A draft law containing various provisions for the adaptation of French law to European Union law1 has just revised the legal framework governing group actions, which were first introduced into French law in 2014 by the so-called Hamon Law2 on consumer protection. Faced with the ineffectiveness of this collective redress mechanism — only 35 group actions have been brought in France in 11 years3 — and despite its progressive expansion into areas such as health, environmental protection, and personal data4, a reform bill was adopted on 2 and 3 April 2025 by the French National Assembly and the Senate5. This law primarily transposes the provisions of the 2020 European Directive on representative actions6 and only requires marginal amendments to the French Consumer Code.
French lawmakers have decided to maintain the requirement that associations bringing group actions must be duly accredited. Such accreditation is only optional if the association has existed for at least two years and the action is limited to seeking the cessation of an unlawful practice7.
Furthermore, the non-profit requirement of such association remains, whether the action is intended to cease the infringement or to obtain compensation for harm suffered. As a result, for-profit entities cannot initiate a group action on behalf of consumer victims.
As such, there does not seem to be alignment with the U.S. class action model. That said, this picture must be revised in our view: the reason for this is that case law seems to be much more flexible as regards the defining criteria for organisations allowed to initiate such group actions. The ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 28 January 2025, known as ASG 2, is a good example for that8. Although that decision concerned compensation for harm caused by an anticompetitive agreement, its scope appears to extend well beyond competition law. The CJEU ruled on the compatibility of a national collective redress system with the principles of effectiveness, loyal cooperation, and effective judicial protection.
Alternative mechanisms to group actions that allow for de facto collective redress exist in France — especially in competition cases — such as assignment of claims, litis consortium, and trusts. Assignment of claims9 enables victims to transfer their claims to a legal entity that becomes the sole holder of the claims, thereby creating centralized litigation. Through litis consortium10, multiple victims can therefore join forces and participate in the same legal proceedings as claimants or respondents. Finally, with the trust11, victims can transfer their claims to a trustee entitled to initiate an action in its own name, manage the proceedings, and distribute the judicial gains. That said, these mechanisms are primarily used in disputes initiated by professionals and do not constitute a common means of redress by consumer victims12.
The French rules introducing group actions in 2014 were designed to reflect lawmakers’ scepticism about the risk of mass claims. This explains the implementation of various safeguards, such as the monopoly of accredited consumer associations, the exclusion of any profit-making logic, and the prohibition of civil penalties beyond compensatory damages. However, this framework has proven ineffective in overcoming the inertia of consumer victims. In view of the reasoning developed by the CJEU in its ruling of 28 January 2025, it appears that the solutions provided by the 2020 Directive and its French transposition may be insufficient. In particular, French courts may over time be seized to rule over the compliance by the French group action system with the principle of effectiveness as guaranteed by EU law.
In light of the CJEU ruling, the question arises as to whether some national courts might admit collective actions brought by for-profit organisations - as allowed in the United States13 - by invoking the principle of effectiveness and the right to effective judicial protection, thereby circumventing the limitations of the French group action regime.
This forward-looking analysis must also take into account the 2024 European Directive on liability for defective products14. This Directive, which must be transposed by member states by 2026, could significantly expand the basis for collective actions. In particular, it facilitates access to evidence for claimants, lowers the standard of proof through presumptions of defectiveness and/or causation, broadens the list of potentially liable parties, and extends the definition of "product" to include software, manufacturing files, or artificial intelligence systems15. This Directive, and specifically the language related to a defect presumption, might make it easier to bring a suit in French courts for alleged defective products by consumer victims than it is in the U.S. court system, where there is widespread litigation for such claims. The combination of this Directive and the recent direction of French courts such as in the CJEU ruling demonstrate that we may see a convergence between the French group action mechanism and the American class action model.
- Law no. 2024-364 of 22 April 2024 containing various provisions for adapting to European Union law in the fields of economics, finance, ecological transition, criminal law, social law and agriculture.
- Law no. 2014-344 of 17 March 2014 on consumer affairs.
- Public Senate, Adaptation to EU law: the Senate Law Commission amends the copy of the National Assembly on group shares, 10 February 2025 (link).
- The initial scope of the group action has been amended by the law n°2016-1547 of 18 November 2016 on the modernisation of justice in the 21st century and the law n°2018-1021 of 23 November 2018 on the development of housing, planning and digital technologies.
- Senate, Legislative Dossier, Draft law on various provisions for adaptation to the law of the European Union in economic, financial, environmental, energy, transport, health and movement of people (link).
- Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC.
- Article 14, point B. 1) of the French Law transposing the Directive.
- Court of Justice of the European Union, C-253/23, ASG 2/ Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, 28 July 2025.
- Articles 1321 and following of the Civil Code.
- Article 31 of the French Code of Civil Procedure.
- Articles 2011 to 2023 of the French Civil Code.
- Rafael Amaro, Group action: The Court of Justice of the European Union rules for the first time on compliance with the principle of effectiveness of a national system of collective compensation (ASG 2 / Land Nordrhein-Westfalen), Concurrences N°3-2025.
- Rule 23. Class Actions, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Directive (EU) 2024/2853 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on liability for defective products and repealing Council Directive 85/374/EEC.
- Ibid., point 13) of the preamble to Directive (EU) 2024/2853.
Client Alert 2025-127
