FRANCE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Grégoire Bertrou, Delphine Grimond and Augustin Paperon, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
How Can French Groups Best Defend Against US Class Actions? Despite the improvements introduced by the 2025 Reform, French companies remain primarily exposed to litigation risks in Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions, particu- larly in the United States. Several French groups are currently involved in class actions in the US, notably in the fields of data privacy and consumer protection. This section sets out key guidelines and strategies to help French companies effectively defend against such claims. Key legal defences to fight excessive document requests have been putlined below. Broad discovery and scope of disclosure US class action procedures grant extensive access to foreign-held documents through wide-reaching discovery rules. American discovery is among the most expansive in the world, designed to ensure that all relevant information is made available before trial, with few limitations on scope or relevance. In theory, discovery should be “proportional to the needs of the case” in the US federal courts, but adherence to that standard varies, depending upon the jurisdiction and the judge presiding over the matter. Crucially, US courts can compel foreign companies, including French entities, to produce documents if they are par- ties to US litigation or are subject to personal juris- diction due to their business activities in the United States. The French Blocking Statute In response to such extraterritorial demands, France has enacted legal safeguards, notably the so-called French Blocking Statute (Law No 68-678 of 26 July 1968), which restricts the transfer of certain commer- cial, financial, economic, or technical information to foreign public authorities or courts. The primary aim of this legislation is to uphold French sovereignty and protect national economic interests from foreign legal overreach. Under French law, only the Hague Convention process ensures lawful, secure, and enforceable transmission of evidence abroad. Direct responses to foreign sub-
ing participation rates. Many eligible individuals may be unaware of the action, hesitant to participate in legal proceedings, or discouraged by the administra- tive effort required to opt in. Consequently, the overall impact of the action is diminished, and its potential deterrent effect on unlawful conduct is significantly weakened. By contrast, opt-out systems – where vic- tims are automatically included unless they expressly decline – tend to produce higher participation rates and create stronger incentives for corporate compli- ance. One notable shortcoming of the 2025 reform is its failure to address the issue of evidence collection. Although the requirement to publicise the action before the hearing allows associations to prepare for evidentiary challenges, they remain largely responsi- ble for assembling all relevant materials, often without sufficient resources. Associations may request cer- tain documents or data from parties involved, but they do not have a mechanism equivalent to the US-style discovery process, which puts them at a significant disadvantage. It would have been a welcome improvement had the reform introduced legal tools to alleviate the eviden- tiary burden imposed on claimants. For instance, the law could have required defendants to bear the cost of expert reports or reinstated the previous consumer law provision (Article R. 623-9 of the Consumer Code), which empowered judges to order any legally permis- sible investigative measure necessary to safeguard or produce relevant evidence, including evidence held by the defendant professional. This concern is particularly acute given the general principle under French civil procedure that the burden of proof lies with the parties. Judges are permitted, under Article 11 of the French Code of Civil Proce- dure, to request the production of specific documents. However, they may only do so if they already have knowledge of the existence of the documents in ques- tion. This limitation poses a serious obstacle for asso- ciations seeking to prove complex or technical claims, particularly in the early stages of litigation, and limits the effectiveness of class actions as tools of enforce- ment and redress.
123 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook