Product Liability and Warranty Litigation in France

Under French law, product liability is primarily governed by the defective product regime set out in Articles 1245 to 1245-17 of the French Civil Code, which transposes Directive (EU) 85/374/EEC. This regime is based on strict liability, meaning that the producer may be held liable for damage caused by a defective product without the need to establish fault. A product is considered defective where it fails to provide the level of safety that the public is entitled to expect, and the claimant must establish the existence of a defect, the damage suffered, and a causal link between these two elements. The regime applies to industrial products and covers personal injury as well as certain forms of damage to property. Liability may attach not only to the manufacturer, but also to importers and, in specific circumstances, to suppliers, subject to a limited number of statutory defences. It should be noted that this framework is expected to evolve following the adoption of Directive (EU) 2024/2853 of October 23^rd 2024 (the “new PLD”), which will need to be transposed into French law by December 9^th 2026.

Where the parties are bound by a contract, liability may also arise under contractual regimes. In particular, the buyer may rely on the warranty against latent defects under Articles 1641 and seq. of the French Civil Code, or, in consumer contracts, on the legal guarantee of conformity provided for in Articles L. 217-3 and seq. of the French Consumer Code. However, these remedies are limited to the contractual relationship and cannot be invoked by third parties.

Finally, in the absence of any contractual link, liability in tort under Articles 1240 and 1241 of the French Civil Code remains available in principle. In practice, however, this avenue is of limited relevance in product liability matters, as it requires proof of fault, which is often difficult to establish.

As per French defective product regime, the term “product” refers to any moveable good, even incorporated in an immoveable good, including electricity, products from the soil, livestock, hunting and fishing (Article 1245-2 of the French Civil Code). Immoveable goods (immeubles) are excluded from such regime.

This definition is relatively broad and deemed to apply to both tangible and intangible goods, such as software, in the absence of any applicable specific provisions. As per the new PLD, software (including digital services and AI- based products) will be expressly included in the definition of “product”.

This definition also encompasses all elements of the human body (such as blood, organs, tissues, sperm…) and products derived from them.

Pursuant to Articles 1245 and seq. of the French Civil Code, any product is concerned, irrespective of its intended use (private or professional).

Under French law, the question of who has standing to bring product-related claims depends on the liability regime invoked.

Under the defective product regime provided for in Articles 1245 and seq. of the French Civil Code, standing is construed broadly. Any person who has suffered compensable damage as a result of a defective product may bring an action against the producer, irrespective of any contractual relationship. This includes not only direct victims, but also third parties and so-called “ricochet” victims, subject to statutory restrictions, in particular with respect to certain categories of property damage suffered by professional users.

By contrast, actions based on contractual warranties are limited to the purchaser, as they presuppose the existence of a contractual link. Similarly, consumer-law protections apply exclusively within business-to-consumer relationships.

Where the damage results in the death of the victim, claims relating to losses suffered by the deceased are transmitted to the estate, while close relatives may bring separate and autonomous claims in respect of their own personal losses.

The French defective product liability regime (Article 1245-1 of the French Civil Code) provides for compensation of:

1. personal injury: i.e., bodily harm, illness and death, moral damage… non-material losses such as “pretium doloris”, aesthetic damage or pain resulting from the loss of a loved-one may be recoverable. 
2. property damage provided that the good damaged is not the defective product itself and that the loss exceeds EUR 500 (such threshold should disappear with the adoption of new PLD). By contrast, damage to the defective product itself is excluded under this regime.

In 2023, French judges have ruled that financial and non-financial losses resulting from damage to reputation caused by a personal injury or a property damage (other than to the defective product itself) may be recoverable under the defective product liability regime.

As per French law (whether in contract, tort or defective product liability), the general principle is that of full indemnification (reparation intégrale) of any direct loss (material or non-material).

A product is considered defective within the meaning of Article 1245-3 of the French Civil Code where it fails to provide the level of safety that the public is legitimately entitled to expect. 

The notion of defect as per Article 1245-3 of the French Civil Code is therefore to be appraised solely in terms of safety.

This assessment is carried out in abstracto and takes notably into account the presentation of the product, its reasonably foreseeable use and the date on which it is put on the market. A product cannot be considered as defective solely because a more efficient product is subsequently put on the market. 

A product that is, by nature, dangerous (firearms, acid…) is not necessarily defective as per Articles 1245-1 and seq. of the French Civil Code. In such a case, the victim will need to prove an “abnormal” danger which, for instance, may result from a lack of information on the risks related to the use of the product.

The proof of a defect may be brought by any means and will often require an expertise. As such proof may be difficult to bring (especially for some health products), the French supreme court has ruled that evidence of a defect may result from serious, specific and consistent presumptions.

