Consumer law lawyer in Paris: the business facing a consumer client.

The preliminary article of the Consumer Code defines a consumer as an individual who acts for purposes outside their commercial, industrial, craft, professional or agricultural activity. The classification does not depend on the customer's occupation but on the purpose of the contract concluded. A doctor can therefore be a consumer for a purchase unconnected with their practice. The Court of Cassation so held for a neurologist who had booked a hotel room in the city where a medical congress was being held, quashing the judgment that had denied the doctor that status (Cass. 1re civ., 31 August 2022, No. 21-11.097). It also accepts that a buyer keeps consumer status where the professional use remains limited. In a judgment given against a garage, it held that "the mixed use of a vehicle, bought for both private and professional purposes, is not enough to make the buyer lose her status as a consumer" (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 11 March 2026, No. 24-16.635). For the business, the consequence is practical. It is not enough to point out that the customer has a profession: it must be shown that the contract mainly served that activity. The firm therefore checks the purpose of the purchase, its declared use and the wording of the order form.

Yes, but only if it acts as a non-professional. Article L. 212-2 of the Consumer Code extends the protection against unfair terms to contracts concluded with non-professionals, defined by the preliminary article as legal entities that do not act for professional purposes. Applying the former Article L. 132-1, the Court of Cassation specifies that "A non-professional, within the meaning of that provision, is a legal entity that does not act for the purposes of its professional activity" (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 21 January 2026, No. 24-11.365). In that case, it quashed the judgment that had protected an educational institution which had entered into photocopier maintenance contracts, because the court had not ruled out that those contracts served its activity. The Commercial Chamber takes the same line in respect of a boat rental company, which was a professional since it was acting for its commercial activity (Cass. com., 14 October 2026, No. 25-15.388). The classification is assessed by reference to the legal entity itself. The Third Civil Chamber holds that "the status of non-professional of a legal entity is assessed by reference to its activity and not that of its legal representative" (our translation) (Cass. 3e civ., 17 October 2019, No. 18-18.469). The business must therefore document the link between the contract and the corporate customer's activity.

The review is done in three steps. First, compare the clause with the list in Article R. 212-1 of the Consumer Code, whose clauses are irrebuttably presumed to be unfair. The clauses covered include those that remove or reduce the consumer's right to compensation, or that prevent the consumer from seeking termination for non-performance by the business. Next, consult Article R. 212-2 of the Consumer Code, whose clauses are only presumed to be unfair, the business being able to prove otherwise. Finally, a clause absent from these lists remains subject to the general test of Article L. 212-1 of the Consumer Code, which looks for a significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties. The assessment takes account of the circumstances in which the contract was concluded and of its other clauses. It covers neither the definition of the main subject matter of the contract nor the adequacy of the price to the goods or services, provided the clause is drafted in a clear and comprehensible manner. Article L. 211-1 of the Consumer Code adds that, in case of doubt, the clause is interpreted in the sense most favourable to the consumer. The firm therefore reviews each sensitive clause in your general terms, flags those that appear on a list and proposes a more balanced wording where the risk is serious.

Under Article L. 241-1 of the Consumer Code, unfair terms are deemed unwritten, and the contract continues to apply in its other provisions if it can continue without them. The sanction therefore targets the clause, not the customer's whole commitment. The business in principle keeps its right to the price but loses the advantage the set-aside clause gave it, for example a limitation of liability or a fixed-sum indemnity. This review does not depend on the customer's arguments. Article R. 632-1 of the Consumer Code authorises the court to raise the provisions of the Code of its own motion and requires it to set aside a clause whose unfair nature emerges from the proceedings, after hearing the parties' observations. The Second Civil Chamber recalls, following the Court of Justice, that "the national court is required to examine of its own motion whether a contractual clause is unfair as soon as it has the legal and factual elements necessary for that purpose" (our translation) (Cass. 2e civ., 14 October 2021, No. 19-11.758). In that case, the judgment in favour of the insurer was quashed for want of such an examination. An action for payment based on a weak clause can therefore turn against the business, even where the customer does not appear.

Not automatically. Article R. 212-2 of the Consumer Code presumes unfair a clause that allows the business to keep the sums paid where the consumer withdraws, without providing for equivalent compensation to the consumer if it is the business that withdraws. It also presumes unfair a manifestly disproportionate indemnity imposed on a consumer in default. The Court of Cassation recently applied Article L. 212-1 of the Consumer Code to a tuition fee package. It held that "A contractual stipulation which makes the total price of schooling a lump sum wholly acquired by the school from the signing of the contract, without reserving the case of termination for a legitimate and compelling reason or a case of force majeure, creates a significant imbalance to the detriment of the pupil" (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 26 November 2025, No. 24-14.269). The institution's appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed. This decision is unfavourable to the business. It adds that a reservation for a legitimate reason does not always suffice to save the clause, which may still confer an excessive advantage. For training, a subscription or a service paid in advance, the firm checks the wording of the withdrawal clause, the reciprocity provided for and the proportion between the indemnity and the actual loss.

It protects the business far less than is often thought. In a vehicle rental case, the contract had the renter acknowledge delivery of a vehicle in satisfactory condition, without reserving defects that were not apparent at handover. The Court of Cassation held that this clause fell within points 6° and 7° of Article R. 212-1 of the Consumer Code, which cover the removal of the right to compensation and the prohibition on seeking termination. It specifies that "As this blacklist is binding on the court, with no possibility of adducing proof to the contrary, the judgment must be reversed on this point" (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 17 December 2025, No. 24-11.295). Ruling on the merits itself, it deemed the clause unwritten. The outcome must nonetheless be read in full. The same decision upholds the dismissal of the renter's claims for termination and compensation, for want of proof of the damage and of the loss. The clause disappears, but the consumer must still prove the breach complained of. For a rental company, a seller or a service provider, the lesson is twofold. The handover report remains useful as proof of the apparent condition, but it cannot shut out every remedy for hidden defects. The drafting of the contract must take this into account.

Under Article L. 217-3 of the Consumer Code, the seller delivers goods that conform to the contract and is liable for lack-of-conformity defects existing at delivery that appear within two years. Article L. 217-7 of the Consumer Code presumes that defects appearing within twenty-four months already existed at delivery, unless proven otherwise; for second-hand goods, this period is now twelve months. The consumer chooses between repair and replacement under Article L. 217-9 of the Consumer Code, and the bringing into conformity must take place within a period that may not exceed thirty days from the request (Article L. 217-10). Failing that, Article L. 217-14 of the Consumer Code gives the consumer a price reduction or termination of the contract. A sufficiently serious defect allows the consumer to resort to these immediately, but termination is excluded where the seller shows that the defect is minor. The Court of Cassation applied the presumption to a second-hand vehicle whose engine broke down five months after the sale, under the former wording that set this period at six months. It dismissed the seller's appeal, because the seller had not proved a cause arising after delivery (Cass. 1re civ., 11 March 2026, No. 24-16.635). This decision is unfavourable to the professional seller. In practice, a seller who disputes a defect must gather technical evidence on its origin, and not merely assert that the goods worked at the time of sale.

Yes, within precise limits. Article L. 217-12 of the Consumer Code allows the seller not to follow the consumer's choice where the bringing into conformity requested is impossible or entails disproportionate costs. The provision assesses this disproportion by reference to the value of the goods without the defect, the significance of the defect and whether the other remedy can be used without major inconvenience to the customer. The seller may even refuse any bringing into conformity where it is impossible or too costly in light of the first two criteria. This refusal has a legal cost. If the conditions are not met, the consumer may, after formal notice, seek enforcement of the chosen remedy. If the seller refuses any bringing into conformity, the consumer can obtain the price reduction or termination of the contract provided for by Article L. 217-14 of the Consumer Code. The same provision requires any refusal to be reasoned in writing or on a durable medium; the seller also keeps the figures on which it is based. Article L. 217-13 of the Consumer Code further provides that goods repaired under the guarantee benefit from a six-month extension, and that a replacement following a repair that was not carried out starts a new guarantee period. The firm helps choose the response and draft it.

The three regimes apply cumulatively without being the same. The statutory guarantee of conformity covers in principle defects existing at delivery that appear within two years, subject to the specific rules for goods with digital elements and to the extensions in Article L. 217-13; the limitation period for the consumer's action runs from the day the consumer learned of the defect (Article L. 217-3 of the Consumer Code). The guarantee against latent defects in Article 1641 of the Civil Code covers hidden defects that make the thing unfit for its use, and the action must be brought within two years of the discovery of the defect (Article 1648 of the Civil Code). For a professional seller, this second regime is particularly onerous. The Commercial Chamber recalls that Article 1645 of the Civil Code gives rise to "an irrebuttable presumption that the professional seller knew of the defect in the thing sold, which obliges the seller to make good all damage resulting from it in full" (our translation) (Cass. com., 5 July 2023, No. 22-11.621). In that case, the presumption applied even against a buyer who was itself a professional. The commercial guarantee, finally, is an optional contractual undertaking defined by Article L. 217-21 of the Consumer Code, which is additional to the statutory obligations and binds the guarantor under its terms or those of its advertising if these are more favourable. The business therefore cannot present its commercial guarantee as replacing the statutory guarantee. The firm checks that the documents given to the customer are consistent on these three points.

Article L. 218-2 of the Consumer Code sets at two years the limitation period for businesses' actions for goods or services they supply to consumers. This special period is much shorter than the five-year period provided between traders by Article L. 110-4 of the Commercial Code. The question of the starting point has evolved. The Court of Cassation formerly used the date of the invoice for building work. It now holds that "it is therefore necessary to take into account the date on which the business became aware of the facts enabling it to bring its action, which may be characterised by the completion of the work or the performance of the services" (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 19 May 2021, No. 20-12.520). In that case, however, it maintained the former rule for the company concerned, which could not have anticipated this change of approach. A late invoice therefore no longer postpones the period. For instalment payments, the limitation period runs for each instalment from its due date, whereas "the action for payment of the outstanding capital is subject to a limitation period running from the acceleration of the term, which makes it payable" (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 14 February 2018, No. 16-25.285). The firm reconstructs the completion date, the instalments and any acts interrupting the limitation period before any reminder or payment order.

Yes. Article L. 612-1 of the Consumer Code gives every consumer the right to use a consumer mediator, at no cost to the consumer, to settle amicably a dispute with a business. The business guarantees effective access to a mediation scheme, either by setting up its own or by offering a mediator meeting the requirements of the Code. Where a mediator covers its entire sector of activity, the consumer must always be able to use that mediator. Article L. 616-1 of the Consumer Code requires the business to provide the details of the competent mediator or mediators. It requires that information to be repeated where a prior complaint made to the customer service has not settled the dispute. Article L. 111-1 of the Consumer Code finally lists the possibility of using a mediator among the information to be given before the contract is concluded. For the business, mediation is also a tool. A complaint handled in writing, then passed to an identified mediator, fixes the positions and limits the risk of proceedings. The firm checks that the general terms and replies to customers refer to the mediator correctly, and can prepare the business's submissions to the mediator.

Article R. 631-3 of the Consumer Code allows the consumer to bring the matter before either one of the courts with jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, or the court for the place where the consumer lived when the contract was concluded or when the harmful event occurred. Article 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure also deems unwritten any clause derogating from the rules of territorial jurisdiction, unless it was agreed between persons who all contracted as traders and is specified in a very apparent way in the commitment of the party against whom it is relied on. A jurisdiction clause inserted in general terms intended for individuals is therefore in principle ineffective. The Court of Cassation applied this to a business established in French Polynesia whose contract designated the Polynesian courts. It recalls that "the law applicable to decide a dispute on the merits has, in principle, no bearing on the determination of the competent court" (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 11 March 2026, No. 24-14.698). The business's appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed, and the jurisdiction of the court of the consumer's home in mainland France was confirmed. This decision is unfavourable to the business. For the defence, the firm first checks the customer's place of residence when the contract was concluded, then assesses whether there is a serious procedural objection to raise before any defence on the merits.

A consumer association approved under the conditions of Article L. 621-1 of the Consumer Code can ask the court to remove an unfair clause from the contracts offered to consumers, and to have that clause declared unwritten in all identical contracts of the same business (Article L. 621-8 of the Consumer Code). It can also bring an action for compensation for the harm caused to the collective interest of consumers (Article L. 621-9 of the Consumer Code). The resulting litigation concerns all the contracts offered, not a single customer. In a dispute between an association and an energy supplier, the Court of Cassation held that the claim for removal became inadmissible where the business had replaced the criticised clauses with new clauses notified to all the customers concerned, so that no current contract contained them any longer (Cass. 1re civ., 26 September 2019, No. 18-10.890). The same decision nonetheless quashes the judgment on another point, to the supplier's detriment. It censures the dismissal of the claim for compensation for the collective harm caused by the former general terms. In that case, replacing the former clauses in all current contracts made the removal claim pointless, but the claim for compensation for the past period remained to be decided. Regular revision of general terms thus reduces the risk without erasing the consequences of earlier versions. The firm can audit the company's contractual documents and propose a revised version, with a method of notifying customers that preserves proof of it.