To address the gaps in the mechanisms established since 2014, the legislator took advantage of the transposition of Directive 2020/1828 on representative actions to substantially amend the scope and regime of group actions through the law of 30 April 2025, known as the “DDADUE” law, complemented by various implementing decrees.

​

The law ratifies numerous changes (relative expansion of standing, creation of a fund to finance actions, oversight to prevent conflicts of interest), but the most significant advancement is undoubtedly the broadening of the scope of the action. Under the previous regime, it was strictly limited to certain matters (consumer law, health, personal data, discrimination, and environment); the law of 30 April 2025 expanded it to cover all breaches committed by a professional, a public legal entity, or a private entity managing a public service. The only area excluded from this expansion is health law, where the action remains limited to breaches by a producer or supplier of health products of their legal or contractual obligations. Another notable advancement introduced by the law is the establishment of a civil fine in the event of profitable misconduct causing serial harm, which may be sought by the public prosecutor.

​

The law of 30 April 2025 left many points unresolved, some of which were addressed by the three implementing decrees:

​

• Decree No. 2025-653 of 16 July 2025, designating the judicial courts competent for group actions. This decree reserved jurisdiction over group actions to certain specialized courts: Bordeaux, Fort-de-France, Lille, Lyon, Marseille, Nancy, Paris, and Rennes.

​

• Decree No. 2025-734 of 30 July 2025, concerning the procedure applicable to group actions and the group actions register. This decree clarifies the newly granted possibility for the judge to dismiss manifestly inadmissible or unfounded actions at the outset, amends certain articles of the Code of Civil Procedure, and lays the foundations for the new group actions register established by the law.

​

• Decree No. 2025-1191 of 10 December 2025, concerning the approval procedure for associations and entities to conduct national and cross-border group actions and specifying their obligations regarding public disclosure of their funding. This decree details the procedure entities must follow to be authorized to bring actions, particularly for cross-border actions where associations must contact the DGCCRF. It also completes the provisions regarding third-party funding, which the law of 30 April left incomplete. Authorized parties must, from the initiation of their action, make publicly available the list of third parties that provided funding, and, in the case of a funding agreement specifically for the action, indicate its essential characteristics.

​

The only issue still unresolved is the public financing of actions, as none of the aforementioned decrees established the financing fund promised by the law of 30 April.

​

However, the previous regime remains in effect for group actions initiated in relation to events that occurred prior to 30 April 2025.

​

The group action was first introduced by the Consumer Law of 17 March 2014 and entered into force on 1 October 2014.

​

Under this regime, the objective is solely to obtain compensation of individual harm suffered by consumers placed in a similar or identical situation and sharing a common cause, namely a breach by one or more professionals of their statutory or contractual obligations. Only pecuniary losses suffered by consumers as a result of material damage incurred in connection with the sale of goods or services, or resulting from anti-competitive practices, are compensable.

​

Furthermore, the Public Health Code introduced a specific group action aimed at compensating harm affecting health and personal safety, and the Law on the Modernisation of Justice in the 21st Century further extended class actions to other areas, such as harm resulting from discrimination, environmental damage, and breaches of data protection legislation.

​

Class actions may be brought by nationally accredited and representative consumer associations, with the exception of local associations in overseas territories. Individuals, ad hoc associations, and even public bodies are therefore excluded from directly bringing actions on behalf of consumers. The stated objective of this restriction was to prevent the potential instrumentalisation observed in certain U.S. class actions. Other associations having standing may request substitution by the court in the event of failure on the part of the claimant association.

​

In a single decision, the court rules both on the admissibility of the action and on the professional’s liability, on the basis of the individual cases submitted. The court must also define the group — or the criteria for group membership — the compensable harm, the amount or method of assessment of compensation, and the applicable procedure.

​

In any “group proceedings”, the opt-in mechanism being central, the court orders publicity measures intended to inform consumers likely to belong to the group. These measures are borne by the professional and are implemented only once the decision has become final. Where the number and identity of the affected consumers are known and the harm is identical, a simplified group action procedure applies. The professional is then ordered to compensate consumers directly and individually, in accordance with the modalities determined by the court. Individual notification ensures that each consumer “accepts” compensation directly from the professional. Formal adhesion to the group is therefore not required.

