FRANCE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Grégoire Bertrou, Delphine Grimond and Augustin Paperon, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
Civil fine The first measure authorises the imposition of a monetary penalty in cases where a defendant has deliberately obstructed good-faith negotiations on the quantification or allocation of damages, thereby undermining the victims’ ability to obtain redress. Although this provision is symbolically significant, its practical effects may be limited. French legal tradi- tion has historically been reluctant to embrace puni- tive sanctions, favouring compensatory justice over deterrence or retribution. Introducing a penalty whose main purpose is to punish wrongful conduct marks a meaningful departure from this tradition. Nonetheless, the proceeds from this fine are earmarked to support future class actions, which aligns the measure, albeit indirectly, with a reparative aim. In practice, this “civil fine for profitable misconduct” is unlikely to become a cornerstone of the system, primarily because it can only be initiated by the Gov- ernment or the Public Prosecutor. Legally, it occupies a hybrid space: formally classified as a civil measure, yet imbued with both penal and administrative ele- ments. Third-party litigation funding The second major reform is the formal recognition of third-party litigation funding, a development that is widely seen as both necessary and beneficial. One of the primary barriers to the development of class actions in France has been financial. Expecting a non- profit organisation to sustain complex, multi-year liti- gation involving thousands of claimants is unrealistic. The introduction of a legal framework for external funding addresses this structural impediment and opens the door to a more effective use of collective redress. The French legislature anticipated the potential risks arising from third-party funding, particularly con- flicts of interest and undue influence. Accordingly, several safeguards have been implemented. These include transparency requirements and, where the relationship between the funder and the association is challenged, an obligation on the association to demonstrate its independence. This ex-post control mechanism seemingly strikes an appropriate balance between preserving the integrity of the proceedings
Towards a Unified and More Effective French Class Action Regime The French class action regime underwent a profound transformation with the enactment of the Law of 30 April 2025. Its overall framework has been compre- hensively restructured. Previously, seven distinct pro- cedures coexisted, each confined to a specific area of law – consumer protection, labour law, data privacy, competition law, environmental regulation, public health, and anti-discrimination – each governed by its own procedural rules and admissibility require- ments. The new legislation replaces this fragmented landscape with a single, streamlined procedure that promotes clarity and accessibility. However, this procedural unification is not the only factor expected to revitalise the French class action mechanism. The scope of the regime has also been significantly expanded. Class actions are no longer restricted to predefined legal fields. In the future, such actions may be brought in any area where damage results from the conduct of a professional – whether public or private – acting in the course of their busi- ness or professional activities. Furthermore, the types of harm that may be addressed are no longer narrowly defined: all categories of damage, regardless of their nature, can now be subject to group litigation. Only accredited associations can initiate compen- satory class actions, but the reform eliminates the accreditation requirement for actions seeking injunc- tive relief. In addition, associations established in any EU Member State are now eligible to act as claimants under the new framework. In line with the previous regimes, representative unions can bring class actions related to discrimination and for the protection of per- sonal data. The public prosecutor may also bring, as principal party, an injunction class action or intervene in an ongoing injunction or compensation class action. Among the most significant innovations introduced by the reform are: • the creation of a civil fine for deliberate wrongdo- ing; and • the authorisation of third-party litigation funding.
121 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook