulation (EU) 2023/988 of 10 May 2023 on general product safety (hereinafter the GPSR), published 13 days later, came into force in France on 13 December 2024. This new key instrument on product safety replaces the General Product Safety Directive (Directive 2001/95/EC of 3 December 2001 on general product safety) and the Directive on products intended to be foodstuffs (87/357/EEC).

The GPSR imposes a general safety obligation. Only safe products (ie, products that do not present any risk or only acceptable minimal risks under normal conditions of use) may be made available on the EU market, with any unsafe product being presumed to be dangerous.

A product is presumed to meet the general safety requirement if it complies with the specific EU or, subsidiarily, local regulations applicable to it for the protection of consumer health or safety. A list of standards has been published, compliance with which establishes a presumption of conformity with the general safety requirement, pursuant to an implementing decision (2026/901) of the European Commission. This decision applies only to certain products and is therefore fairly limited in scope. Failing this, reference may be made to national and international standards, voluntary certification systems and codes of good practice, and reasonable consumer expectations.

In other cases, the safety of a product is assessed by taking into account the following elements in particular, when they exist:

• non-mandatory national standards transposing European standards applicable to the product, other than those whose reference is published in the Official Journal of the European Union in accordance with Article 10(7) of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012;
• international standards;
• international agreements;
• voluntary certification schemes or similar third-party conformity assessment frameworks, in particular those conceived to support Union law;
• European Commission recommendations establishing guidelines for product safety assessment;
• national standards drawn up in the member state in which the product is made available;
• the state of the art and technology, including the opinion of recognised scientific bodies and expert committees;
• product safety codes of good practice in force in the sector concerned;
• reasonable consumer expectations concerning safety; and
• safety requirements adopted in accordance with Commission acts determining the specific safety requirement to be covered by European standards.

In the area of liability, Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states concerning liability for defective products was transposed into French law within the Civil Code after a certain delay. In French liability law, fault-based liability, which has a different basis from liability for defective products, is also frequently used in product safety matters as the basis of hidden defects. Product safety issues also involve the criminal liability of the individuals and companies concerned, based on general or special criminal law offences. They may also give rise to financial penalties from the competent authorities.

The DGCCRF

The Direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes (DGCCRF) is the reference authority for product safety. The DGCCRF’s scope of intervention is very broad and covers a wide variety of products. Indeed, the DGCCRF is also involved in all non-food products and services, and at all levels (production, import and distribution). Action is stepped up in high-risk areas such as toys and childcare articles, sports and leisure activities, and everyday accidents. Most of the safety actions are based on the expertise of laboratories (Joint DGCCRF and Customs Laboratory Service).

As part of the administrative co-operation organised by Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on co-operation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004, when a request for mutual assistance is made by a member state of the EU or by the European Commission, the investigation, detection and cessation of infringements or breaches are carried out by the DGCCRF in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Code.

Other Authorities

Other authorities have jurisdiction depending on the products concerned. For example, in the area of food safety, while this mission was previously shared between the Directorate-General for Food of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Sovereignty (Direction générale de l'alimentation – DGAL) and the DGCCRF, in mid-2022 the DGAL was transferred the responsibilities of the DGCCRF, which since 1 January 2024 has taken on missions relating to food safety and the management of health crises or contamination.

The French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé – ANSM) is responsible for monitoring the safety of health products regulated by the Public Health Code. It should be noted, however, that as part of the Finance Act for 2023, Decree No 2023-1113 of 28 November 2023 relating to the competent authorities for the supervision and vigilance of cosmetic and tattoo products removed cosmetic and tattoo products from the remit of the ANSM, and the DGGCRF has been designated as the competent authority for inspection, control and market surveillance missions.

The new GPSR clarifies the responsibilities of each economic operator in the supply chain.

• Manufacturers must, in particular, ensure the conformity of their products, from the design stage and throughout their period of availability on the market, by carrying out internal analyses and ensuring product traceability and the reporting of incidents and information (via the new “Safety Business Gateway”). They must provide and update all mandatory technical documentation and ensure that their contact details are communicated to consumers so that they can receive any complaints, examine them and archive them. Manufacturers may appoint an authorised representative to carry out these tasks.
• The importer is required to place on the market only products that it considers safe and must therefore refuse to place on the market those that it considers do not meet the requirements. It also participates in the reporting of information.
• The distributor also ensures that the manufacturer and, where applicable, the importer act in accordance with the regulation. They also inform the other actors in the distribution chain via the dedicated system and, where necessary, ensure that the appropriate corrective measures are taken.
• The supplier of an online marketplace is newly subject to specific obligations (including making available single points of contact for direct communication for market surveillance authorities and for the public). Market surveillance authorities may also order these providers to withdraw or make inaccessible the online interface or to display an explicit warning on dangerous products. They must respond to these government orders and third-party notifications as soon as possible and ensure that the withdrawn listings cannot reappear.

One of the major innovations of the GPSR is the establishment of a harmonised recall procedure, which is initiated by the economic operator who has identified a product that does not comply with the requirements.

Operators must alert consumers and authorities.