​

In other cases, group membership follows the modalities set by the court in terms of time limits and the designated recipient (the professional concerned, the association, or a professional assisting the association). Joining the group constitutes a mandate granted to the association for compensation purposes, enabling it to perform, in the name and on behalf of the consumer, all procedural acts necessary to obtain redress.

​

Compensation is granted in accordance with the modalities determined by the court, and any disputes — whether by consumers not compensated and represented by the association, or by the professional — may arise during the subsequent procedural stage.

​

The statutory framework also provides rules on the suspension of individual actions and on res judicata, which extends to group members whose harm has been compensated at the conclusion of the proceedings.

​

The complementarity and interaction between class actions and other forms of collective actions have not been specifically addressed by the legislature.

​

Legal Text
Consumer Code :

• L.623-1 à L.623-32

• R.623-1 à R.623-33

​

On the Number of Class Actions

Register

​

Further Reading :  ​​​

• Fascicule « Actions de groupe », in JurisClasseur Procédure civile (L. Cadiet, dir.) : LexisNexis : Version 2020, Version 2021.

​

• Fascicule « Les actions en justice en droit de la consommation », in Lamy Droit économique : Versions 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021.

​​​

• « Class actions « à la française » », avec Véronique Magnier, in The Cambridge Handbook of Class actions : Cambridge University Press, 2020.

​

• « The Dawn of Collective Redress 3.0 in France ? » avec Alexandre Biard, in A. Uzelac and S. Voet (eds.), Class Actions in Europe: Holy Grail or a Wrong Trail, Springer, 2021 ;

​

• « French Group Action Lawsuits – Between Tradition and Modernity » : REDC, Revue européenne de droit de la consommation/European Journal of Consumer Law, 2020/2, p. 233 à 268.

​

• « Actions de groupe: Perspectives et pistes d’amélioration », Dalloz, Juris associations 2019, n°591, p.3132.

​

• « En attendant un registre d’actions de groupe et autres actions collectives. » Revue de presse : JCP E, n° 50, 13 décembre 2018, 1637.

​​

• « Actions de groupe et actions collectives classiques : concurrence ou complémentarité ? » – Étude à partir du droit de la consommation ; avec N. Dupont : Contrats conc. consom. 2018, étude 1534.

​

• « Analyse économique du droit appliquée aux class actions/actions de groupe » : avec H. Acciarri, JCP E, n° 6, 8 février 2018, p. 101.

​

• « Le cadre judiciaire et administratif des actions de groupe : quelles différences ? Quelles conséquences ? », JCP E, n°28, 13 juillet 2017.

​

• « Variations autour du régime de l’action de groupe », JCP E, n°27, 6 juillet 201737.

​

• « Droits préjudices et prétention processuelle dans les actions de groupe » : JCP E, n° 26, 29 juin 2017, p. 1357.

​

• « Règlement des litiges de consommation : nouveaux paradigmes » : Revue Justice Actualités, n°17/2017, p. 35 à 41.

​

• « Nuevas acciones de grupo en el derecho francés » : La Ley, 17 février 2017, p. 140.

​

• « 3 QUESTIONS : Actions de groupe : nouveaux enjeux », JCP E n° 4, 26 Janvier 2017, 6541.

​

• « De l’inaction aux actions de groupe : nouveaux enjeux », Dalloz 2017, p. 152.

​​

• « (In)Action de groupe : décomplexer l’action de groupe par l’aménagement du régime de l’aide juridictionnelle, des frais et dépens » : Gazette du Palais, 29 novembre 2016, 136e année, n°42, p. 52 à 56.

​

• « Las acciones de grupo en el derecho francés en las acciones colectivas y grupales en el contexto del mercado. Los consumidores y la competencia en mira de protección », J. Villalba Cuellar et A. Alarcón Peña : Ibañez, BogotaTirant Lo Blanch, Colombie, 2020, p. 39 à 72.

​

• « Acciones colectivas en Francia y Argentina en sus contextos europeo e iberoAmericano », in AAVV Acciones colectivas (cuestiones actuales y perspectivas de futuro): Teresa Armenta y Sílvia Pereira (coords.), Marcial Pons, 2019.

​

• « Réflexions autour de l’efficacité de l’action de groupe »: in L. ARCELIN-LECUYER (dir.), Le droit de la consommation après la loi du 17 mars 2014, in Actes du colloque Effectivité et efficacité du droit de la consommation, La Rochelle, 9 et 10 octobre 2014, Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2015, p. 105 à 125.