On 12 October 2026, British readers woke to startling headlines from across the Channel: overnight, hackers had forced the temperature of connected refrigerators in several hundred French supermarkets up to 50 degrees, spoiling chilled and frozen food reportedly worth millions of euros. According to press reports published the same day by the the BBC and the Guardian, the Paris prosecutor’s office confirmed a large-scale attack affecting connected refrigeration units in several major French food retailers, with food losses and fires reported, while the Prime Minister tasked ANSSI (the Agence nationale de la sécurité des systèmes d’information, France’s national cyber-security agency) with investigating. At least one retail group stated publicly that all affected stock had been thrown away to avoid any health risk, and the head of another group described the attack as unprecedented and exceptionally serious. Whether stores beyond France are affected remains, at the time of writing, unclear.
Two reserves come before everything else. No court has established anyone’s liability for this incident, and this article describes the law as it stands, not the outcome of an investigation that has barely begun. What the press reports, this article reports as press reports, using words such as reportedly and allegedly where only journalists, and not a judge, have spoken. Second, general guidance never decides an individual case: your till receipt, the product packaging with its lot number, and any medical certificate will weigh more than any article. With those reserves stated, here is the practical law every British resident in, or visitor to, France needs this week: how to obtain a refund for doubtful food, how to check whether a product has been recalled, what medical evidence to gather if you fall ill, and who pays under French law when food supposed to stay cold has not.
I. Your weekly shop after a cold-chain failure: refunds, recalls and the checks that protect you
A. Can you get your money back for food that may have thawed?
The short answer is that in ordinary French retail practice, yes: take the product and the till receipt back to the store and ask for a refund or a replacement. French supermarkets handle such returns routinely, and after an incident as widely reported as this one, staff will understand the reason immediately. The receipt (ticket de caisse) is your strongest document, because it proves the date, the shop, and the price. If you paid by card, your bank statement corroborates the purchase even if the paper receipt has gone missing. If you have neither, a return becomes a matter of goodwill rather than of right, so photograph or file every receipt for chilled and frozen shopping for the coming weeks.
Before returning anything, understand the two dates printed on French food, because the cold-chain break changes what they mean. The DLC (date limite de consommation, the use-by date, worded à consommer jusqu’au) applies to highly perishable chilled food such as minced meat, fish, poultry, dairy desserts and ready meals: after that date the product is deemed unsafe. The DDM (date de durabilité minimale, the best-before date, worded à consommer de préférence avant) applies to pasta, biscuits, tinned food and similar goods: past that date the product may lose flavour or texture but is not automatically dangerous. A night spent at 50 degrees destroys the guarantee behind a DLC: a yoghurt still nominally within its use-by date may nevertheless be unsafe if its cold chain (chaîne du froid) was broken. When in doubt, do not taste-test your way to certainty. Dispose of the doubtful item, keep the packaging showing the lot number and barcode, and claim the refund on the basis of the receipt.
A practical point many British shoppers miss: ask the shop what happened to its own shelves. According to the press, at least one retail group ordered all affected stock destroyed rather than resold, which is exactly what responsible cold-chain management requires. If your local branch confirms that shelves were emptied, checked and restocked, that is reassuring. If staff cannot say, treat chilled products bought over the relevant dates with extra caution and check the recall site described below before eating them. Keep the doubtful packaging rather than binning it: the lot number (numéro de lot) printed near the barcode is what connects your packet to any later recall notice, and without it you may struggle to prove which batch you bought.
If the shop refuses a refund you consider due, do not argue at the till. France provides a dedicated channel called SignalConso (signal.conso.gouv.fr), run by the DGCCRF (Direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes, the consumer-protection enforcement authority), where you can report a problem with a trader in a few minutes, in writing, with documents attached. The report alerts the authority and often prompts the trader to respond. Keep copies of everything you send: in French consumer disputes, the party with the paper file usually prevails.
B. How do you check whether a product has been recalled?
France runs a single official recall portal, RappelConso (rappel.conso.gouv.fr), which lists every dangerous or defective product recall, food included. The service-public.fr guide explains that the site records recalls of dangerous or defective products so that consumers can check what they have bought. To use it, compare four details on your packet against the notice: the product name, the brand or distinguishing mark, the lot number, and the barcode (code-barres), plus the dates during which it was sold. Only a match on the lot concerned counts: a recall of one batch does not condemn the whole product line, and panic-buying in reverse, throwing away everything in the cupboard, helps nobody. Check the site before eating chilled or frozen items bought around the dates of the incident, and check again a few days later, because recall notices can appear in waves as checks progress.