• After identifying the risk, which requires processing reports from multiple sources, operators must now inform the authorities via the Safety Business Gateway, and consumers by all appropriate means.
• The use of customer data is permitted in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation for direct contact. If this is not possible, communication must be carried out through alternative channels, namely:
1. websites;
2. social networks;
3. points of sale; and
4. mass media.

Economic operators must also provide consumers with a recall notice containing mandatory information, including a clear description of the product, the hazards associated with its use, the measures to be taken by consumers, the remedies available and the contact details of the economic operator responsible for the recall.

Unless it is materially impossible, the economic operator shall offer the consumer at least the following options of compensation.

• repair of the product (though only if the safety of the product can be guaranteed), with the necessary instructions and parts provided free of charge;
• replacement with an equivalent product, with shipping costs borne by the operator; and
• refunds at least equal to the purchase price, without the need for proof of purchase.

These solutions must be implemented in a simple, effective and free manner to maximise consumer participation in recall operations, and additional incentives may be offered, such as vouchers. Under French law, these provisions are supplemented by the legal guarantee of conformity.

The new GPSR is now the reference regulation for product recalls. The French Consumer Code reiterates the obligation to issue a digital recall notice on the dedicated website. In addition, when withdrawal or recall measures are implemented, professionals draw up and keep up to date a quantified statement of the products withdrawn or recalled, which they make available to authorised agents.

Specific obligations are also set out for certain types of products, in particular food and health products.

Member states are responsible for determining the penalties applicable in the event of non-compliance. The penalty system in France is based on a two-pronged approach, recently strengthened by DDADUE Law No 2024-364 of 22 April 2024. Failure by an economic operator to report information is now punishable by five years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR150,000 for a natural person, EUR750,000 for a legal entity or 10% of the average annual turnover for a company (Articles L. 451-1 and L. 451-6 of the Consumer Code).

Article L. 132-4 of the Consumer Code provides for additional penalties, such as posting or distributing the decision or a press release to inform the public. Following the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2023/988 in May 2023 on general product safety, which applies from 13 December 2024, Article 2 of Law No 2024-364 of 22 April 2024 containing various provisions for adapting to EU law in the fields of economics, finance, ecological transition, criminal law, social law and agriculture (known as the DDADUE Law) transposed the measures requiring adaptation of French law, in particular the higher penalties for product recalls now provided for in Article L. 452-5-1 of the Consumer Code (five years’ imprisonment and a fine of EUR600,000, which may be increased to 10% of the average annual turnover of the operator in question).

The operator may also be penalised for misleading commercial practices, in which case the fine will be increased to 50% of the expenses incurred by the practice constituting the offence (Article L. 132-2 of the Consumer Code).

Article L. 521-1 et seq of the French Consumer Code lay down specific obligations in terms of measures taken by the DGCCRF to protect consumer safety. The DGCCRF may issue injunctions, accompanied by a daily fine of up to EUR3,000 (Article L. 521-1 of the Consumer Code), or a one-year marketing suspension in the event of serious or immediate danger (Article L. 521-17 of the Consumer Code), which may be publicised. The total amount requested to pay the penalty may not exceed EUR300,000.

Where the infringement is punishable by a fine of at least EUR75,000, the periodic penalty payment ordered in application of this article may be determined on the basis of the worldwide turnover excluding tax achieved by the controlled legal entity during its last financial year, but may not exceed 0.1% of this turnover. The total of the sums requested for the liquidation of the periodic penalty payment may not exceed 5% of the worldwide pre-tax turnover for the last financial year for which the accounts have been closed.

More severe measures can also be taken in particular police decisions, following a procedure described in Article L. 521-1 et seq of the French Consumer Code. Specific measures are detailed for establishments and products (Articles L. 521-5 to L. 521-18) and services (Articles L. 521-19 to L. 521-26).

Product Liability

This regime is covered by Article 1245-1 et seq of the Civil Code, which transposes Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states concerning liability for defective products. This is the so-called objective liability regime, under which the producer is liable for damage caused by a defect in his/her product, whether or not he/she is bound by a contract with the victim.

A producer, when acting in a professional capacity, is the manufacturer of a finished product, the producer of a raw material or the manufacturer of a component part.

Any person acting in a professional capacity is deemed to be a producer:

• who presents himself/herself as a producer by affixing his/her name, trade mark or other distinctive sign to the product; and
• who imports a product into the European Community with a view to sale, hire – with or without a promise to sell – or engage in any other form of distribution.

If the producer cannot be identified, liability lies with:

• the seller;
• the lessor, with the exception of the finance lessor or the lessor assimilated to the finance lessor; or
• any other professional supplier.

These intermediaries are then liable for the product under the same conditions as the producer or assimilated producer itself, unless the intermediary designates his/her own supplier or the producer, within a period of three months from the date on which the victim’s claim was notified to him/her.

The CJEU ruling of 19 December 2024 (Ford Italia v ZP) has recently extended the concept of “person presenting himself as the producer”, whose liability may be sought under the product liability regime, to the supplier of a product where that supplier has not physically affixed his/her name, its trade mark or any other distinctive sign on the product, but the trade mark affixed by the producer on the product coincides, on the one hand, with the name of the supplier or a distinctive element thereof and, on the other hand, with the name of the producer.

The supplier’s claim against the producer is governed by the same rules as a claim by the direct victim of the defect. However, he/she must act within one year of the date on which he/she is summoned to appear in court. In the event of damage caused by a defect in a product incorporated into another, the producer of the component part and the producer who incorporated it are jointly and severally liable.

This system applies to compensation for damage resulting from injury to the person, where the compensation for damage exceeds EUR500, or from damage to property other than the defective product itself.

The claimant must prove the damage, the defect and the causal link between them.

Tort Law

The victim of an injury caused by a defective product also has the right to claim damages from the producer if he/she proves that his/her injury resulted from a fault committed by the producer. The claimant must prove the fault, the damage and the causal link between them.

This principle was reaffirmed by the Court of Cassation in a recent decision (First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 15 November 2023 – Appeal No 22-21.174). In a press release relating to this decision, the Court of Cassation illustrated this principle by providing examples of fault (if the producer kept a product in circulation even though he/she knew it had a defect, or if he/she was not sufficiently vigilant as to the risks posed by the product).

Despite this ruling by the Court of Cassation, the courts of appeal have handed down judgments in line with the Court of Cassation’s case law. The Colmar Court of Appeal (5 September 2024, No 22/01104), points out in particular that the action brought by the insurer, subrogated to the rights of its insured, is time-barred unless proof is provided of a fault on the part of the manufacturer that is distinct from the mere lack of safety of the product – and that is likely to enable the appellant to act on a legal basis other than that of strict liability for defective products.

It is in this very specific context that, on 24 April 2024, the Rouen Court of Appeal referred a request for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of EU law to the CJEU (2024 C-338/24 filed on 7 May 2024).

The CJEU, however, endorsed the reasoning adopted by the French Court of Cassation (First Civil Chamber, 15 November 2023, No 22-21.178) and confirmed that an action based on fault may be admissible insofar as the required fault differs from the defect defined in Article 6 of the Directive, with reference to the lack of safety that could legitimately be expected (CJEU – Judgement of the Court, 26 March 2026 C-338/24, LV v Sanofi Pasteur SA).

In this case, the civil torts invoked consist of the continued marketing of a product for which the producer is aware of a safety defect – a breach of the duty of care regarding the risks associated with the product (more broadly, “any other fault related to the defect”).

Hidden Defect

The seller is liable for any hidden defects in the goods sold that render them unfit for their intended use, or which impair that use to such an extent that the buyer would not have purchased them, or would have paid a lower price for them, had he or she been aware of them.

The seller is not liable for apparent defects that the buyer could reasonably have identified themselves. However, they are liable for hidden defects, even if they did not know about them, unless they stipulated that they will not be obliged to provide any guarantee in this regard.

If the seller was aware of the defects, they are liable to the buyer for all damages in addition to restitution of the price received. On the other hand, if the seller was unaware of the defects, they will only be obliged to refund the price and reimburse the buyer for the costs incurred by the sale.

Criminal Law

Common law offences may also be established, in particular those relating to unintentional harm to the human body, administration of harmful substances, endangering others and failure to assist a person in danger.

There are also offences under criminal consumer law, including misleading commercial practices (Article L. 132-2 of the Consumer Code – a two-year prison sentence and a EUR300,000 fine, 10% of average annual turnover, or 50% of the expenditure incurred in carrying out the advertising or practice constituting the offence).

The offence of fraud may also be constituted. Fraud is defined as the act by any person, whether a party to the contract or not, of deceiving or attempting to deceive the contracting party by any means or process whatsoever, even through the intermediary of a third party, in relation to:

• the nature, species, origin, substantial qualities, composition or active ingredients of any goods;
• the quantity of the goods delivered or the delivery of goods other than those that were the subject of the contract; or
• the suitability for use of the product, the risks inherent in such use, the tests carried out, the instructions for use or the precautions to be taken.

Deception, or attempted deception, is punishable by three years’ imprisonment and a fine of EUR300,000 (Article L. 454-1 of the Consumer Code), which may be increased to EUR750,000 and seven years’ imprisonment.

Product Liability

Any claimant is entitled to bring an action if they meet the conditions of law and if they are seeking compensation for damage to the goods of more than EUR500 – or damages resulting from an injury to the person.

Tort Law

The tort action is open to all claimants or their beneficiaries who meet the conditions of law. Recent developments in case law have clarified the conditions for compensation for anxiety-related damages in tort liability cases. The Paris administrative court of appeal stated, in a ruling dated 4 April 2025 regarding the Levothyrox case, that “A person who is aware of the high risk of developing a serious illness as a result of an administrative error may claim anxiety caused by that error”. Three conditions must be met:

• there must be a fault committed by the French administration (in this case, the ANSM);
• the fault must have created a high risk of serious illness; and
• the claimant must be aware of the risk, which causes lasting anxiety.

In the Chlordecone case, the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal, in a ruling dated 11 March 2025, pointed out that, in anxiety-related damage, a specific psychological disorder linked to the fear of developing a serious illness occurs due to a fault on the part of the state. If a person establishes that they are at sufficiently high risk (in accordance with the scientific literature) of developing a serious condition with sufficiently serious effects attributable to chlordecone, claimants are entitled to compensation for their anxiety, without having to prove specific psychological disorders resulting from awareness of this risk, under the condition that the claimant demonstrates exposure through detailed, personal evidence.

