E-commerce lawyer in Paris: withdrawal, returns and refunds

Because a return policy is first of all a set of time limits and evidence, and a mistake is paid for when a dispute arises. The law sets a withdrawal period of fourteen days for distance sales (Consumer Code, art. L. 221-18), a fourteen-day period for refunding (Consumer Code, art. L. 221-24) and an automatic increase in case of delay (Consumer Code, art. L. 242-4). These rules are public policy: a contrary clause in the general terms does not protect the shop.

The lawyer's work consists of reviewing a customer's actual journey, from the product page to the confirmation email, and checking that each piece of required information appears there and can be proved. The lawyer then drafts the returns page, template replies for customer service and the internal procedure for handling returned parcels.

The stakes appear in the case law. The Paris judicial court (tribunal judiciaire) ordered a shop that had offered a credit note in place of a refund to return the price and to compensate the customer for time lost (TJ Paris, 6 June 2024, No. 24/00457). A written and consistent policy avoids this kind of dispute, or makes it possible to defend it on the documents.

For a sale of goods, the period runs from the day on which the customer, or a third party designated by the customer who is not the carrier, receives the goods (Consumer Code, art. L. 221-18). If the order comprises several goods delivered separately, or goods delivered in several lots, the period starts from receipt of the last item. For regular delivery over a defined period, it starts from the first goods received. For a service, it runs in principle from the conclusion of the contract.

The classification as a distance contract therefore matters. The Court of Cassation held that the way in which the customer hands the file to the business makes no difference: “the material conditions in which the offer was handed to the business, having been received and signed by the consumer outside that business's premises, without any negotiation at the time of handing over, have no bearing on the classification as a distance contract” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 5 November 2025, No. 23-22.883). The judgment also states that the date on which the contract was concluded, which matters for a service, is deduced from the Civil Code rules on acceptance.

In practice, the shop must keep proof of the date of receipt, through carrier tracking or the delivery notice, because that is what allows it to say whether a late withdrawal may be refused.

Not without the customer's express agreement. When the right of withdrawal is exercised, the shop returns the full price paid, delivery costs included, using the same means of payment as for the order (Consumer Code, art. L. 221-24). Another method of refund is possible only with the consumer's express agreement and provided that it costs the consumer nothing. A general clause in the general terms providing for a credit note does not amount to that agreement, because the rules of the chapter are public policy (Consumer Code, art. L. 221-29).

The Paris judicial court (tribunal judiciaire) applied this to a garment bought online and returned within the time limit: the shop had received the items but refused to refund and offered a credit note. The judgment notes that “It nonetheless refused to refund the sum paid and offered to issue a credit note”, then orders the company to return the price and to pay damages for the steps imposed on the customer (our translation) (TJ Paris, 6 June 2024, No. 24/00457).

The credit note remains a useful commercial tool. Where the statutory right of withdrawal is available, it can replace the refund only with the customer's express agreement. For a return accepted after the time limit as a goodwill gesture, its terms, including a credit note alone, depend on the commitment the shop has announced: it should therefore be written clearly in the return policy.

An automatic increase, calculated on the sums due. If the refund is made no later than ten days after the period has expired, the sums bear interest at the statutory rate; beyond that, they are increased by 5%, 10%, 20% and then 50% depending on the length of the delay, and by a further five points per month, up to the price of the product, before reverting to the statutory rate (Consumer Code, art. L. 242-4).

The Court of Cassation rejected a seller's challenge to this scale, holding that “this sanction is a measure suited to ensuring consumer protection and guaranteeing the effectiveness of that protection, in that it is dissuasive” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 17 January 2018, No. 17-10.255). It adds that the scale is progressive and applies only after the statutory period, so that it is proportionate. The same decision holds that colour or equipment options chosen by the buyer did not make the vehicle a clearly personalised item.

The lower courts apply it in practice. The Paris judicial court increased by 50% the price of an item returned in its original condition (TJ Paris, 3 June 2024, No. 23/05579), and the Toulon judicial court had the increased interest run from the date the shop received the item returned by the buyer (TJ Toulon, 11 June 2026, No. 25/03361). Refunding within the time limit, even if the condition of the item is discussed afterwards, remains the least costly solution.

It may seek compensation for depreciation, but on strict conditions. The consumer is liable only if the item has lost value as a result of handling beyond what was necessary to examine the item, its characteristics and its functioning (Consumer Code, art. L. 221-23). The shop must also have properly informed the consumer of the right of withdrawal before the order.

Depreciation does not, by itself, justify a refusal to refund. The Paris judicial court held that “The fact that the company argues that the item was depreciated in transit does not justify a failure to refund but at most a claim against the buyer's liability” (our translation) (TJ Paris, 3 June 2024, No. 23/05579). In the absence of any document establishing the loss in value, the company was ordered to refund the price increased by 50%, as well as the storage costs caused by sending the item back to the customer.

The shop should therefore photograph the item on arrival, describe precisely the signs of use and quantify the loss in value, then, as a precaution where the depreciation is disputed, refund within the time limit and claim the compensation separately, so as not to be exposed to the increase. A flat-rate deduction written into the general terms does not replace this proof.

No. The consumer informs the shop of the decision by the standard form or by any other unambiguous statement, sent before the end of the period (Consumer Code, art. L. 221-21). A clear email is enough. For contracts concluded through an online interface, the shop must also make available, at no cost to the consumer, a function allowing this right to be exercised, the presentation of which is set by decree.

The Paris court of appeal held, in a case concerning an off-premises contract between a self-employed professional with no employees and an advertising publisher, that withdrawal had been validly exercised by sending, in the absence of a withdrawal slip, “an email, the day after the contract was concluded, clearly and unambiguously informing of the wish to withdraw” (our translation) (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 5, 10 October 2024, No. 21/13774). The rule on the form of the statement is the same for distance sales.

The shop is well advised to date the receipt of any statement of withdrawal, whatever its medium: the refund period runs from the day it is informed (Consumer Code, art. L. 221-24). Where the form is completed online on its site, it must also send an acknowledgement of receipt without delay on a durable medium (Consumer Code, art. L. 221-21). A refusal based solely on the customer's choice of channel has no support in the text.

The period is extended by twelve months, counted from the end of the initial fourteen-day period (Consumer Code, art. L. 221-20). If the shop provides the information during this extension, the period expires fourteen days after the customer receives it. The required information includes the conditions, the time limit, the procedure for exercising the right, the standard form and, where applicable, the location of the withdrawal function (Consumer Code, art. L. 221-5, 7°).

The extension has a limit, and it can work against the buyer. In an online vehicle sale, the Paris judicial court held that the seller had not proved that it had informed the buyer, then calculated the extended period from delivery: it had expired before the withdrawal letter. The judgment states that “As this is a strict (prefix) time limit and not a limitation period, it was not interrupted” by an earlier referral to a court (our translation) (TJ Paris, 16 June 2026, No. 23/11006). The buyer's claim for rescission of the sale and for the increase was dismissed.

For the shop, the lesson is twofold: the absence of information creates a risk lasting more than a year, but a precise timeline makes it possible to answer a withdrawal presented too late.

By documents that show the journey the customer actually followed. It is for the business to show that it provided the required information (Consumer Code, art. L. 221-7). In a case concerning an off-premises contract, the Court of Cassation held that “the burden of proving that the business has performed the legal information obligations imposed on it when concluding an off-premises contract rests on the business” and set aside the judgment that criticised the buyers for producing only an incomplete copy of the contract (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 1 February 2023, No. 20-22.176).

The same logic applies to the online shop. The Paris judicial court refused an online seller the benefit of its general terms, noting that “it produces no document to establish the order process put in place on its site” (our translation) (TJ Paris, 16 June 2026, No. 23/11006). Asserting that acceptance was technically mandatory is not enough.

The shop should therefore archive each version of its general terms with its publication date, keep the screenshots of the checkout process, the technical log of the acceptance box and the confirmation email sent on a durable medium with the withdrawal form (Consumer Code, art. L. 221-13).

Not as against a consumer. The provisions on distance contracts are public policy (Consumer Code, art. L. 221-29). A clause stating that no cancellation is possible, that no refund will be given or that only exchanges are accepted does not deprive the customer of the right of withdrawal where the law gives it.

The Paris court of appeal so held for a clause stipulating that a signed order was firm and final: the business “is not entitled to rely on general terms that obstruct the exercise of the right of withdrawal” (our translation) (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 5, 10 October 2024, No. 21/13774). The case concerned an off-premises contract, but the public-policy nature applies to the whole chapter.

The general terms remain useful for announcing genuine statutory exceptions, for example goods made to the customer's specifications, perishable goods or unsealed hygiene products (Consumer Code, art. L. 221-28). They must then state them before the order, with the circumstances in which the customer loses the right. Two errors must be distinguished. An exception invoked for a standard product that falls within no statutory case leaves the customer with the right of withdrawal: the shop must then refund, with the increase under Consumer Code, art. L. 242-4 if it delays. Failure to give information on an exception that does apply breaches point 10° of article L. 221-5, but does not by itself create a right of withdrawal that the law excludes.

In principle, no. The right of withdrawal in the Consumer Code protects the consumer. Its extension to businesses with no more than five employees concerns only off-premises contracts, provided that their subject matter is outside the main activity of the business approached (Consumer Code, art. L. 221-3). A company that orders from an online shop, without having been solicited, does not fall within this extension.

The distinction matters where the shop also sells through canvassing or at trade fairs. The Court of Cassation then applies the extension precisely: for a professional partnership company (société civile de moyens), it holds that “the main activity of a professional partnership company, which consists in facilitating the practice of its members' profession, must be assessed by reference to that professional activity” (our translation) (Cass. com., 30 April 2025, No. 24-10.316). It accordingly set aside the judgment that refused withdrawal for the hire of a photocopier.

For online sales between businesses, the return policy falls under the general terms of sale and negotiation. The shop may grant a commercial right of return, provided that it clearly sets the time limit, the required condition and the method of refund.

These are two distinct regimes. Withdrawal allows the customer to give up the purchase for fourteen days without giving a reason. The legal guarantee of conformity obliges the seller to answer for defects present at delivery that become apparent within two years (Consumer Code, art. L. 217-3), those appearing within twenty-four months being presumed to have existed at delivery, twelve months for a second-hand item (Consumer Code, art. L. 217-7).

In case of a defect, the customer is entitled to repair or replacement, then, failing that, to a price reduction or rescission of the sale (Consumer Code, art. L. 217-8). Bringing the goods into conformity takes place within a period that may not exceed thirty days after the request (Consumer Code, art. L. 217-10) and at no cost to the customer (Consumer Code, art. L. 217-11). Unlike with withdrawal, the cost of returning a defective item therefore cannot be left to the customer.

The choice of legal basis changes the timetable and the costs. A customer who discovers a defect within fourteen days may be able to rely on either regime; the shop is well advised to reply on the basis presented, because treating a guarantee claim as a withdrawal in order to charge the return costs to the customer exposes it to a challenge.

Sometimes, where the contract was concluded off-premises. A business with no more than five employees benefits from the consumer-protection rules, including withdrawal, where the contract concerns a subject outside its main activity (Consumer Code, art. L. 221-3). The creation of a website or an advertising campaign offered during a sales visit may fall within this case.

The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal against a judgment holding that “commercial communication and advertising through a website did not fall within the scope of the main activity” of an architect, so that she could withdraw from the contract for the creation and licensing of her website (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 12 September 2018, No. 17-17.319). The assessment remains one for the trial courts and depends on the business's actual activity: an operator whose trade is online selling will find it harder to argue that its website is outside its main activity.

The firm checks the place and circumstances of signature, the headcount, the exact subject of the contract and the information received on withdrawal, then the relevant date for exercising it.