FRANCE Law and Practice Contributed by: Grégoire Bertrou and Delphine Grimond, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
economic viability of collective actions and leading to a higher volume of claims and more frequent set- tlements. The United States has implemented such a system and developed one of the most robust and frequent- ly used class action systems globally, governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Several features contribute to the intensive use of class actions in the US, including: • the availability of punitive damages; • extensive pre-trial discovery mechanisms; • contingency fee arrangements, which allow law- yers to be paid only if the case is successful; • a lawyer-driven litigation model, incentivised by high potential rewards; • judicial review and approval of settlements, offering a structured and enforceable resolution path. While the US model has often been criticised for encouraging excessive litigation and strategic abuses, it remains an undeniably powerful tool for enforcing consumer, competition, and securities laws – and continues to shape comparative discussions about the future of collective redress mechanisms. 1.3 Implementation of the EU Collective Redress Regime The transposition of Directive 2020/1828 has var- ied considerably across Member States, as outlined below. • In jurisdictions that already had advanced collec- tive redress mechanisms, only minimal changes were necessary. For example, Belgium transposed the Directive via the Act of 21 April 2024, which introduced no major changes to its existing frame- work, already largely aligned with the Directive. • Other countries, like France, used the Directive as an opportunity to overhaul their entire class action regime, transitioning from a fragmented sectoral system to a unified framework. • In Member States with little prior experience, the Directive prompted the creation of new legal tools. Germany, for instance, only introduced consumer class actions in 2018, making it one of the more recent adopters. This delay is partly attributable to
the longstanding availability of declaratory actions, which allowed courts to rule on liability, such as affirming the existence of a defective product, thus enabling victims to bring individual damage claims. In that respect, the German system shares certain structural features with the French model. However, in practice, some German consumer asso- ciations have operated under a quasi-commercial model, bringing claims on behalf of consumers in exchange for a success fee of 25% to 35% of the recovered amount. This practice has drawn substan- tial criticism, especially regarding transparency and potential conflicts of interest. Preliminary assessments indicate that significant dis- parities remain across the EU in accessibility, admis- sibility criteria, and funding mechanisms, which could hinder the uniform implementation and enforcement of collective redress rights. 2. Legal Framework 2.1 Collective Redress and Class Action Legislation Law No 2025-391, effective from 2 May 2025, governs all class actions initiated from that date onward. A transitional regime was put in place to facilitate its implementation. Specifically, for two years following its entry into force, entities wishing to initiate a class action may opt to proceed under the former legal framework. However, in order to request the impo- sition of a civil fine (a mechanism explained further below), the triggering event giving rise to the class action must have occurred after the new Law came into effect. Consequently, it is no longer the date on which proceedings are initiated that determines appli- cability, but rather the date of the underlying event giving rise to the action. A Decree of 16 July 2025 designates specialised courts for class actions, and related provisions appear in the Judicial Organisation Code and Assurance Code for jurisdiction.
109 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook