On the morning of Monday 12 October 2026, managers arriving at hundreds of French supermarkets were met by a wave of hot air coming from their freezers. Overnight, hackers had taken control of the software that regulates refrigeration units, forcing some cabinets up to temperatures around 50\u00b0C and spoiling fresh and frozen food said to be worth millions of euros. According to the BBC (12 October 2026), about 400 stores out of roughly 15,000 across France were affected; AFP described the incident as an unprecedented cyberattack on refrigeration systems, and the Paris prosecutor’s office opened a dedicated cyber-crime investigation, calling it a large-scale attack on the refrigerators of several major food retail chains.<\/p>\n
If you own the walls \u2014 the retail unit, the shopping parade lot, the high-street shop leased to a food retailer \u2014 this kind of event lands on your desk within hours: the tenant calls about destroyed stock and asks to stop paying rent, the insurer asks for immediate notice, and everyone points at everyone else. No liability has been established at this stage, the contracts signed between the parties will prevail over any general analysis, and only a court can finally allocate responsibility. This guide explains, under French law, how a foreign owner of leased commercial premises should react in the first days, who normally bears what, and which recent court decisions frame the argument over rent.<\/p>\n
The facts, as reported on 12 October 2026 by the BBC, AFP and Reuters, are these: hackers gained remote control of the software used by retailers to manage refrigerated display units centrally; instead of the normal short overnight defrost cycle, the units were ordered to heat up and stay hot for hours; in some places staff found small fires; retailers threw away all food whose cold chain could no longer be guaranteed; and two supermarkets in the Alsace region alone reported combined losses of around 270,000 euros, suggesting a nationwide total running into the millions. The software vendor concerned reportedly stated that the affected units were older models whose security software could not be updated against a previously identified risk. None of this has been tested in court, and the criminal investigation is only beginning \u2014 but a landlord cannot wait for its outcome before acting.<\/p>\n
First, food safety comes before legal tactics. Product unfit for consumption must be withdrawn and destroyed, and the destruction must be documented: photographs, temperature logs from the units, delivery dockets, till and stock records, and the retailer’s written instructions to staff. Under French practice, destroyed stock that is not properly evidenced is almost impossible to recover from anyone later.<\/p>\n
Second, commission an independent record of the state of the premises at once. In France, the standard tool is a report (constat) drawn up by a commissaire de justice<\/em> (court-appointed enforcement officer, formerly known as huissier de justice), ideally within 24 to 48 hours: condition of the refrigeration units, displayed temperatures, state of the electrical and ventilation installations, and any damage to the building itself such as smoke or water damage from defrosting. A bailiff-style report is the piece of evidence French judges trust most when each side later disputes what happened and when.<\/p>\n Third, notify every potentially concerned insurer immediately \u2014 your own assurance propri\u00e9taire non occupant<\/em> (non-occupant owner’s policy) and, in writing, invite the tenant to notify theirs. French insurance law sets a strict floor, as the Cour de cassation recalled: “l’assur\u00e9 est oblig\u00e9 de donner avis \u00e0 l’assureur, de tout sinistre de nature \u00e0 entra\u00eener la garantie de celui-ci, d\u00e8s qu’il en a eu connaissance et au plus tard dans le d\u00e9lai fix\u00e9 par le contrat, qui ne peut \u00eatre inf\u00e9rieur \u00e0 cinq jours ouvr\u00e9s” (Cass. 2e civ., 21 Jan. 2021, No. 19-13.347<\/a>; Article L. 113-2 of the Insurance Code<\/a>). In plain English: the insured must notify the insurer of any potentially covered loss as soon as they learn of it and at the latest within the contractual deadline, which cannot be shorter than five working days. Miss that deadline and the insurer may \u2014 where the policy so provides and where it proves prejudice \u2014 invoke forfeiture of cover. The same decision adds an important shield for policyholders: forfeiture for late notification can only be enforced where the contract actually contains a compliant clause, so the first document to read after the emergency is the policy itself.<\/p>\n Fourth, preserve the digital evidence. Ask the tenant and the maintenance contractor in writing to retain system logs, remote-access records, software versions, update histories and the vendor’s security notices. If the refrigeration system was remotely administered by an outside provider, that provider is a potential party to any future claim, and its traces disappear fast.<\/p>\n Fifth, file or join the criminal track without delay. The Paris prosecutor’s office has opened a cyber-crime investigation; a victim landlord or tenant can file a complaint (plainte) and later join the proceedings as a civil party (constitution de partie civile) to seek damages within the criminal case. For a foreign owner, this step is handled through a French lawyer and does not require residence in France.<\/p>\n Practical trap for non-resident owners: do not authorise the tenant to throw away, repair or replace anything without a written, costed agreement on who pays. Emergency measures taken unilaterally are routinely disputed afterwards. A short exchange of registered letters (or any written form your lease accepts) recording the provisional allocation of costs \u2014 expressly “without prejudice” to final liability \u2014 saves months of argument later. Readers unfamiliar with the French commercial lease framework may start with our overview of how French commercial leases allocate charges, rent and repairs between foreign investors and their tenants<\/a>.<\/p>\n French law starts from a simple principle: the landlord must deliver and maintain premises fit for the agreed business use. Article 1719 of the Civil Code<\/a> obliges the lessor, by the very nature of the contract, to deliver the premises, to maintain them fit for their intended use, and to ensure the tenant’s peaceful enjoyment; Article 1720 of the Civil Code<\/a> adds that the landlord must deliver the property in good repair of every kind and carry out all non-routine repairs that become necessary during the lease. The Cour de cassation restated the rule forcefully in 2025: “le bailleur est oblig\u00e9, par la nature du contrat, de d\u00e9livrer au preneur la chose lou\u00e9e, en bon \u00e9tat de r\u00e9parations de toute esp\u00e8ce” (Cass. 3e civ., 10 Apr. 2025, No. 23-14.974<\/a>). In English: the landlord must, by the nature of the contract, deliver the premises in a good state of repair of every kind \u2014 an obligation that runs throughout the lease, not only on day one.<\/p>\n That same decision contains a warning that matters enormously in commercial leases. A boilerplate waiver clause (clause de non-recours) by which the tenant waives all claims against the landlord for damage to stock or equipment, whatever the cause, does not release the landlord from this delivery obligation: The Court added that a generic no-claims clause which does not genuinely transfer specific maintenance or repair tasks to the tenant cannot release the landlord from this delivery obligation In other words, a generic no-claims clause cannot wipe out the landlord’s core duty to deliver and maintain fit premises; only clauses that genuinely transfer specific maintenance or repair tasks to the tenant have that effect. Foreign owners who assumed their lease’s sweeping waiver settled everything should re-read it with this decision in hand.<\/p>\n In practice, the answer to “who pays for the broken cold chain” depends on three layers, in this order. First, what exactly failed: the building’s electrical supply, ventilation or fixed installations (normally the landlord’s sphere) or the tenant’s own refrigerated display cabinets and their remote-management software (normally the tenant’s sphere, unless the landlord supplied or maintains them). Second, what the lease says: modern French commercial leases contain detailed schedules allocating major repairs (grosses r\u00e9parations, Article 606 of the Civil Code), routine maintenance, compliance upgrades and equipment renewals between the parties \u2014 and since the 2014 Pinel reform, each category of charges, taxes and works must be inventoried in the lease. Third, what the maintenance and software contracts say: where a specialist contractor or software vendor remotely administers the refrigeration system, its liability may be engaged alongside or instead of the parties to the lease, subject to the limitation clauses in its own contract.<\/p>\n A common configuration in supermarket premises illustrates the analysis. The landlord owns the shell, the power supply and sometimes the central cooling plant; the tenant operates the display cabinets and subscribes to the remote-management software. If hackers entered through the vendor’s outdated software, the tenant would most plausibly turn first against the vendor and its own insurer, while the landlord’s exposure would depend on whether any building-level system within its maintenance duty contributed to the damage. Conversely, if the failure originated in the building’s electrical installation, the landlord’s delivery obligation would be squarely in play. Each configuration must be established technically before any legal conclusion is drawn \u2014 which is why the independent constat and the preserved logs from section A are decisive.<\/p>\n One more trap for foreign owners: small fires and water damage from mass defrosting can affect neighbouring units or common areas. Notify the building insurer and, in co-owned buildings (copropri\u00e9t\u00e9), the syndic immediately; boundary and common-area damage follows its own allocation rules and its own deadlines.<\/p>\n The tenant’s first reflex is often to stop paying rent until the premises are fully usable again. French law does not grant an automatic right to do so, but it offers a precise mechanism. Article 1722 of the Civil Code<\/a> provides: “Si, pendant la dur\u00e9e du bail, la chose lou\u00e9e est d\u00e9truite en totalit\u00e9 par cas fortuit, le bail est r\u00e9sili\u00e9 de plein droit ; si elle n’est d\u00e9truite qu’en partie, le preneur peut, suivant les circonstances, demander ou une diminution du prix, ou la r\u00e9siliation m\u00eame du bail.” In English: if the leased property is totally destroyed by a fortuitous event, the lease ends automatically; if it is only partly destroyed, the tenant may, depending on the circumstances, seek a rent reduction or even termination \u2014 with no damages in either case.<\/p>\n Three recent Cour de cassation decisions draw the boundaries of this text, and each carries a lesson for the present cyberattack. In 2018, the Court held that total destruction includes situations assimilated to it: “Que doit \u00eatre assimil\u00e9e \u00e0 la destruction en totalit\u00e9 de la chose lou\u00e9e l’impossibilit\u00e9 absolue et d\u00e9finitive d’en user conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 sa destination” (Cass. 3e civ., 8 Mar. 2018, No. 17-11.439<\/a>). That is: an absolute and permanent impossibility of using the premises as intended counts as total destruction. A refrigeration shutdown lasting days, with restocking possible once units are secured, would be difficult to present as absolute and definitive \u2014 but a months-long unavailability of the only activity the premises were leased for would be a different case.<\/p>\n In 2009, the Court set the economic test for total versus partial destruction: “si le co\u00fbt des travaux de remise en \u00e9tat de l\u2019immeuble lou\u00e9 n\u2019exc\u00e9dait pas sa valeur, emportant ainsi destruction totale de la chose lou\u00e9e” (Cass. 3e civ., 9 Dec. 2009, No. 08-17.483<\/a>). Total destruction exists, for Article 1722 purposes, where the restoration cost is claimed to exceed the value of the building’s market value. Where repair costs are modest relative to value \u2014 new control units, software upgrades, replacement cabinets \u2014 the destruction is partial, opening at most a rent reduction proportionate to the loss of use, not an automatic end to the lease.<\/p>\n And in 2025, the Court drew a line that directly affects cyberattack arguments. A tenant that had been administratively closed during the Covid-19 pandemic claimed a partial loss of the premises and refused full rent; the Court quashed the appeal decision, holding: “L’effet de la mesure gouvernementale d’interdiction de recevoir du public, g\u00e9n\u00e9rale et temporaire et sans lien direct avec la destination contractuelle du local lou\u00e9, ne peut \u00eatre assimil\u00e9 \u00e0 la perte de la chose, au sens de l’article 1722 du code civil” (Cass. 3e civ., 7 May 2025, No. 24-10.097<\/a>). In English: a general, temporary public-closure measure with no direct link to the contractual purpose of the premises cannot be treated as a loss of the leased property. Rent therefore remained fully due for the closure period. The lesson cuts both ways. Unlike a pandemic lockdown, a hacked refrigeration system is a physical defect affecting the very equipment the food-retail activity depends on \u2014 arguably closer to a partial loss of the premises than a general external measure was. But the tenant must still prove a concrete, premises-level loss of use, quantify it, and seek a judicial reduction; self-help rent withholding remains risky, because if the court later rejects the Article 1722 claim, the unpaid rent becomes straightforward arrears that can trigger the lease’s termination clause (clause r\u00e9solutoire).<\/p>\nB. Who is responsible for what inside a French commercial lease<\/h3>\n
II. Rent, Liability and Insurance: Who Bears the Financial Loss<\/h2>\n
A. Can the tenant suspend the rent? The Article 1722 test and its limits<\/h3>\n