Digital law lawyer in Paris

Three families recur. The first is online selling: information to give before the order, validation process, general terms and conditions, withdrawal. The second concerns equipment contracts: website creation, hosting, maintenance, financial lease, subscription to software or to a marketplace. The third groups infringements: disparagement, copying of a website or a database, a customer file taken away, fraudulent access to an email account.

In each, the business’s position depends first on how the operation is characterised. A small business canvassed away from its premises for a contract unrelated to its main activity may invoke the consumer-protective rules (article L. 221-3 of the Consumer Code); a platform that framed and promoted the offers was refused host status under the former wording of the Law of 21 June 2004, the current regime being assessed in light of the service and the facts (Cass. com., 7 January 2026, No. 24-13.163).

The firm examines the contracts, screenshots and exchanges, then indicates the appropriate route: withdrawal, notification, negotiation, report or action. The pages of the practice area detail each situation, from GDPR for SMEs to IT disputes.

It is possible if three conditions are met and the period is still running. The contract must have been concluded off-premises, its purpose must not fall within the scope of the main activity of the business approached, and the business must employ no more than five employees (article L. 221-3 of the Consumer Code). The Court of Cassation applied this to an advertising insertion contract, holding that “a professional employing no more than five employees who, off-premises, enters into a contract whose purpose does not fall within the scope of their main activity, benefits from the consumer-protective provisions laid down by that code” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 27 November 2019, No. 18-22.525). The judgment was quashed on another point, the judge having relied on a headcount that was not in dispute: headcount has to be proved.

The period is fourteen days; it runs from conclusion of the contract for a service and from receipt of the goods for a sale (article L. 221-18). Where the information on withdrawal has not been given, the period is extended by twelve months from the expiry of the initial period; if the information is provided during that extension, the right expires fourteen days after its receipt (article L. 221-20). Some services are finally excluded from withdrawal, such as a service fully performed before the end of the period where the customer gave express consent and acknowledged losing the right (article L. 221-28).

The characterisation of the contract matters. The Court of Cassation held that “a contract whose purpose is to design and produce, on behalf of a client, a customised website, such as the one in issue, which does not relate to the transfer of ownership of one or more movable assets within the meaning of article 528 of the Civil Code, cannot be classified as a sale” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 28 May 2026, No. 25-14.507). This solution is unfavourable to the client, who counted the period from delivery of the website. The firm therefore recalculates the period from the contract itself.

Not necessarily. Where the performance of several contracts is necessary for one and the same operation and one of them disappears, the contracts that depend on it lapse, provided the contracting party concerned knew of the overall operation (article 1186 of the Civil Code). The contract for creating or maintaining the website and the lease that finances it often form such a whole.

The service contract must still be made to disappear first. The creditor may terminate it by notification, at their own risk. Save in an emergency, the creditor first serves formal notice on the debtor to perform within a reasonable time, stating that failing this the contract may be terminated; the notification then states the reasons for termination, and the creditor must prove the seriousness of the non-performance if the debtor challenges it before the court (article 1226 of the Civil Code). The Court of Cassation held that “termination by notification may be relied on against the party against whom the lapse of a contract is invoked, as a consequence of the prior destruction of the interdependent contract, without any need to join the counterparty to the contract previously terminated” (our translation) (Cass. com., 5 February 2025, No. 23-23.358).

If the service provider is in judicial liquidation, the termination may result from a decision taken in that procedure, since “it is not, however, required that the prior destruction and the lapse be pronounced or recorded in one and the same proceeding” (our translation) (Cass. com., 4 July 2018, No. 17-15.597). The firm checks the interdependence, drafts the formal notice and then the notification, and warns the lessor before unpaid instalments build up.

Before being bound, the consumer receives, in a legible and comprehensible manner, the essential characteristics of the goods or service, the price, the delivery time, the identity and contact details of the trader and, where a right of withdrawal exists, its conditions, period and procedures and the standard form (article L. 221-5 of the Consumer Code). This information is in addition to the general duty of pre-contractual information (article L. 111-1). These rules extend to a business customer only in the cases provided by law, such as a contract concluded off-premises with a small business (article L. 221-3).

The Civil Code also governs the formation of electronic contracts, including between businesses. The offer sets out the steps of the order and the means of correcting input errors, and the contractual terms must be capable of being retained and reproduced (article 1127-1 of the Civil Code). The contract is in principle validly concluded only if the customer was able to check the order details and the total price before confirming, and the order gives rise to an acknowledgement of receipt without undue delay (article 1127-2). These statements and requirements do not apply to contracts concluded exclusively by exchange of emails, and businesses may depart from them as between themselves (article 1127-3).

A misleading presentation finally exposes the business to being characterised as a misleading commercial practice, in particular where it concerns the essential characteristics or the price (article L. 121-2). The firm reviews the order process screen by screen and the general terms and conditions, in conjunction with the page devoted to e-commerce.

Yes, subject to conditions. An electronic document has the same evidential value as a paper document, provided that the person from whom it emanates can be identified and that it is created and retained in conditions that guarantee its integrity (article 1366 of the Civil Code).

An electronic signature consists in the use of a reliable identification process guaranteeing its link with the document. Its reliability is presumed, until proven otherwise, where the signature is created, the signatory’s identity ensured and the integrity of the document guaranteed under the conditions laid down by decree (article 1367). Outside this presumption, the reliability of the process is not presumed and may be disputed.

In practice, a ticked box may not be enough to establish acceptance of the terms relied on: the business must be able to link that acceptance to the customer and to the version of the general terms and conditions then in force, supported by a timestamp. The firm checks what the signature provider or the sales platform actually retains, and for how long, before a dispute makes the question urgent.

Not always. A host benefits from a lighter liability regime because it merely stores content provided by others. Following the Court of Justice, the Court of Cassation recalls that the exemption does not apply “where that provider, instead of confining itself to a neutral supply of service by means of a purely technical and automatic processing of the data provided by its customers, plays an active role such as to give it knowledge or control of that data” (our translation) (Cass. com., 7 January 2026, No. 24-13.163).

It specifies, again following the Court of Justice, that “the operator plays an active role when it provides assistance which consists in particular in optimising the presentation of the offers for sale concerned or in promoting them” (our translation) (Cass. com., 7 January 2026, No. 24-13.163). The court of appeal was upheld in refusing host status to a rental platform that imposed precise rules on advertisers and rewarded some of them with better visibility; the judgment was however quashed as to the award, the court of appeal having granted compensation whereas the owner was seeking the return of the civil fruits.

This decision applies the earlier wording of the Law of 21 June 2004. Article 6 of that law now defines the host and the online platform by reference to the European regulation on digital services. The firm examines the platform’s terms, its ranking rules and its sanctions before choosing the basis for a claim.

Disparagement is a fault that obliges its author to make good the damage caused (article 1240 of the Civil Code). The Court of Cassation holds that “the disclosure, by one party, of information liable to discredit a product marketed by the other constitutes an act of disparagement, unless the information concerned relates to a subject of general interest and rests on a sufficient factual basis” (our translation) (Cass. com., 9 January 2019, No. 17-18.350), subject to a certain moderation in expression. In that case, announcing to customers an infringement action that had not yet been judged constituted wrongful disparagement.

The limit is real. Regarding highly critical articles on a medicine, the Court of Cassation held that “the criticisms in question, even severe, did not exceed the admissible limits of freedom of expression” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 11 July 2018, No. 17-21.457), the publications forming part of a public health debate and relying on measures taken by the health authority. This solution is unfavourable to the business that considered itself disparaged.

Before acting, the firm therefore distinguishes disparagement of a product, defamation aimed at the business itself, which falls under the Law of 29 July 1881 on freedom of the press and its own rules of procedure and limitation, and legitimate criticism. It has the publications recorded, then chooses between a takedown request, formal notice and action.

Not automatically. Parasitism (parasitisme) consists in following in the wake of another operator to take undue advantage of its efforts, reputation or investments, and it engages its author’s liability under article 1240 of the Civil Code. But the Court of Cassation requires precise proof: “It is for the party claiming to be the victim of acts of parasitism to identify the individualised economic value on which it relies” (our translation) (Cass. com., 26 June 2024, No. 23-13.535).

It adds that “ideas being open to everyone, the mere fact of taking up, with variations, a concept implemented by a competitor does not in itself constitute an act of parasitism” (our translation) (Cass. com., 26 June 2024, No. 23-13.535). The retailer that complained that another had copied a decor made up of images not subject to third-party rights was dismissed, that unremarkable decor never having been put forward as emblematic of its brand: the solution is unfavourable to it.

The case is therefore built on identifiable investments: creation of the website, campaigns, commissioned photographs, product database. The firm also checks whether an exclusive right, copyright, trade mark or database right, offers a surer route than civil liability alone.

The customer file, prices or margins may qualify as trade secrets if the information is not readily accessible, has commercial value because of its secret nature and is subject to reasonable protective measures (article L. 151-1 of the Commercial Code). These measures, restricted access, confidentiality notices, employment contract clauses, must exist before the departure.

The new employer incurs its own liability. The Court of Cassation held that “the mere holding, on the employee’s work computer, of confidential information belonging to their former employer characterises the appropriation of that information by the new employer” (our translation) (Cass. com., 2 September 2026, No. 25-12.718), even in the absence of a non-competition clause. It quashed the judgment that required additional proof of that appropriation.

Time works against the business. The firm first has the access logs and exports preserved, then considers an investigative measure or a report, before formal notice and the liability action.

Yes, where the access or the remaining in the system is fraudulent. Fraudulently accessing or remaining in all or part of an automated data processing system is punishable by three years’ imprisonment and a €100,000 fine, penalties increased to five years and €150,000 where data are deleted or modified (article 323-1 of the Criminal Code).

Holding the access codes is not enough to make the access legitimate. The criminal chamber held that “anyone who remains in an automated data processing system by reading the content of messages exchanged within the network, for purposes unrelated to their duties and without the knowledge of the holders of the messages, is guilty of the offence provided for by article 323-1 of the Criminal Code” (our translation) (Cass. crim., 2 September 2025, No. 24-83.605), even where that network administrator has a general right of access to the email system.

The complaint is prepared with preserved connection logs, the list of accounts and rights granted, and proof of the purpose of each access. The firm coordinates these items with the IT service provider and, if personal data were exposed, with the obligations specific to the GDPR.

A screenshot taken by the business remains an item of evidence, but its date and integrity will be challenged. A court bailiff’s report provides a stronger guarantee, whether it concerns a web page or a purchase.

The Court of Cassation, sitting as a mixed chamber, relaxed the regime for test-purchase reports: henceforth, “the absence of sufficient guarantees of independence of the third-party buyer from the applicant is not such as to render the test-purchase report null and void” (our translation) (Cass. ch. mixte, 12 May 2025, No. 22-20.739). The judge then assesses whether this lack of independence affects the probative value of the report. The case concerned an in-store purchase made by a trainee of the applicant’s law firm.

The same decision recalls that “the judge may not refuse to examine a bailiff’s report drawn up at a person’s request, even if made without adversarial proceedings, which is valid as evidence once it is submitted for discussion by the parties” (our translation) (Cass. ch. mixte, 12 May 2025, No. 22-20.739). The firm chooses the appropriate type of report and has the addresses, dates and path to be reproduced set out in the assignment.

It can be, independently of copyright. The producer of a database, who takes the initiative and the risk of the investments, benefits from protection of its content where the obtaining, verification or presentation of that content attests to a substantial financial, material or human investment (article L. 341-1 of the Intellectual Property Code). The producer may prohibit the extraction and re-utilisation of a qualitatively or quantitatively substantial part of the database (article L. 342-1).

The investment must be distinct from the creation of the data. The Court of Cassation recalls, following the Court of Justice, that the holder must show an independent investment, “the holder of a database having to show an investment independent of that required for the creation of the data contained in the database for which protection is sought” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 5 October 2022, No. 21-16.307). A listings website thus obtained protection by establishing its expenditure on collection, storage, moderation and ranking.

The firm helps the business document this expenditure, often scattered between marketing, IT and monitoring teams, and then have the extraction recorded before acting.

The registry may refuse the registration or renewal of a domain name, or delete it, where it is liable to infringe intellectual property rights, unless the applicant has a legitimate interest and acts in good faith (article L. 45-2 of the Postal and Electronic Communications Code). Anyone who shows an interest in acting may ask the registry for the deletion or transfer of the name, under an adversarial procedure whose decision may be brought before the judicial courts (article L. 45-6 of the same code).

The trade mark holder keeps its rights. The Court of Cassation held that “the rules governing the allocation of domain names on the internet, which respect both the principles of freedom of communication and freedom of enterprise and intellectual property rights, have neither the object nor the effect of restricting the right of the trade mark holder to prohibit use without its consent” (our translation) (Cass. com., 5 June 2019, No. 17-22.132) of an identical or similar sign, in the course of trade, for identical or similar goods or services, where that use creates a likelihood of confusion. In that case, the company that had registered names reproducing that of the département of Saône-et-Loire did not show that it used them to offer services related to that territory, and therefore had no legitimate interest in their registration.

Conversely, a business that itself registers a name close to a third party’s trade mark is exposed to the same analysis. The firm checks earlier trade marks before any registration and, in the event of a dispute, gathers the evidence of priority and use.