In case of tort or contractual claims, a defect would be characterised differently. For instance,

1. As per sellers’ conform delivery obligation (Article 1604 of the French Civil Code), a defect would be a deviation from contractual provisions;
2.  As per the warranty against latent defect (Articles 1641 and seq. of the French Civil Code), a latent defect would be characterised if it renders the good sold unfit for its intended use or so diminishes its use that, if the purchaser had known about such defect, he would have bought it for a lesser price.

In any case, the defective nature of a product is subject to the appraisal of French judges.

Under the statutory defective product regime set out in Articles 1245 and seq. of the French Civil Code, Article 1245-8 places the initial burden of proof on the claimant, who must establish the existence of damage, a safety defect, and a causal link between these two elements, in line with the principle “actori incumbit probation”. In practice, this burden is mitigated by the courts’ acceptance of serious, precise and consistent presumptions, particularly in technically complex cases. Once defect, damage and causation are sufficiently demonstrated, the burden partially shifts to the producer, who must then prove one of the statutory grounds for exoneration exhaustively listed in Article 1245-10. The regime therefore operates as a system of shared evidential burdens rather than a full reversal of proof.

Outside this regime, the allocation of the burden of proof depends on the legal basis invoked. Under general tort law (Articles 1240 and 1241), the claimant must prove fault, damage and causation, which is often more onerous. By contrast, liability for things under Article 1242, paragraph 1, entails a presumption of responsibility once the active role of the thing is established, subject to proof of an external cause.

In contractual matters, the evidential burden varies. Under the warranty against latent defects, the buyer shall prove the defect and its anteriority, although professional sellers are presumed to have knowledge of defects. In consumer law, the legal guarantee of conformity goes further by presuming that non-conformity existed upon delivery for a statutory period, resulting in a genuine reversal of the burden of proof.

Finally, French law strictly limits contractual modifications of evidential rules. Article 1245-14 renders unwritten clauses limiting producer liability for personal injury or damage to private-use property, while in consumer contracts, clauses shifting the burden of proof to the detriment of the consumer are likely to be deemed unfair. Between professionals, evidentiary clauses may be valid provided they do not conflict with mandatory statutory protections.

The characterisation of a product as defective is a central issue under the defective product liability regime and requires an objective assessment focused on safety considerations. 

Pursuant to Article 1245-3 of the French Civil Code, a product is regarded as defective where it fails to provide the level of safety that the public is legitimately entitled to expect.

In practice, French courts consider that a defect may be extrinsic or inherent to the product:

1. Extrinsic defect: presentation of the product which includes its packaging, labelling, instructions for use, safety warnings… A defect may also stem from inadequate, insufficient or misleading information provided to users.
2. Inherent defect: design or manufacturing defect.

The judges shall carry out their assessment in abstracto and ex ante, i.e. the defect shall exist when the product is placed on the market. However, this condition is presumed by law (Article 1245-10.2°) and it is for the producer to prove that the defect that caused the damage did not exist when he put the product on the market or that such defect is born subsequently.

Breaches of regulatory requirements, safety standards or technical norms is considered by French courts in the appraisal of a product defectiveness and may be construed as a proof that the product does not meet the level of safety that the public is legitimately entitled to expect. Conversely, compliance with requirements, standards or norms does not automatically rule out any defect but is generally favourable to the producer’s case.

As per French tort and contract law, breaches of regulatory requirements, safety standards or technical norms are regularly characterised by judges as faults likely to trigger liability.

As per Articles 1245 and seq. of the French Civil Code primary liability lies with the “producer” of the defective product.

This notion is relatively broad and covers any professional manufacturer of finished products, raw materials or components. 

In addition, any person who – acting as a professional – (i) presents itself as the producer by affixing its name, trademark or other distinctive sign on the product or (ii) imports a product in the EU to sale, rent or distribute it, shall be assimilated to producers.

If the producer cannot be identified, a seller, lessor or any other supplier acting as a professional may be held liable for the defect of the product, as per the same conditions as the producer, unless he designates his own supplier or the producer within three months as from the date on which he was notified of the victims’ request.

As per French contract law, the general principle is that the sole entity which may be liable for defect is the contractual partner, i.e. the seller as per the warranty against latent defect (Article 1641 of the French Civil Code) or pursuant to the delivery obligation (Article 1604 of the French Civil Code). In certain contract chains (“chaînes de contrats translatives de propriété”) and under certain circumstances, a contractual claim may be brought by the end customer against the initial seller.

Pursuant to tort law principles, claims may be brought against any party in the supply chain that committed a fault.

If multiple parties are responsible for a defective product, French judges usually render a ruling declaring them jointly and severally liable. Accordingly, the victim may be fully indemnified by any party. Thereafter, the party who indemnified the claimant may claim compensation from the other professionals who are also liable for the defect affecting the product.

