Dropshipping lawyer in Paris: parcels, warranties, suppliers.

Yes. No provision prohibits selling a product that a supplier ships directly to the customer. Dropshipping is not a status: it is a way of organising logistics, and the general law on distance selling applies fully to the shop. The seller must therefore provide the pre-contractual information required by Article L. 221-5 of the French Consumer Code, meet the announced delivery time and answer for the conformity of the goods. Difficulties rarely come from the model itself; they arise from the way it is presented. The Versailles Court of Appeal thus held, in an interim ruling given in default of appearance, that “The concealment of the use of drop shipping by Fittrack France, which presents itself as the creator of its products, constitutes an act of unfair competition” (our translation) (CA Versailles, ch. com. 3-1, 22 January 2025, No. 22/05851). The same ruling had noted false references to the press and a guarantee presented in a misleading way. The legality of dropshipping therefore presupposes an accurate presentation of the shop's role, of real delivery times and of the origin of the products. The firm examines these points before a competitor, a customer or the authorities raise them.

Towards a consumer customer, the shop is liable. Article L. 221-15 of the French Consumer Code places on the seller an automatic liability for all obligations arising from the distance sale, whether it performs them itself or entrusts them to providers, its right of recourse against them remaining open. To be released, it must establish fault by the buyer, an unforeseeable and insurmountable event caused by a person unconnected with the contract, or a case of force majeure. The supplier and the carrier chosen by the shop are not unforeseeable third parties: they are its providers. After a delivery was damaged, the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire) of Tarascon held, as to the selling company, that “COLOR PLUS must be held liable for the faulty performance of its delivery obligation, even if it then turns to its service provider to be reimbursed” (our translation) (TJ Tarascon, 9 January 2026, No. 25/01253). This is a first-instance judgment, but it applies the letter of the provision. The reply to the customer is therefore prepared without waiting for the supplier, while the claim against the supplier is documented in parallel, document by document.

Most often, yes, at the end of a precise procedure. As long as delivery is not proved, the risk remains with the shop: under Article L. 216-2 of the Consumer Code, the risk of loss passes to the buyer only on physical possession of the goods, by the buyer or by the person they designated. Under the former numbering, the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation quashed the decision that had sent the buyer back to La Poste (Cass. 1re civ., 3 February 2021, appeal No. 19-21.046). The judicial court of Lille likewise ordered an online seller to refund the price of a telephone, after finding that “the goods were never delivered to them, the parcel having been opened and emptied before its arrival at the collection point” (our translation) (TJ Lille, ch. 10, 25 November 2025, No. 24/13631). The buyer may suspend payment, then terminate the contract where a formal notice granting the seller a reasonable additional period remains without effect, or immediately if the seller refuses to deliver, if it is clear that the seller will not deliver, or if the date was an essential condition (Article L. 216-6). The sum paid is then returned no later than fourteen days after termination (Article L. 216-7). Proof of dispatch to the carrier proposed by the shop is not enough; what counts is delivery to the customer or to the third party they designated, unless they chose another carrier themselves (Article L. 216-3).

The displayed time binds the shop. Article L. 216-1 of the Consumer Code requires the goods to be delivered on the date or within the period indicated to the consumer, and Article L. 111-1 makes this time a mandatory piece of information before the order. In dropshipping, the real delivery time often depends on a distant supplier: announcing a few days when shipping takes several weeks exposes the shop to two risks. The first is contractual, with suspension of payment or termination; the second lies in the misleading commercial practice of Article L. 121-2, which covers false statements about the availability of the goods. The judicial court of Nantes awarded damages to a buyer after noting that a website displayed panels as in stock while the seller was at the same time relying on a supply delay (TJ Nantes, 29 August 2025, No. 25/00519). The remedy is to display the delivery time actually experienced with the supplier, product by product, and to warn the customer as soon as a delay appears.

Yes, in full. The professional seller delivers goods that conform to the contract and is liable for defects that appear within two years of delivery (Article L. 217-3 of the Consumer Code). A defect that comes to light within twenty-four months, or twelve months for second-hand goods, is presumed to have existed at delivery, unless proved otherwise or incompatible with the nature of the goods or of the defect (Article L. 217-7). The customer chooses first between repair and replacement (Article L. 217-9), the seller being able to depart from that choice, by a reasoned refusal, if the solution is impossible or disproportionately costly (Article L. 217-12); the customer may obtain a price reduction or termination if bringing the goods into conformity is refused, fails or exceeds thirty days, and without prior repair where the defect is particularly serious; termination is excluded if the seller shows that the defect is minor (Article L. 217-14). Conformity is also assessed against what the shop presented, sample, photographs or description (Article L. 217-5). For a dropshipper, this means that a product page copied from the supplier without checking becomes the measure of its own obligation. A product that does not match the photographs displayed is non-conforming, whatever the manufacturer's liability. The firm therefore reviews product pages with the same care as the general terms.

No, and this is an unfavourable decision that the dropshipper needs to know. The Court of Cassation holds that the legal warranty of conformity is owed by the professional seller to the consumer buyer, and that it does not pass up the chain: “not itself acting as a consumer towards its own supplier, the seller does not benefit from such a warranty and therefore cannot pass on its rights” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 6 June 2018, appeal No. 17-10.553). The judgment infers from this that the consumer has no direct action against the supplier on this basis, and quashes the judgment that had allowed it. In practice, the shop bears the warranty alone towards its customer, then must turn against its supplier on another ground: the purchase contract, the warranty against latent defects (vices cachés) of Article 1641 of the French Civil Code, to be exercised within two years of discovering the defect (Article 1648), or, in an international sale, the Vienna Convention. The supplier contract must therefore itself provide for the warranties, their duration and who bears the cost of returns.

Yes, but within the limits of the law governing the purchase contract. The Commercial Chamber accepts the claim of a final seller held liable to its customer against an earlier seller in the chain: in a tiling case, it approves the court of appeal which “rightly inferred from this that the recourse action of Bois et matériaux, the final seller, against CMC, its supplier, was admissible” (our translation) (Cass. com., 3 February 2021, No. 19-13.260), the court of appeal having based this recourse on the Italian consumer code, adopted to implement the 1999 directive. The same judgment nonetheless quashes the judgment against the supplier, and this is the unfavourable part: the Vienna Convention applied to the recourse, and “the buyer loses the right to rely on a lack of conformity if it does not give notice of it at the latest within a period of two years from the date on which the goods were actually handed over to it” (our translation) (same judgment). The Court later specified that “this two-year period is a period for giving notice of the lack of conformity and not a period for bringing an action” (our translation) (Cass. com., 26 October 2022, No. 20-22.528). The dropshipper must therefore notify each defect to the supplier in writing and promptly, without waiting for the outcome of the dispute with its customer.

Often, yes, and it can exclude the French court. In a dispute between a French distributor and its supplier, the First Civil Chamber applied the jurisdiction clause stipulated in the distribution contract, including to an action based on anti-competitive practices, on the ground that those practices were not unrelated to the contractual relationship; it concluded that “the Court of Cassation is in a position to put an end to the dispute by finding that the French courts have no jurisdiction” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 30 January 2019, No. 16-25.259). The judgment rules under the former Regulation (EC) No 44/2001. Today, a clause designating the court of a Member State falls under Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, whatever the domicile of the parties; the applicable regime therefore depends first on the court designated and the date of the action. It nonetheless shows the weight of a clause accepted without being read. Before placing an order in volume, the dropshipper checks the applicable law and the court designated in the terms of the supplier or purchasing platform, then negotiates, where it can, a forum and a law that make its recourse realistic.

Not towards a consumer. Article R. 212-1 of the Consumer Code, 6°, irrebuttably presumes to be unfair a clause that removes or reduces the consumer's right to compensation in the event of a breach by the trader. The First Civil Chamber quashed the judgment that had given effect to such a clause, recalling that “a clause whose object is to remove or reduce the consumer's right to compensation for the harm suffered in the event of the trader's breach of one of its obligations is irrebuttably presumed to be unfair” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 11 December 2019, No. 18-21.164). An unfair clause is deemed unwritten (Article L. 241-1). The wording commonly seen in dropshipping, no liability for carrier delays, referring the customer to the manufacturer, purely indicative delivery times, is therefore ineffective and may feed an inspection. Useful general terms instead describe the real operation: actual delivery time, complaints procedure, return address, legal warranties and consumer mediator.

Where the right of withdrawal exists, the consumer has fourteen days from receipt of the goods to exercise it without giving a reason (Article L. 221-18 of the Consumer Code); it is excluded in particular for personalised or perishable goods, and for unsealed goods that cannot be returned for reasons of hygiene (Article L. 221-28). Only the direct cost of returning the goods may be left to the consumer, provided they were warned of it; otherwise, the shop bears it (Article L. 221-23). The sums paid, standard delivery included, are refunded no later than fourteen days after the shop is informed of the decision, without the extra cost of a more expensive delivery the consumer may have chosen; for goods, the shop may wait until it has recovered them or received proof that they have been sent back (Article L. 221-24). In dropshipping, the return address raises a practical difficulty: if the customer was not told before ordering that the cost of return is theirs, the shop bears that cost, even for a return to a distant warehouse. The address itself must be checked separately. Since 19 June 2026, Article L. 221-5 also covers, where relevant, the existence and location of the withdrawal function, which Article L. 221-21 requires to be made available without charge for contracts concluded through an online interface. The firm checks that the order page, the general terms and the withdrawal form say the same thing.

Liability for defective products rests first on the producer, to whom Article 1245-5 of the French Civil Code assimilates anyone who imports the product into the Union for distribution. Where the producer cannot be identified, the professional seller is liable for the defect, unless it names its own supplier or the producer within three months of the victim's request (Article 1245-6). This subsidiarity also works against the victim: the judicial court of Dax reopened the proceedings, holding that “liability for a defective product rests principally on the producer alone, that is to say the manufacturer of the product” (our translation), the victim having to establish that they had been unable to identify that producer (TJ Dax, 1st ch., 7 May 2026, No. 25/01425). Since 13 December 2024, Regulation (EU) 2023/988 on general product safety requires, for the products it covers and subject to sectoral and transitional rules, a responsible economic operator established in the Union (Article 16); it requires online sellers to display the manufacturer, the responsible person where the manufacturer is established outside the Union, and safety warnings (Article 19). A shop unable to name this chain is the first to be exposed.

Before the order, the customer must know the seller's identity, its postal, telephone and electronic contact details, the essential characteristics of the product, the price, the delivery time, the legal warranties, the withdrawal arrangements and the possibility of using a mediator (Article L. 221-5 of the French Consumer Code and Article L. 111-1). Dropshipping adds product-specific information: under Regulation (EU) 2023/988 on general product safety, the online offer states the manufacturer, the responsible person in the Union where the manufacturer is established outside the Union, the product identification information and safety warnings (Article 19). The online seller identification information provided for by Article 19 of the Law of 21 June 2004 on confidence in the digital economy must also appear; this provision is shown on Légifrance as scheduled for repeal on 1 January 2027, and the wording applicable on that date will be checked. An accurate statement costs little; a false statement about origin, availability or manufacturer falls under Article L. 121-2.

Yes. The firm can act on a shop that is already open, before or after a first complaint. The review covers four sets of items: the general terms, the order page and the online withdrawal function, in light of Article L. 221-5 of the French Consumer Code and of clauses presumed to be unfair; the product pages, which fix the conformity expected; the safety information and the identification of the manufacturer; and finally the supplier's contract or terms, applicable law, jurisdiction, warranties and time limits for notifying defects. The audit distinguishes what must be corrected immediately from what is a matter of improvement. It also flags presentations that could be read as concealing the model, in the light of the Versailles Court of Appeal's interim ruling (CA Versailles, ch. com. 3-1, 22 January 2025, No. 22/05851). A preliminary review at €80 allows a first assessment to be made on the documents provided, and then a decision on whether to rework the documents or prepare for a dispute already under way. The firm promises no result: it checks the texts, the decisions and the evidence available.