France

On March 17, 2026, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) fined the National Union of French Ski Instructors (Syndicat national des moniteurs du ski français, “SNMSF”) €3.4 million for imposing an exclusivity obligation on its member instructors.[1] The FCA found that the SNMSF had implemented an exclusivity obligation prohibiting its ski instructors from teaching at competing ski schools or developing their own clientele outside the French Ski School (Ecole de Ski Française,“ESF”) network. The decision confirms the FCA’s continued scrutiny of labor markets and reaffirms that sports activities are subject to competition law. It also marks the first time the FCA has applied Article L. 464-2 of the French Commercial Code, allowing it to seek financial contributions from professional association members (in this case, the SNMSF’s members).

On February 18, 2026, following an ex officio investigation launched in July 2024,[1] the French Competition Authority (the “FCA”) issued its Opinion No. 26-A-02 (the “Opinion”) on competition in the online video content creation sector in France.[2]  The Opinion identifies several areas of concern in the sector, including creators’ dependence on a small number of platforms, algorithmic opacity, bargaining-power imbalances with commercial partners, and the competitive implications of generative AI.  It calls on platforms to ensure fair and transparent revenue-sharing conditions, provide greater transparency on recommendation algorithms and content moderation measures, and make available dedicated contact points for creators.

On January 13, 2026, the Criminal Chamber of the French Cour de cassation (“French Supreme Court”) confirmed its established case law according to which the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) may seize attorney-client documents covered by legal professional privilege (“LPP”) where these were not “prepared for the exercise of a party’s rights of the defense”, i.e., to defend a client who committed, or believes it committed, an offense liable to result in ongoing or anticipated judicial or regulatory proceedings and sanctions.[1]

On January 9, 2026, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) published the results of its third study on the French leniency procedure.[1]  The Study publishes feedback from more than 60 competition law practitioners on (i) the impact of procedural changes introduced in 2023, (ii) the key factors that encourage or discourage undertakings from applying for leniency, and (iii) the impact of potential follow-on damage actions on leniency applications.  The FCA will determine on the basis of the responses whether and how to adapt its leniency program.

Following a complaint by Eurotunnel operators France Manche SA and The Channel Tunnel Group on June 25, 2021, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) examined allegations that DFDS and P&O Ferries had entered into an anticompetitive capacity-sharing agreement on the Calais–Dover route.

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.

On July 10, 2025, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) published both its 2024 Annual Report,[1] and its 2025-2026 Roadmap,[2] which outlines its priorities for the year ahead. 

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.