Behind that website sits a hard legal duty. French law now provides that “les opérateurs économiques qui procèdent au rappel de produits en font la déclaration de façon dématérialisée sur un site internet dédié, mis à la disposition du public par l’administration” (article L423-3 of the Consumer Code). In food specifically, the same article adds that “les producteurs et les distributeurs établissent et maintiennent à jour un état chiffré des produits retirés ou rappelés, qu’ils tiennent à la disposition des agents habilités”, meaning producers and distributors must keep a quantified account of withdrawn or recalled goods available to inspectors. A supermarket that quietly rebagged suspect stock instead of declaring it would therefore be breaking two duties at once: the duty to declare, and the duty to account.
The withdrawal duty is older and European. Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 lays down the general principles of food law, and its articles 14, 17 and 19 require food businesses to withdraw dangerous food from the market. The criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation has given those provisions teeth: “constituent des obligations particulières de prudence ou de sécurité les prescriptions des articles 14, 17 et 19 du règlement CE n° 178/2002 du Parlement et du Conseil du 28 janvier 2002 aux termes desquels notamment, d’une part, lorsqu’une denrée alimentaire dangereuse fait partie d’un lot ou d’un chargement de denrées alimentaires de la même catégorie ou correspondant à la même description, il est présumé que la totalité des denrées alimentaires de ce lot ou chargement sont également dangereuses, sauf si une évaluation détaillée montre qu’il n’y a pas de preuve que le reste du lot ou du chargement soit dangereux, d’autre part, dans une telle situation l’exploitant doit retirer les denrées du marché” (Court of Cassation, criminal chamber, 31 March 2020, No 19-82.171, published in the Bulletin). In plain terms, once one packet in a lot is dangerous, the whole lot is presumed dangerous until a detailed assessment proves otherwise, and the business must pull it from sale. That presumption is precisely what protects shoppers after a refrigeration failure: the shop cannot lawfully leave the rest of the batch on display and wait to see who falls ill.
Official controls back the system. The Rural Code states that “Dans l’intérêt de la protection de la santé publique, il doit être procédé” to official supervision, including “Au contrôle officiel des produits d’origine animale, des denrées alimentaires en contenant, des sous-produits animaux” (article L231-1 of the Rural and Sea Fisheries Code). Veterinary and DGCCRF inspectors can order withdrawals, suspend approvals, and close premises. And the criminal sanction is explicit: “Est puni de six mois d’emprisonnement et de 15 000 euros d’amende le fait”, among other conduct, “de mettre sur le marché des produits d’origine animale ou des denrées alimentaires en contenant consignés ou retirés de la consommation” (article L237-2 of the same Code). Selling food that has been formally withdrawn from consumption is therefore not a commercial mishap but an offence. For a British shopper, the lesson is simple: a product under recall has no lawful place on the shelf, and a shop that keeps selling it exposes itself to prosecution as well as to your civil claim.
II. If you fall ill after eating suspect food: medical proof and compensation claims in France
A. What medical and written evidence should you gather first?
Speed matters more than anything. Food poisoning (intoxication alimentaire) typically declares itself within hours or days through vomiting, diarrhoea, abdominal pain and fever, and the medical evidence is easiest to collect while symptoms are present. See a doctor promptly: your médecin traitant (registered GP), SOS Médecins for a home visit, or hospital urgences (accident and emergency) if symptoms are severe. Tell the doctor exactly what you ate, when, and where it was bought, and mention the refrigeration incident. The doctor may order a stool analysis (coproculture) from a medical laboratory to identify the bacterium, such as salmonella, listeria or E. coli. That analysis is often the document that turns an unhappy stomach into a provable case, because it names the pathogen and dates the infection. Keep every medical paper: prescriptions, laboratory results, sick-leave certificates (arrêts de travail), and all invoices (factures), since each one will later quantify your loss.
Your doctor also feeds the public-health system. French law provides that “Les médecins et les responsables des services et laboratoires de biologie médicale publics et privés signalent : 1° A l’agence régionale de santé les cas de maladies nécessitant une intervention urgente locale, nationale ou internationale” (article L3113-1 of the Public Health Code). The ARS (agence régionale de santé, the regional health agency) investigates clusters: when several people fall ill after eating the same food, the episode is treated as a collective foodborne outbreak (toxi-infection alimentaire collective, known as TIAC), declared to the authorities, and traced back to the suspected lot. If friends or family who shared the meal develop symptoms too, say so: a cluster triggers official sampling and inspection far faster than an isolated complaint, and the resulting administrative findings can later support your claim. This is collective protection working through individual consultations, so never assume your case is too minor to mention.
Alongside the medical file, build the material file. Keep the suspect packaging with its lot number and barcode, keep the till receipt and the matching bank-card line, and photograph everything, including the condition of the food and any thermometer display if relevant. If you kept leftovers, seal them, label them, and store them separately in a cold place without mixing them with other food; do not throw them away, because an unopened or sealed remainder is the best exhibit available. Note the names of witnesses, meaning anyone who shared the meal or saw you buy and store the product normally. Store all of it in one folder, paper and digital: French insurers and courts reason from documents, and a claimant who produces the packet, the receipt, the laboratory result and the invoices in chronological order is already halfway to settlement.
Two notes for British readers specifically. First, the UK’s National Health Service guidance on food poisoning (NHS guidance) usefully describes the warning signs that require medical attention, including signs of dehydration, symptoms persisting beyond a few days, and vulnerability in young children, older people and those with weakened immunity: apply that same caution in France and seek care early rather than waiting to see. Second, sort out payment for care at once. If you live in France and are registered with the CPAM (Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie, the local health-insurance fund), present your Carte Vitale (the French health-insurance card) as usual. If you are visiting, your GHIC (Global Health Insurance Card) gives access to medically necessary state healthcare on the same terms as French residents. Either way, keep the statements of treatment (relevés de soins) and any unpaid balance, because medical costs form the first head of any compensation claim. If symptoms begin only after your return to Britain, you can additionally use the UK government’s report-a-food-problem service, while keeping the French evidence file intact for the French claim.
B. Who pays for food poisoning in France, and how long do you have to claim?
France applies a strict liability regime to defective products that is particularly favourable to consumers. The Civil Code states: “Le producteur est responsable du dommage causé par un défaut de son produit, qu’il soit ou non lié par un contrat avec la victime” (article 1245 of the Civil Code). No contract with the manufacturer is needed, and no fault needs proving against it: the producer answers for the damage caused by the defect in its product as a matter of law. A product counts as defective “lorsqu’il n’offre pas la sécurité à laquelle on peut légitimement s’attendre” (article 1245-3), meaning when it does not offer the safety which can legitimately be expected. Chilled food sold for human consumption, kept at the temperature its own label requires, is legitimately expected not to poison the buyer; food rendered dangerous by a broken cold chain fits that definition naturally. The producer “est responsable de plein droit”, liable as of right, and escapes only by proving one of the narrow statutory defences, such as never having put the product into circulation or the defect arising afterwards (article 1245-10).
Two features of the regime deserve attention from a British claimant suing in France. First, the net of liable persons is wide. The law treats as a producer “toute personne agissant à titre professionnel : 1° Qui se présente comme producteur en apposant sur le produit son nom, sa marque ou un autre signe distinctif ; 2° Qui importe un produit dans la Communauté européenne en vue d’une vente” (article 1245-5). A supermarket selling under its own brand (marque distributeur, the retailer’s own label) therefore stands in the producer’s shoes, as does anyone importing the product for sale, which matters for British specialities stocked on French shelves. In practice the claim is usually directed at both the retailer who sold the food and the manufacturer identified on the packet, leaving them to apportion responsibility between themselves. Second, the burden of proof, while real, is clearly allocated: “Le demandeur doit prouver le dommage, le défaut et le lien de causalité entre le défaut et le dommage” (article 1245-8). You must prove the injury, the defect, and the causal link, which is exactly why the medical and material file described above is decisive. Courts accept proof by presumptions (présomptions graves, précises et concordantes, serious, precise and consistent circumstantial evidence): the laboratory result naming salmonella, the receipt for the implicated lot, the recall notice for that lot, and fellow diners falling ill together can jointly establish what no single document proves alone.