As per the French defective product regime, Article 1245-7 of the French Civil Code expressly states that in case of damage caused by the defect of a product incorporated in another, the producer of the component and the person who did the incorporation are severally liable. 

Professionals may validly agree on indemnity or risk-allocation clauses between them, but such arrangements have no effect vis-à-vis victims. Moreover, these contractual mechanisms remain subject to public order rules, particularly in matters involving consumer protection.

Under the defective product liability regime set out in Articles 1245 and seq. of the French Civil Code, the producer incurs strict liability for damage caused by a defective product, without the need for the claimant to establish any fault. 

This liability is not, however, absolute. Article 1245-10 of the French Civil Code provides a limited and exhaustive list of grounds for exoneration, the burden of proof of which lies with the producer. In particular, the producer may escape liability by showing that (i) the product was not put into circulation, (ii) the defect did not exist at the time the product was placed on the market, (iii) the defect could not be detected given the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time, or that (iv) it resulted from compliance with mandatory legislative or regulatory requirements. 

It should nevertheless be noted that, upon transposition of the new PLD, the producer may no longer escape liability by showing that the product defects arise from product-related services, software updates or upgrades, or substantial modifications, if these are carried out under the producer’s control.

Outside this special statutory regime, liability may arise under the general rules of tort or contract. In such cases, the defendant may seek to defeat the claim by disputing one of the conditions of liability, namely fault or contractual breach, the existence of damage, or the causal link. The defendant may also rely on traditional grounds for exoneration, such as the act of the victim, the act of a third party or force majeure, which may lead to full or partial exemption from liability.

Lastly, in matters relating to contractual warranties, including the legal guarantee of conformity and the warranty against latent defects, the seller may avoid liability by establishing that the defect did not exist at the time of delivery.

The defective product liability regime set out in Articles 1245 and seq. of the French Civil Code is, as a rule, a matter of public policy. Consequently, any contractual clause seeking to exclude or limit the producer’s liability is prohibited and deemed unwritten pursuant to Article 1245-14 of the French Civil Code.

An exception is nevertheless recognised in relationships between professionals. In such cases, limitation or exclusion clauses may be valid where they relate solely to damage caused to property that is not intended for private use or consumption. The effectiveness of such clauses is therefore strictly confined to B2B relationships and to property used for professional purposes.

In tort matters, clauses excluding or limiting liability are, in principle, void, as confirmed by long-standing case law (Civ. 2e, 17 févr. 1955, n° 55-02.810)

By contrast, in contractual matters outside the defective product regime, limitation of liability clauses are generally valid provided that no express statutory prohibition applies and that mandatory rules of public policy are respected, with the underlying principle that the limitation of liability may not have the consequence of effectively voiding the substance of the obligation.

Article 1245-16 of the French Civil Code provides that actions based on liability for defective products are subject to a three-year limitation period. This period runs from the date on which the victim knew, or should have known, of the damage, the existence of the defect and the identity of the producer. As long as these three elements are not cumulatively established, the limitation period does not begin to run. In addition, such actions are subject to a long-stop period of ten years from the date on which the product was put into circulation (Article 1245-15). The three-year period remains governed by the ordinary rules on suspension and interruption of limitation periods, such as the filing of a lawsuit or a request before a court for an expert to be appointed.

Claims based on the warranty against latent defects are subject to a specific limitation period of two years from the discovery of the defect, in accordance with Article 1648 of the French Civil Code, and up to 20 years after the day of the sale in case of interruption or suspension of the limitation period.

By contrast, actions based on general contractual or tort liability are, in principle, subject to the ordinary five-year limitation period provided for by Article 2224 of the French Civil Code.

Finally, as a matter of principle, the death of a party does not interrupt or suspend the running of the limitation period. The claim is transmitted to the heirs, but the limitation period continues to run without starting afresh, and the time already elapsed remains effective.

Product liability claims may involve implied warranties, especially in the case of sale contracts.

B2B sale contracts may give raise to the two following implied warranties:

1. As per sellers’ conform delivery obligation (Article 1604 of the French Civil Code), any seller shall deliver a good that complies with what was contractually agreed with the purchaser. Such obligation may be contractually limited or excluded.
2.  As per the warranty against latent defect (Articles 1641 and seq. of the French Civil Code), any seller shall guarantee that the product sold is free from any latent defect which would render the good sold unfit for its intended use or so diminishes its use that, if the purchaser had known about such defect, he would have bought it for a lesser price. This warranty cannot be contractually limited or excluded but for contracts concluded between professionals of the same speciality.

B2C sale contracts give raise to the legal guarantee of conformity set out in Articles L. 217-3 and seq. of the French Consumer Code.  Accordingly, any professional seller shall sell goods that conform both to the contractual provisions and usual expectations of the consumer as to its use. This guarantee is of public order and cannot be contractually limited or excluded.

In any case, a professional may grand additional commercial warranties.

As per the warranty against latent defects set out in Articles 1641 and seq. of the French Civil Code, the buyer may choose between (i) giving back the product and being reimbursed of the product full price or (ii) keeping the product and being reimbursed of part of its price. If the seller knew about the defect, he is also liable to pay damages to the purchaser.

As per the conform delivery obligation set out in Articles 1604 of the French Civil Code, the buyer may choose between replacement, repair, completion of the good or de jure termination of the purchase agreement. In addition, the purchaser may claim damages.

In B2C relationships, the legal guarantee of conformity provided for in Articles L.217-3 and seq. of the French Consumer Code provides that any consumer is entitled to repair or replacement of the non-conform good or, failing that, to termination of the contract or price reduction, in addition to possible damages.

Under French law, civil liability serves a strictly compensatory purpose: damages are intended solely to compensate for the loss suffered and have no punitive or deterrent function vis-à-vis the author of the damage. This rationale also applies to actions based on the warranty against hidden defects and on lack of conformity.

Under French law, there is no document disclosure procedure as such. However, the law allows, under certain conditions, a party or a third party to be compelled to produce a document in its possession (Articles 138 et seq. of the French Code of Civil Procedure). The document sought must be indispensable to the exercise of the right to evidence and proportionate to the interests at stake.

Article 145 of the French Code of Civil Procedure also provides for a mechanism allowing, prior to any proceedings, the preservation or establishment of evidence of facts on which the resolution of a dispute may depend, as well as the ordering of investigative measures.

Finally, article 9 of the new PLD, once implemented, will impose on manufacturers, subject to a court order, an obligation to disclose relevant evidence in proceedings relating to damage caused by defective products, provided that such disclosure is necessary and proportionate. In case of failure to disclose the evidence as required under said article, article 10 provides that product shall be presumed defective. 

Commonly disclosed documents include technical specifications as well internal quality records, warnings, and communications.

Law No. 2025-391 of 30 April 2025, implementing Directive (EU) 2020/1828, introduces a unified class action regime. It broadens the scope of compensable harm to cover all types of damage but restricts standing to bring such actions to approved associations or trade unions. 

The court first rules on the defendant’s liability, then defines the beneficiaries of compensation and orders the publication of the decision in order to invite eligible persons to join the group, in accordance with an “opt-in” mechanism. This regime applies to all actions brought after 30 April 2025 and will therefore apply to class actions in matters of liability for defective products.

In France, product liability actions are, in principle, funded by the parties themselves, with the possibility of legal aid for claimants with limited financial means (Law No. 91-647 of 10 July 1991). Third-party funding is not prohibited in principle, but it has long remained unregulated and marginal. 

Since Law No. 2025-391 of 30 April 2025 on various measures adapting French law to European Union law, third-party funding is now expressly permitted and regulated for class actions, with requirements on transparency and the prevention of conflicts of interest, while it remains unregulated outside this framework.

Under French law, Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows any party to request partial reimbursement of its legal costs not included in the court-ordered costs (dépens), with the judge exercising discretion in assessing the request based on equity, the proportionality of the expenses, and the conduct of the parties.

Contingency fee agreements are permitted in civil matters provided that they are not based exclusively on the result achieved (Article 10 of Law No. 71-1130 of 31 December 1971) and that they are not grossly disproportionate to the fixed fee otherwise agreed upon; in practice, contingency fees in excess of 15% of the value of the damages awarded are at risk of being considered excessive.

• Cass. Civ. 3., 13 nov. 2025, n°24-10.959: jurisdiction of the civil courts (and not administrative courts) over compensation claim based on liability for defective products, even if the product is subject to an administrative authorisation.
• Cass. Civ. 1., 4 juin 2025, n°24-13.470: 10-year limitation period for actions based on liability for defective products in cases of personal injury (this principle is applicable to products placed on the market after expiry of the 1985 EU directive’s transposition deadline but before the entry into force of the French implementing legislation).

In 2024, the new PLD was adopted to better protect consumers and adapt EU product liability laws to the current world and, especially, the development of digital technologies, AI, connected devices as well as of circular economy. 

For instance, the new PLD broadens the definition of “product” to expressly encompass software or digital manufacturing files and will also cover AI-product or connected products. New economic operators – such as online platforms – will possibly be liable for defective products in certain circumstances. Destruction or corruption of data that is not used for professional purposes will become a compensable damage.

This new PLD shall be implemented under French law by December 9^th 2026. As of today, no implementation text has been published in France, and we do not know when the French Ministry of Justice intends to submit a draft implementation of the new PLD to the French Parliament.