FRANCE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Diane Bandon-Tourret and Agathe Clarac, LexCase
the concept of “person presenting himself as the producer”, whose liability may be sought under the product liability regime, to the supplier of a product where that supplier has not physically affixed his or her name, trade mark or any other distinctive sign on the product, but the trade mark affixed by the produc - er on the product coincides, on the one hand, with the name of the supplier or a distinctive element thereof and, on the other hand, with the name of the producer. In a serial case concerning PIP prostheses, it was held that the certifying body could be held liable, insofar as it should have carried out unannounced inspections or inspections motivated by factual circumstances, which could have enabled it to detect the defective - ness of the product (Cour de cassation, 31 January 2024 No 22-22.619; Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 5 June 2024, No 2312854). Finally, in vaccine litigation based on product liability, recent case law has affirmed the trend towards con - sidering the causal link to be established by serious, precise and consistent presumptions. In particular, in the absence of formal scientific proof of a causal link between hepatitis B vaccination and the onset of mul - tiple sclerosis, the judge must assess, on a case-by- case basis, whether serious, specific and consistent evidence allows for a presumption of such a causal link. However, in a judgment of 7 January 2026 (No 24-12.386), the Court of Cassation reiterated that the existence of “serious, specific and consistent” evi - dence does not oblige the court to automatically rec - ognise causality. In this case, the claimant attributed the onset of encephalopathy and developmental delay in their child to the vaccinations they had received. The Court of Appeal had therefore been entitled to rule out the products’ liability for the damage, despite the temporal proximity of the events, without being criticised for misrepresenting the facts or reversing the burden of proof. Also, recent case law has clarified the conditions for compensation for anxiety-related damages. Accord - ing to a ruling regarding the Levothyrox case (Paris Administrative Court of Appeal, 4 April 2025), three
conditions must be met for characterisation as an anxiety-related damage: • a fault committed by the administration; • the creation of a high risk of serious illness result - ing from that fault; and • the victim’s awareness of this risk causing lasting anxiety. In the Chlordecone case, the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal, on 11 March 2025, also specified that anxiety-related damage should be defined as damage arising from the fear of developing a seri - ous illness due to a high risk attributable to the state. Compensation is therefore possible without proving specific psychological disorders, provided that per - sonal exposure and a scientifically recognised risk are established. Finally, the Court of Cassation (18 Febru - ary 2026) confirmed that mere awareness of a high risk is sufficient to establish anxiety damage, without the need to prove an actual state of anxiety. Finally, the Court of Cassation recently ruled on the issue of liability sharing and contribution to debt between co-liable parties without fault in the context of defective products (Court of Cassation, 18 February 2026, No 24-19.881). This marks a shift in case law by abandoning the principle of equal contribution and holds that a professional held liable without fault may obtain full reimbursement from the defective product’s producer, provided that no fault was committed in the use of the product. Legal and regulatory news Following the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2023/988 in May 2023 on general product safety, which applies from 13 December 2024, Article 2 of Law No 2024- 364 of 22 April 2024 containing various provisions for adapting to EU law in the fields of economics, finance, ecological transition, criminal law, social law and agri - culture (known as the DADDUE Law) transposed the measures requiring adaptation of French law – in par - ticular the higher penalties for product recalls now provided for in Article L452-5-1 of the Consumer Code (five years’ imprisonment and a fine of EUR600,000, which may be increased to 10% of the average annual turnover of the operator in question).
148 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook