Influencer lawyer in Paris: securing a brand's contract and campaign.

Paragraph I of article 8 of the Law of 9 June 2023 requires a written contract, on pain of nullity, between the influencer and the advertiser or their agents. Paragraph II of the same article removes this requirement below an amount set by decree. Since 1 January 2026, this floor has been set at €1,000 excl. VAT (Decree No. 2025-1137, art. 1). Everything the brand has paid or given to the same creator in the same year for the same promotional objective is added together. Several small operations linked to the same launch may therefore cross the threshold together, even though each seemed modest. A product supplied, a stay paid for or access granted to a service counts towards the total at its value. Below the threshold, a written contract remains strongly advisable: it sets the deliverables, the advertising disclosure and the rights in the content, which the brand will have to prove in a dispute. The firm reconstructs the year's commitments with each creator before drafting or completing the contract, then checks that all the particulars required by law are present.

The law requires the nature of the assignments entrusted to be described (Law No. 2023-451, art. 8), but it does not specify the level of detail expected. It is for the contract to say how many posts, on which platforms, in what format, on what dates and for how long they stay online. In a dispute, the judge first compares the commitments made with the actual delivery, and the written contract remains the surest proof of those commitments. The Bordeaux commercial court refused to hold the number of mentions and views against a service provider, on the ground that "the quotation signed by the parties provides for no delivery time or particular commitment in terms of media performance on social media" (Bordeaux Commercial Court, 30 March 2026, No. 2025F01087) (our translation). That decision went against the client who had ordered the campaign. If the brand expects a number of views, an engagement rate or a number of clicks, it must write this down, specify the measurement tool and provide for the consequence of an insufficient result: price reduction, an additional post or termination. The firm turns the brief's expectations into verifiable obligations and proportionate sanctions.

Yes, to a large extent. Under the 2023 law (Law No. 2023-451, art. 8, III), the brand, its agent, the creator and the creator's agent are jointly and severally liable for harm that the campaign causes to third parties. The victim of unlawful content can therefore claim compensation for the entire loss from the brand, which will then turn against the creator in accordance with the contract. The same law also subjects influence to the advertising rules specific to certain sectors, in particular health, alcohol and financial products (Law No. 2023-451, art. 3). A false claim about the product may finally constitute a misleading commercial practice within the meaning of article L. 121-2 of the Consumer Code. In criminal law, the liability of a company requires establishing the organ or representative who acted on its behalf: the Criminal Chamber quashed a conviction handed down in respect of an advertorial, delivered "without determining by which organ or representative of the company the breaches it found were committed on its behalf" (Cass. crim., 1 April 2025, No. 24-82.506) (our translation). This requirement to give reasons does not reduce the brand's obligations. The firm checks the claims in the brief before publication and sets up written approval of the content.

The 2023 law (Law No. 2023-451, art. 5-2) treats the absence of a clear, legible and understandable disclosure of commercial intent as a misleading commercial practice, where that intent is not already apparent from the context. The law gives as examples the words "advertising" and "commercial collaboration" (publicité and collaboration commerciale), but accepts an equivalent wording adapted to the format. Article L. 121-4, 11°, of the Consumer Code also deems misleading a promotion financed by a professional and presented as editorial content without saying so clearly. The Paris Court of Appeal found a misleading practice in an anonymous blog article favourable to its author, the context of the publication not allowing the reader, in its words, "to realise that it comes from a competitor" (Paris Court of Appeal, pôle 5 ch. 11, 14 March 2025, No. 22/16356) (our translation). The brand is well advised to require the disclosure in the contract, specifying where it goes for each format and reserving the right to have the post corrected. For images whose figure or face has been retouched, and for those showing a face or figure produced by artificial intelligence, the law (Law No. 2023-451, art. 5) also requires the labels "Retouched images" or "Virtual images" (Images retouchées or Images virtuelles), or an equivalent label adapted to the format. The firm drafts these clauses and the brand's internal approval process.

The risk exists and advertisers often overlook it. Article L. 7123-2 of the Labour Code treats as a model anyone who shows the public a product or a service, in person or through images of themselves, even on a single occasion. The contract that remunerates this assistance is presumed to be an employment contract (article L. 7123-3), and the presumption remains whatever description the parties have given it (article L. 7123-4). The Second Civil Chamber applied this regime to sportspeople paid to wear a brand's equipment, criticising the lower courts for reversing the burden of proof (Cass. 2e civ., 12 May 2021, No. 19-24.610). That decision went against the company: it is for the company to show the absence of a relationship of subordination, failing which the sums may be included in the base for social security contributions. Invoicing through a company belonging to the influencer does not, on its own, settle the question. The firm examines the degree of control that the contract gives the brand over the content and the performance of the service, then adapts the drafting and the invoicing arrangements.

It all depends on what the contract provides and on the seriousness of the facts. A well-drafted morality clause describes the conduct covered, the notification procedure and what happens to content already published. Without a clause, the brand may rely on the lapse provided for by article 1186 of the Civil Code if an essential element of the contract disappears. The Court of Cassation approved the lapse of a production contract where the presenter's reputation, held to be an essential element, had disappeared with no reasonable possibility of restoration during the remaining term (Cass. com., 2 September 2026, No. 25-11.818). This outcome requires showing that the reputation had entered the contractual field and that its loss was beyond the parties' control. The judgment also requires that the element cannot be restored during the remaining term, which a passing controversy will hardly establish. The brand must also follow the procedure it has itself stipulated: in a commercial agency dispute, the Melun commercial court held irregular a termination for fault made without the prior notification and formal notice provided for in the contract (Melun Commercial Court, 8 June 2026, No. 2025F00219). The firm characterises the facts, checks the applicable clause and prepares a reasoned termination, with the content withdrawn or kept online according to the brand's interest.

Only within the limits of the authorisation given, which a precise written document makes it possible to prove. A person's image falls under article 9 of the Civil Code, and the Paris Court of Appeal recalls that "use may not go beyond the authorisation given, the agreement, even if tacit, must be sufficiently precise and the authorisation given perfectly respected" (Paris Court of Appeal, pôle 2 ch. 7, 29 June 2022, No. 20/15538) (our translation). In that case, the brand and its service providers were held jointly and severally liable (in solidum) for an advertising use going beyond what the model had accepted. Where the video is a work, the assignment of copyright requires each right assigned to be mentioned separately and its scope to be delimited as to extent, purpose, place and duration (article L. 131-3 of the Intellectual Property Code). An authorisation with no stated duration may be terminated on the notice provided for or, failing that, a reasonable period (article 1211 of the Civil Code): the Paris judicial court accepted an immediate termination in view of the particular circumstances of the case, and ordered the company that kept the videos online (Paris Judicial Court, 17th ch., 14 February 2024, No. 23/02029). The brand must therefore list the media, territories, durations and paid uses envisaged. The firm audits the content already used and, if necessary, proposes a supplementary assignment.

Article 1217 of the Civil Code allows the party who is the victim of non-performance to suspend its own performance, to seek specific performance, to obtain a price reduction, to bring about termination of the contract or to claim damages, these remedies being capable of combination where compatible. The Rennes commercial court thus ordered an agency to refund 75% of its invoice to a brand, noting "only 4 posts having been published on the GEMITY Instagram account out of the 18 planned during the campaign period" (Rennes Commercial Court, 4 March 2025, No. 2024F00411) (our translation). The same judgment rejected the brand's claim for lump-sum compensation, for lack of precision as to the objectives and the calculation of the loss. The brand must therefore quantify what it claims on the basis of documents: sums paid, costs incurred for the launch, loss shown. A penalty clause makes the claim easier, but the judge may reduce it if it is manifestly excessive (article 1231-5 of the Civil Code). The firm draws up the table of deliverables promised and delivered, sends the formal notice and chooses the sanction best suited to the file.

Not always, and this question often turns against the advertiser. The defence of non-performance in article 1219 of the Civil Code requires a sufficiently serious failure by the other party. If the contract provides for a deposit before launch, the service provider may in turn suspend its services until the deposit is paid. The Paris Court of Appeal so held for a campaign connecting brands with influencers and managing social media: failing payment of the first invoice provided for in the contract, it held that "TLI was entitled not to carry out the services proposed" (Paris Court of Appeal, pôle 5 ch. 5, 9 April 2026, No. 23/15180) (our translation). The brand was ordered to pay the invoice and to compensate the service provider's loss of earnings. This judgment went against the advertiser. Before withholding a payment, it is necessary to re-read the order of the obligations, check who was to act first and date each reminder. The firm analyses this chronology and proposes, as the case may be, payment under reservation, a formal notice or a request for termination.

An exaggerated audience may amount to fraudulent misrepresentation if the influencer obtained the brand's consent by manoeuvres, lies or the intentional concealment of decisive information (article 1137 of the Civil Code). The proof required remains demanding. In a visibility partnership concluded by a sponsor with a sports league, the Paris Court of Appeal rejected the claim for nullity based on a number of participants that the sponsor considered inflated, holding that the league had "been guilty of no concealment or deception" (Paris Court of Appeal, pôle 5 ch. 11, 24 January 2025, No. 22/13807) (our translation). The sponsor was even ordered to pay the sums due and damages. This decision, unfavourable to the advertiser, shows why it is worth defining the metric in the contract: followers, unique views, reach, audience located in France, and having the accuracy of the statistics supplied before signature guaranteed. The brand can also ask for screenshots taken from the platform's tools rather than copied figures. The firm drafts these guarantees, compares the statistics before and after the campaign and assesses whether there is a serious basis for challenging the contract.

The agency is often the brand's only contracting party, while the creators act under its control. The contract must say who chooses the influencers, who approves the content, who answers for breaches and who pays each creator. The influencer's agent must avoid conflicts of interest and ensure that its activity is compliant (Law No. 2023-451, art. 7), but the brand remains jointly and severally liable towards third parties (Law No. 2023-451, art. 8). Exclusivity and non-solicitation clauses also weigh on the advertiser. The Nanterre economic activities court ordered a brand to pay €10,000 to an affiliate platform for having solicited affiliates of its network, after reducing the €45,000 penalty claimed, holding that it could not "in good faith, at the time of the contentious termination of the contract, claim the nullity of the clauses of the contract" (Nanterre Economic Activities Court, 5th ch., 9 December 2025, No. 2023F01901) (our translation). The same judgment rejected the claim based on exclusivity, for lack of proven loss. Before leaving an agency to contract directly with a creator, the brand must therefore re-read the duration of these clauses. The firm checks these commitments and the exit conditions, in order to identify and limit the risk of a penalty.

A creator based outside the Union, the European Economic Area and Switzerland who targets an audience in France, where they operate as a company or as a sole trader within the meaning of the Commercial Code, must appoint in writing a representative established in the Union (Law No. 2023-451, art. 9). This representative guarantees the compliance of influencer contracts aimed at the French public and answers requests from the authorities. Paragraph II of the same article separately requires any creator established outside those States, as soon as they target the French public even incidentally, to hold professional civil liability insurance taken out with an insurer established in the Union. The brand is well advised to obtain a copy of this appointment and the insurance certificate before signature, then attaching them to the contract. Point 5° of paragraph I of article 8 further requires the contract to be subject to French law where the campaign is aimed in particular at an audience established in France. These requirements protect the brand, which is liable for the whole towards harmed third parties and will need a counterparty and seizable assets in the event of difficulty. The firm checks the identity of the invoicing entity, its tax residence, the representative appointed and the insurance cover, then adapts the payment clauses to this level of risk.

Once the contract has ended, the former partner may no longer use the brand, its visuals or its campaign as if it remained associated with them. Where no intellectual property right can be invoked, the brand may bring a claim for parasitic conduct (parasitisme) under article 1240 of the Civil Code. The Commercial Chamber accepts this action whatever the status of the parties, "where the perpetrator follows in the victim's wake by unduly benefiting from its efforts, know-how, reputation or investments" (Cass. com., 16 February 2022, No. 20-13.542) (our translation). In that case, campaign posters had been diverted a few days after their launch. The brand must prove the copying, its date, its circulation and the investments it had made. The influencer contract can prevent this difficulty by fixing the date for removal of sponsored content, a ban on presenting oneself as an ambassador after the contract ends and the fate of promotional codes. The firm has the disputed uses recorded, sends a formal notice and, if the copying continues, brings the appropriate action.