In a civil ruling dated 18 February 2026, the Court of Cassation stated that the awareness of the victim of the high risk of developing a serious illness on exposure to a product would be sufficient for anxiety-related damage compensation. Therefore, the victim did not need to prove that she was living in a state of anxiety regarding the risk of developing a rare disease.

Hidden Defect

The buyer has the right to initiate the action against the seller.

Product Liability

In the absence of fault on the part of the producer, the producer’s liability is extinguished ten years after the product that caused the damage was put into circulation, unless the victim has taken legal action during this period.

An action for damages shall be barred within three years from the date on which the claimant knew or ought to have known of the damage, the defect and the identity of the producer.

In a ruling dated 15 May 2024, the Court of Cassation (No 22-23.985) confirmed that in cases of bodily injury, the date of knowledge of the injury must be understood as the date of consolidation.

However, the CJEU has recently clarified, in a ruling of 26 March 2026 and as per EU law, that the three-year period begins as soon as the victim has sufficient knowledge of the damage suffered, the alleged fault and the identity of the producer, without it being necessary for the damage to have become fully apparent within the meaning of domestic law.

Concerning the ten-year limitation period, the CJEU specified in the same ruling that it forms an integral part of the product liability regime and cannot be set aside solely on the grounds of a subsequent development in respect of the damage. In particular, the fact that the damage “evolves” does not prevent it from being detectable and identifiable within the ten-year period. The victim may therefore still bring an action.

Tort Law

Personal or movable actions are time-barred after five years from the date on which the holder of a right knew or should have known of the facts enabling him/her to exercise it (new Article 2224 of the Civil Code). Liability claims arising from an event resulting in bodily injury, brought by the direct or indirect victim of the resulting damage, are time-barred after ten years from the date of consolidation of the initial or aggravated injury (new Article 2226 of the Civil Code).

Hidden Defect

A person who discovers a defect in a property sold to them has two years to bring an action under the warranty for hidden defects. This period may be suspended if an expert assessment has been ordered. This warranty action must also be brought within 20 years after the sale of the property (Court of Cassation, Mixed Chamber, 21 July 2023 – Appeal Nos 21-15.809, 21-17.789, 21-19.936 and 20-10.763).

Unless otherwise provided, the court having territorial jurisdiction is that of the place where the defendant is domiciled. If there are several defendants, the plaintiff may choose to bring proceedings in the court of the place where one of them is domiciled. The plaintiff may also choose:

• in matters relating to a contract, the court of the place where the goods were actually delivered or the service was rendered; and
• in matters relating to tort, the court of the place where the harmful event occurred or the court of the place where the damage was suffered (Articles 42 and 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)).

In the context of liability for defective products, there is an international convention that deals specifically with the law applicable in the event of damage caused by a defective product (the 1973 Hague Convention on Liability for Defective Products).

In consumer law, the consumer may bring the matter either before one of the courts with territorial jurisdiction under the CPC, or before the court of the place where the consumer lived when the contract was concluded or when the harmful event occurred (Article R631-3 of the Consumer Code).

Regarding group actions, as recently amended by the Dispositions d’adaptation au droit de l’Union européenne (DADDUE) Law of 30 April 2025, a list of territorially competent judicial courts has been set by a ministerial order of 16 July 2025. The court with territorial jurisdiction is that of the place where the defendant lives. The Paris court has jurisdiction if the defendant lives abroad or has no known domicile or residence.

Pre-action procedures and requirements for product liability claims are not applicable in France. However, in the case of claims for less than EUR5,000, an attempt at amicable settlement of the dispute is mandatory for the action on the merits, on any grounds including a claim for compensation based on liability for defective products, to be admissible.

Under French law, it is incumbent upon each party to prove, in accordance with the law, the facts necessary for the success of its claim – and the judge has the power to order, ex officio, all legally admissible measures of inquiry (Articles 9 and 10 of the CPC).

Except where the law provides otherwise, evidence may be adduced by any means (Article 1358 of the Civil Code).

Furthermore, in a judgment handed down on 22 December 2023 (No 20-20.648), the plenary session of the Court of Cassation ruled on the conditions for admissibility of evidence obtained or produced in an unlawful or unfair manner under certain strict conditions.

If there is a legitimate reason to preserve or establish, prior to any legal proceedings, proof of facts on which the resolution of a dispute may depend, legally admissible investigative measures may be ordered upon the request of any interested party, on application or in summary proceedings (Article 145 of the CPC). The latter requires the applicant to demonstrate the existence of a legitimate reason. The assessment of what constitutes a legitimate reason within the meaning of this text falls within the discretionary power of the court hearing the case.

The futility of the measure requested is in itself an obstacle to the existence of a legitimate reason. Indeed, case law rules out the existence of a legitimate reason when the request is not based on any precise, objective and verifiable fact, and the applicant does not therefore demonstrate the existence of a plausible, credible dispute, albeit possible and future, the content and basis of which would be identified, at least approximately (Court of Cassation, Civil Division 2, 10 December 2020, 19-22.619; published in the Bulletin).

Civil courts have held that business secrecy does not in itself constitute an obstacle to the application of the provisions of Article 145 of the CPC. Therefore, it is up to the interim relief judge to check whether the measure ordered is necessary for the applicant to exercise his/her right to evidence and proportionate to the conflicting interests involved (Court of Cassation, Civil Division 2, 25 March 2021, No 20-14.309).

Where, in the course of civil or commercial proceedings relating to an investigative measure requested prior to any trial on the merits or in the course of proceedings on the merits, reference is made to, or the communication or production of a document is requested which is alleged by a party or a third party, or which has been deemed to be of such a nature as to infringe a business secret, the judge may of his/her own motion or upon the request of a party or a third party, if the protection of this secrecy cannot be ensured otherwise and without prejudice to the exercise of the rights of the defence:

• take cognisance of the document alone and, if necessary, order an expert report and seek the opinion, for each of the parties, of a person authorised to assist or represent them, in order to decide whether to apply the protective measures provided for in this article;
• decide to limit the communication or production of this document to certain of its elements, order its communication or production in summary form or restrict access to it, for each of the parties, to a maximum of one natural person and one person authorised to assist or represent him or her;
• decide that the hearing will take place and that the decision will be handed down in chambers; or
• adapt the reasons for its decision and the means of publicising it to the requirements of protecting business confidentiality (Article L. 153-1 of the Commercial Code).

To demonstrate that the document is eligible for protection as a trade secret, several factors may be considered (a “confidential” label, access restrictions, etc).

Furthermore, the new Act of 23 February 2026 ensures that consultations carried out by a company’s in-house lawyers, under certain conditions (regarding the identity of the author and the recipient, and the content and form of the consultation itself), are protected from disclosure under the seal of confidentiality. This confidentiality ensures that records of consultations cannot be seized in the context of civil, commercial or administrative proceedings or disputes, including by French or foreign administrative authorities. However, confidentiality is not enforceable in criminal or tax proceedings, or against EU authorities.

There are no specific rules of evidence in relation to defective products before appointed experts. In France, experts are appointed based on lists drawn up by the Court of Cassation and the courts of appeal. Article 275 of the CPC allows the expert to ask the parties directly to provide all documents he/she deems necessary in order to carry out his/her task. This request is not subject to any formalities, and the parties must respond without delay. However, if the parties fail to do so, the expert will inform the judge, who may order the submission of documents under penalty.

On the other hand, the judge can order the parties to produce specially designated documents but cannot compel them to produce “any documents requested of them” by the expert.

The burden of proving the elements constituting liability lies with the claimant. In the case of vaccines alleged to be defective, the Court of Cassation has accepted the use of presumptions of fault to prove the defect and the causal link between the defect and the damage where there is scientific uncertainty. This has been validated by the CJEU, subject to the fact that the national courts ensure that the practical application of said evidential system does not result in disregarding the burden of proof established by Directive or in undermining the effectiveness of the liability system established by this Directive.

It also states that the Directive precludes a system of proof based on presumptions that would always be regarded as established when certain predetermined factual indications of causation are met (Judgement of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2017, N. W and Others v Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC and Others).

A recent ruling of the Conseil d’État has stated that, although no causal link has yet been established between the administration of vaccines and multiple sclerosis, the hypothesis that such a link exists has been envisaged by scientific research work that has given rise to publications in recognised journals, which are not formally contradicted by current scientific data. Thus, the fact that scientific work has been carried out on the subject would suffice to presume the existence of a causal link, regardless of the outcome of this work (Conseil d’État, 7 November 2024, Nos 472707, 472625 and 4662883).

However, in a judgment of 7 January 2026 (No 24-12.386), the Court of Cassation reiterated that the existence of “serious, specific and consistent” evidence does not oblige the court to automatically recognise causality. In this case, the claimant attributed the onset of encephalopathy and developmental delay in their child to the vaccinations they had received. The court of appeal had therefore been entitled to rule out the product’s liability for the damage, despite the temporal proximity of the events, without being criticised for misrepresenting the facts or reversing the burden of proof.

In civil matters, the competent courts are generally the civil courts (Tribunal d’instance in civil matters, for all personal actions or actions up to the value of EUR10,000, and Tribunaux judiciaire) or the commercial courts (Tribunal de commerce).

In the case of healthcare products, the administrative courts may deal with product liability under the no-fault liability regime applicable to healthcare establishments in respect of the healthcare products they use (a regime established by the CJEU in its decision of 21 December 2011, CHU de Besançon v Thomas D..., CPAM du Jura, Case C-495/10) and subsequent warranty claims (depending on the nature of the contracts between the establishments and the producers).

In criminal matters, special courts have jurisdiction. Finally, in the case of health products, the alternative methods introduced via the Commissions de conciliation et d’indemnisation des accidents médicaux (CCI) or Office national d’indemnisation des accidents médicaux, des affections iatrogènes et des infections nosocomiales (ONIAM) are also likely to apply.

In civil cases, the appeal procedure is governed by the CPC.

The time limit for appeal is:

• one month for contentious judgments (CPC, Article 538); and
• 15 days for orders including summary orders (CPC, Article 490) or those of the pre-trial judge (CPC, Article 795) as well as for decisions of the enforcement judge (CPC, Articles R. 121-20 and R. 311-7).

Appeals against criminal judgments are governed by specific rules set out in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the case of defective products, the producer is automatically liable unless he/she can prove:

• that he/she did not put the product into circulation;
• that the defect causing the damage did not exist at the time when the product was put into circulation by him/her or that this defect arose subsequently;
• that the product was not intended for sale or for any other form of distribution; and
• that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time he/she put the product into circulation did not allow the existence of the defect to be detected, except where the damage was caused by an element of the human body or by products derived from it.

On that aspect, the Court of Cassation has decided to refer a question to the Conseil constitutionnel concerning whether, in order to exonerate the liability of the manufacturer of a defective product on the basis of the risk of development, the difference in treatment existing between the victims of bodily injury resulting from a health product, depending on whether or not this product is derived from the human body, is contrary to the principle of equality before the law (Civil Division, First Chamber, 5 January 2023, FS-B, No 22-17.439) – which was confirmed by the Constitutional Council (Decision No 2023-1036 QPC of 10 March 2023).

On that matter, in a case involving Mediator, a drug used to treat diabetes, the Court of Cassation recently ruled that the producer’s knowledge of the product’s safety defect precluded the development risk exemption from being invoked (First Civil Chamber, 6 December 2023, F-D, No 22-21.238). Regarding a case involving alleged damages due to Depakine, the Nanterre judicial court has also recently ruled out the liability exemptions for risk of development, establishing that, even if the scientific studies were not definitive, a scientific signal already existed before the time of the drug prescription. Therefore, the risk was not undetectable (Nanterre judicial court, 25 September 2025, No 19/09925).

Otherwise, the defect is due to the product’s compliance with mandatory legislative or regulatory rules. The producer of the component part is also not liable if he/she establishes that the defect is attributable to the design of the product in which that part has been incorporated or to the instructions given by the producer of that product.

The producer’s liability may be reduced or eliminated, having regard to all the circumstances, where the damage is caused jointly by a defect in the product and by the fault of the victim or of a person for whom the victim is responsible.

In a serial case concerning PIP prostheses, it was held that the certifying body could be held liable, insofar as it should have carried out unannounced inspections or inspections motivated by factual circumstances, which could have enabled it to detect the defectiveness of the product (Court of Cassation, 31 January 2024, No 22-22.619; Court of Cassation, First Chamber, 5 June 2024, No 2312854).

In matters of tort, the defendant may be exonerated in the event of fault on the part of the victim or force majeure.

Regarding product liability, the producer is automatically liable unless he/she can prove that the defect is due to the product’s compliance with mandatory legislative or regulatory rules. It should be emphasised, however, that the producer may be liable for the defect even though the product was manufactured in compliance with the rules of the trade or existing standards, or if it was the subject of an administrative authorisation.

Compliance with regulatory requirements may also be asserted by the defendant in an action based on tort if the alleged fault consists of a breach of the regulations.

In matters of liability and at the end of the proceedings, the costs incurred may, under certain conditions, be charged to the unsuccessful party.

Article 695 of the CPC lists the costs, which notably include:

• bailiff’s fees incurred in serving the summons, pleadings and judgment;
• the taxable fees of the lawyers appearing in the case, where their involvement is compulsory, calculated on the basis of the value in dispute and made up of the fixed fee, the proportional fee and the graduated fee;
• the costs of judicial expertise; and
• compensation received by the winning party’s lawyer under the legal aid scheme.

In his/her decision, the judge will rule, notably in accordance with the provisions of Article 696 of the CPC, that:

• the losing party must pay the costs; or
• by reasoned decision, all or part of the costs must be borne by another party (in particular where a party is only partially successful, or in view of the nature of the dispute).

In all cases, the judge shall consider the fairness or economic situation of the convicted party.

No litigation funding exists in France. If the claimant’s financial resources are insufficient for a trial before a French court, he or she may be entitled to financial assistance from the state, known as aide juridictionnelle.

Collective Action

Group action was introduced in France by the Consumer Act 2014-344 of 17 March 2014, and it allows victims of the same damage caused by a professional to group together and take legal action. The plaintiffs can thus defend themselves with a single file and a single lawyer.

Group action was updated through several laws and was extended to several areas. A group action can be launched in the following areas:

• consumer and anti-competitive practices;
• health;
• environment;
• protection of personal data;
• discrimination in the workplace; and
• property rental.

Recently, Law No 2025-391 of 30 April 2025, known as the DDADUE Law, has radically reformed group action in France, transposing European Directive 2020/1828 and introducing a unified, broader and more accessible system for the collective defence of rights.

A unified system for group actions is available in all the fields concerned (consumer affairs, environment, personal data, discrimination and labour law), with the exception of group actions in the field of public health, which remain subject to a special system. Indeed, while other actions may be brought against “a person acting in the exercise or on the occasion of his professional activity, by a legal person governed by public law or by a body governed by private law entrusted with the management of a public service”, healthcare group actions may only be brought against a producer or supplier of a healthcare product.