Recent case law shows the regime biting on contaminated food. On 28 May 2025 the Court of Appeal of Chambéry confirmed a first-instance judgment holding a milk producer liable for contaminated milk under defective-product liability, ordering the producer and its insurer to pay 74,634.80 euros excluding tax with statutory interest: “Condamne in solidum le GAEC des Cattons et la compagnie Groupama Rhône Alpes Auvergne à payer à la société Fromagerie de la Tournette à titre de dommages et intérêts la somme de 74 634,80 euros hors taxes, outre intérêts au taux légal à compter du 3 mars 2020” (Court of Appeal of Chambéry, 2nd chamber, 28 May 2025, RG 22/00210). The criminal courts go further where a professional knowingly markets dangerous food. On 31 March 2020 the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal of a minced-meat producer whose E. coli-contaminated production had poisoned sixteen children: the appeal court had, “pour blessures involontaires et infractions au code de la consommation et au code rural, l’a condamné à trois ans d’emprisonnement dont un an avec sursis et 50 000 euros d’amende, à une interdiction professionnelle définitive, à une interdiction définitive de gérer une entreprise commerciale” (Court of Cassation, criminal chamber, 31 March 2020, No 19-82.171, published in the Bulletin). Three years’ imprisonment with one year suspended, a 50,000-euro fine, and lifetime professional and business-management bans: knowingly selling food that may be dangerous is treated as a serious crime, not a regulatory slip.
Time limits are generous but must be diarised. The compensation action “se prescrit dans un délai de trois ans à compter de la date à laquelle le demandeur a eu ou aurait dû avoir connaissance du dommage, du défaut et de l’identité du producteur” (article 1245-16), meaning three years from when you knew or should have known of the injury, the defect and the producer’s identity. Beyond that, “Sauf faute du producteur, la responsabilité de celui-ci, fondée sur les dispositions du présent chapitre, est éteinte dix ans après la mise en circulation du produit même qui a causé le dommage à moins que, durant cette période, la victime n’ait engagé une action en justice” (article 1245-15): a ten-year long-stop from the product’s circulation unless court action was started. In practice, act within months, not years, while laboratory results, witnesses and till records are fresh.
As for the hackers themselves, French criminal law punishes attacks on automated data systems severely. “Le fait d’accéder ou de se maintenir, frauduleusement, dans tout ou partie d’un système de traitement automatisé de données est puni de trois ans d’emprisonnement et de 100 000 € d’amende” (article 323-1 of the Criminal Code), and “Le fait d’entraver ou de fausser le fonctionnement d’un système de traitement automatisé de données est puni de cinq ans d’emprisonnement et de 150 000 € d’amende” (article 323-2). Forcing refrigeration software to heat cabinets to 50 degrees would appear capable of falling under both provisions, though characterisation belongs to the prosecutor and the trial court, not to this article. The Court of Cassation interprets fraudulent intrusion broadly: “se rend coupable de l’infraction prévue par l’article 323-1 du code pénal celui qui se maintient dans un système de traitement automatisé de données en prenant connaissance du contenu des messages échangés au sein du réseau, à des fins étrangères à sa mission et à l’insu des titulaires des messages, même si, administrateur du réseau, il bénéficie, de par ses fonctions, d’un droit général d’accès à la messagerie” (Court of Cassation, criminal chamber, 2 September 2025, No 24-83.605, published in the Bulletin). A victim of food poisoning can join the criminal proceedings as a civil party (constitution de partie civile) to seek damages there, or sue separately before the civil courts; filing a criminal complaint (plainte) with the police or gendarmerie preserves both routes and starts the paper trail.
Conclusion
The refrigeration hack is, at the time of writing, an alleged cyber-attack under investigation: no hacker has been convicted for it, no retailer has been held liable for it, and only the courts will settle those questions. Your position as a British shopper in France does not depend on those outcomes. Keep till receipts for chilled and frozen food, check lot numbers against RappelConso before eating doubtful items, return suspect products to the store, and report refusals through SignalConso. If illness follows, consult a doctor immediately, secure laboratory analysis, preserve packaging and receipts, and note every witness and invoice. French law then offers a strict-liability route against producers and distributors within three years of discovering the injury, backed by criminal sanctions for knowingly marketing dangerous food and for sabotaging the systems meant to keep it safe. Do those five things, in that order, and whatever the investigation eventually establishes, your file will be ready.