On November 3, 2025, the French Competition Authority (the “FCA”) imposed a EUR 7.6 million fine on the Parfait group for failing to comply with commitments entered into in the context of its acquisition of a hypermarket and shopping center in Martinique (the “Decision”),[1] illustrating the FCA’s continued vigilance regarding effective implementation of merger remedies. The Parfait group has appealed the Decision.
The Paris Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeals”) has issued its ruling on damages in the Plavix follow-on action brought by France’s national health insurance fund (the “CNAM”) against Sanofi.[1] More than a decade after the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) found that Sanofi had engaged in disparagement practices constituting an abuse of dominant position, the Court awarded the CNAM €150.7 million, reflecting the long-term impact of Sanofi’s conduct. The judgment highlights the magnitude of potential damages in follow-on actions and illustrates how French courts evaluate long-lasting effects and the full-compensation principle.
On January 21, 2025, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) issued its first opinion on a collective agreement in the private-hire vehicle (“PHV”) services sector.[1] Signed on December 19, 2023 by a trade organization representing two ride-hailing platforms and two driver trade unions, the agreement requires platforms to implement a system allowing drivers to set a minimum income per kilometer for the trip requests they receive. If approved by the Autorité des relations sociales des plateformes d’emploi (“ARPE”), the agreement would be extended across the entire sector. The FCA, asked to assess whether the extension of such system could raise competitive concerns, could not rule it out, notably because only the market leader, Uber, is currently capable of implementing it.
On January 15, 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal issued a decision in a follow-on damages case brought by French retail companies harmed by a cartel, providing clarifications on how financial damages should be calculated to also reflect the deprivation of funds over time and how responsibility should be shared among the undertakings found liable.[1]
On October 29, 2024, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) imposed a fine totalling €470 million on manufacturers and distributors of low-voltage electrical equipment (the “Decision”) for vertical resale price fixing.[1] The FCA sanctioned two vertical price agreements (i) between Schneider Electric and its distributors Rexel and Sonepar implemented from December 2012 to September 2018, and (ii) between Legrand and its distributor Rexel from May 2012 and September 2015.
In a decision dated July 24, 2024,[1] the Paris Court of Appeals granted a stay of execution in relation to a €2,700,000 fine imposed on the Association Nationale des Industries Alimentaires (“ANIA”) by the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) in the Bisphenol A case only considering the manifestly excessive consequences of such sanction in view of ANIA’s financial situation and without examining its merits.
On February 6, 2024, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) imposed a four million euros fine on chocolate maker De Neuville (“De Neuville”) and its parent company Savencia Holding for restricting their franchisees’ freedom to sell De Neuville chocolates online and to professional customers.[1]
On October 18, 2023, the French Cour de cassation upheld the Paris Court of Appeals’ ruling finding that the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) had rightly calculated the amount of the fine imposed on L’Oréal in 2014 for its alleged involvement in a cartel in the personal care products industry.[1] The French Cour de cassation confirmed that the sales of a subsidiary that did not itself participate in the infringement can be included in the calculation of the fine if these sales have been affected by the infringement sanctioned.