The court with territorial jurisdiction is that of the place where the defendant lives. The Paris court has jurisdiction if the defendant lives abroad or has no known domicile or residence. The procedure is divided into two phases – the admissibility and liability phase – followed by the compensation phase.

Group action must meet a number of conditions:

• at least two people must consider that they have suffered damage as a result of the same breach of duty by the professional; and
• the reform has broadened the categories of persons entitled to initiate a group action – the individuals must have recourse to trade unions, and qualified cross-border entities and the public prosecutor’s office can now bring group actions, alongside the approved associations already authorised.

The legislator has abolished the limitations relating to the nature of the losses that can be compensated. It is therefore no longer compulsory to restrict the action to compensation for personal injury in the health sector, or to property damage in the consumer sector. From now on, any type of damages may be compensated. One of the major innovations of this new system is the creation of a specific civil penalty applicable in the event of fraudulent misconduct causing damage.

Finally, the 2025 reform introduced the European cross-border group action in France, in application of Directive (EU) 2020/1828. This action enables qualified entities from one EU member state to bring a group action in another member state, notably in the event of infringement of certain European texts, mainly in the consumer field.

According to available information, 32 group actions have been initiated in France since 2014, including 20 in the consumer field. With the reform, a public register of pending group actions has been created.

Consolidated Action

In France, certain actions are brought in the form of consolidated actions, in which the plaintiffs join together and act in a single action brought by a single lawyer, claiming identical damages for all the plaintiffs.

New Civil Penalty

The aforementioned DDADUE law also established a new civil penalty for professionals who cause serial damage by committing a lucrative fault in the course of their business (new Article 1254 of the Civil Code). The amount of this “punitive” penalty is proportionate to the seriousness of the fault and the benefit that the perpetrator has derived from it. This penalty for serial damage may therefore be applicable in the context of class actions based on product liability.

Court of Cassation, Civil Division 1, 15 November 2023, 22-21.179

This decision deals with the principle that the victim may bring an action on the basis of product liability or on other grounds with a different basis, in particular fault.

In a press release dated 15 November 2023, the Court of Cassation supported this decision by stating that the Court had made it easier for the victim of a defective medicinal product to bring an action before the courts, since the victim can ask the manufacturer for compensation for the damage suffered by choosing to invoke either the product’s defect or a fault committed by the manufacturer, which gives the victim more time to bring an action.

The Court of Cassation noted that the CJEU had ruled that the reference in Article 13 of the Directive to the rights that the victim of damage may rely on under contractual or non-contractual liability must be interpreted as meaning that the system established by that Directive does not preclude the application of other systems of contractual or non-contractual liability based on different grounds, such as liability for latent defects or fault (ECJ, judgment of 25 April 2002, González Sánchez, C-183/00, paragraph 31).

It follows, according to the Court, that the victim of damage attributed to a defective product may bring an action for liability against the producer on the basis of the second of those provisions, if he/she establishes that his/her damage results from a fault committed by the producer, such as keeping the product in circulation despite being aware of the defect or failing in his/her duty of care with regard to the risks presented by the product.

Rouen Court of Appeal, Civil Chamber, 25 April 2024, No 23/03137 (on Referral From the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 5 July 2023, No 22-18.914, FS-B), Case C-338/24 Sanofi Pasteur, Registered by the CJEU on 7 May 2024

The Rouen Court of Appeal referred to the CJEU questions relating to fault versus lack of safety, the ten-year time-limit and the three-year time-limit in the following terms.

• Question 1: Article 13 of Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985, in its interpretation resulting from the judgment of 25 April 2002 (Gonzalez Sanchez, C-183/00), according to which the victim of damage may rely on other contractual or non-contractual liability regimes based on grounds different from that established by the Directive, to be interpreted as meaning that the victim of a defective product may seek compensation from the producer for his/her loss or damage on the basis of the general system of fault-based liability by relying in particular on the fact that the product was kept in circulation, on a failure to fulfil his/her duty of care with regard to the risks presented by the product or, in general, on a safety defect in the product.
• Question 2: Article 11 of Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985, according to which the rights conferred on the victim pursuant to the Directive lapse on expiry of a period of ten years from the date on which the product causing the damage was put into circulation, contrary to the provisions of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that it would deprive the victim suffering progressive damage caused by a defective product of his/her right of access to a judge.
• Question 3: Article 10 of Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985, which fixes as the starting point of the three-year limitation period “the date on which the claimant knew or ought to have known of the damage”, can be interpreted as running only from the day on which the full extent of the damage is known; in particular, by setting a consolidation date defined as the point at which the condition of the victim of the bodily injury is no longer evolving, so that in the case of an evolving pathology, the limitation period does not begin to run, and not from the day on which the injury definitely appeared, in connection with the defective product, regardless of its subsequent evolution.

CJEU – Judgement of the Court, 26 March 2026 (C-338/24, LV v Sanofi Pasteur SA)

The CJEU issued its preliminary ruling on the questions raised by the Rouen Court of Appeal on 26 March 2026.

Answer to question 1

the CJEU concurs with the reasoning adopted by the French Court of Cassation (Civil Division, First Chamber, 15 November 2023, No 22-21.178) and confirms that an action based on fault is admissible because the required faultful conduct differs from the defect defined in Article 6 of the Directive, in reference to the absence of safety that could legitimately be expected.

In this case, the torts invoked consist of:

• keeping a product on the market where the producer was aware of the safety defect;
• a breach of the duty of care regarding the risks associated with the product; and
• more broadly, “any other fault linked to the defect”.

This therefore provides grounds for interpreting the fault as a breach of a regulatory obligation on the part of economic operators, particularly with regard to healthcare products. The classification of the information relating to the product in question, which constitutes an extrinsic defect, remains open.

Answer to question 2

The CJEU has ruled that the three-year period begins to run as soon as the victim has sufficient knowledge of the damage suffered, the alleged fault and the identity of the producer, without it being necessary for the damage to have become final within the meaning of domestic law.

The French practice of having the limitation period run from the date of consolidation (First Civil Chamber, 15 May 2024, No 22-23.985; and First Civil Chamber, 5 July 2023, No 22-18.914), particularly in cases of personal injury, is therefore not in line with the Directive. With regard to progressive conditions, the CJEU specifies that the three-year limitation period applies and states that it runs from the date on which the injured party became aware or should reasonably have become aware of the damage, the defect and the identity of the economic operator.

The progression of the damage over time does not permit an indefinite postponement of the starting point. Also, once the victim has had, or should reasonably have had, sufficient knowledge of the damage, the defect and the producer, the three-year period begins to run. Subsequent aggravations may be compensated for within the same action, but do not, in principle, give rise to a new limitation period.

Answer to question 3

The CJEU begins by recalling the nature of the ten-year period provided for in Article 11 of Directive 85/374 (Article 1245-15 of the Civil Code), which it describes as a limitation period, upon the expiry of which the producer’s liability ceases unless legal proceedings have been brought before that time. This time limit is therefore an extinction of the right to bring proceedings.

The CJEU considers that the ten-year time limit is an integral part of the regime and cannot be set aside solely on the grounds of a subsequent development of the damage. The fact that the damage progresses does not prevent it from being detectable and identifiable within the ten-year period, thereby enabling the victim to take action. Consequently, applying the cut-off period in this type of situation does not render access to the courts illusory.

Following the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2023/988 in May 2023 on general product safety, which applies from 13 December 2024, Article 2 of Law No 2024-364 of 22 April 2024, containing various provisions for adapting to EU law in the fields of economics, finance, ecological transition, criminal law, social law and agriculture (known as the DDADUE Law), transposed the measures requiring adaptation of French law, in particular the higher penalties for product recalls now provided for in Article L. 452-5-1 of the Consumer Code (five years’ imprisonment and a fine of EUR600,000, which may be increased to 10% of the average annual turnover of the operator in question).

From 17 February 2024, new obligations set out in the European Digital Services Act (DSA) of 19 October 2022 will apply to online marketplaces to ensure that:

• sellers are identified;
• information on products sold is more complete; and
• measures to recall non-compliant or dangerous products are more effectively relayed.

These obligations will be monitored by the DGCCRF. The General Product Safety Regulation also creates new obligations specific to online marketplaces, including making available single points of contact for direct communication for market surveillance authorities and for the public.

Law No 2020-105 of 10 February 2020 on the fight against waste and the circular economy (known as the “AGEC Law”) introduced a reparability index for several product categories, which will become a sustainability index, with additional criteria. The durability index will initially apply to televisions (from 1 October 2024), then to washing machines (from 1 January 2025).

Law No 2025-188 of 27 February 2025, aiming at protecting people from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)-related risks, introduces, from 1 January 2025, a prohibition to import, export or commercialise products (such as cosmetics) containing PFAS. A schedule provides for the extension of this prohibition to other products (such as any textile) until 1 January 2030. Also, this law sets out a roadmap to eliminate industrial PFAS discharges into water. Finally, a fee will be introduced for classified facilities subject to authorisation that discharge PFAS, the amount of which will vary according to the weight of PFAS emitted per year. In December 2025, two implementing decrees clarified certain provisions of Law No 2025-188 of 27 February 27, 2025, aimed at protecting the public from the risks associated with PFAS.

• Decree No 2025-1287 of 22 December 2025, on the health safety of water intended for human consumption, aims notably to list the PFAS that must be tested for as part of health inspections of water intended for human consumption.
• Decree No 2025-1376 of 28 December 2025 aims to specify the procedures for implementing the prohibitions set forth in Articles L.524-1 and L.524-2 of the Environmental Code concerning the manufacture, import, export and placing on the market of certain products containing PFAS. Exceptions and exclusions are specified. These thresholds are intended to be revised in line with developments in European law, particularly the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Regulations. Appropriate methodologies would be necessary for the regulation to be fully enforceable. The decree enters into force on 1 January 2026. However, a 12-month phase-out period is provided: products manufactured before 1 January 2026 containing PFAS may continue to be placed on the market or exported until 31 December 2026. After this period, any placing on the market or exportation will be strictly prohibited.

The proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on liability for defective products will profoundly change the conditions for applying product liability.

Meanwhile, the proposal to adapt the rules on non-contractual civil liability to artificial intelligence, which aimed to update fault-based liability in the field of artificial intelligence, has been abandoned for the time being.