Consumer Protection and Data Privacy
To: Our Clients and Friends
February 2015
The Unfair Terms Commission issues: a Recommendation
with broader implications than it may appear
The French Unfair Terms Commission (“UTC”), operating under the authority of the Minister for
Consumer Affairs, regularly issues non-binding opinions and recommendations. Recommendation
n°2014-02 on contracts proposed by social media network service providers, published on 3
December 2014, may have a broader impact than explicitly announced and could help define unfair
terms and practices relating to contracts via the Internet and to e-commerce more generally.
The UTC’s recommendations are considered soft law and are issued only as guidance. However, one
should not underestimate their impact as they are likely to be used as an implicit basis by the
courts when assessing unfair terms at trial.
When assessing unfair terms, the courts are guided by Article R.121-1 of the French Consumer
Code, which provides a list of presumed unfair terms (so-called “gray” terms). In addition, terms
that are intended to or whose effect is to create a significant imbalance between the rights and
obligations of parties to the contract, to the disadvantage of the non-professional or consumer,
qualify as unfair terms. Such terms, known as “black” terms, are systematically sanctioned by the
courts. The sanction in question, pursuant to Article L.132-1 of French Consumer Code, is to
consider the terms null and void (“le reputé non écrit”). The unfair term is treated as having
never existed. The contract containing the unfair term, however, remains in effect, regardless of
whether the expectations of the professional co-contractor may be frustrated in the absence of the
“deleted” term.
A recent UTC Recommendation on contracts proposed by social media network service providers,
(UTC Recommendation n°2014-02 of 3 December 2014, “Recommendation”) concerns social media
network service providers as noted in its title. Most of the legal commentaries have focused on
the social media aspects of the Recommendation. However, despite references to certain specific
rules, the Recommendation is in fact mainly based on general statutes and regulations. From that
perspective, there is no obstacle, in principle, to extending the scope of the Recommendation
to all professionals offering services or goods to non-professionals over the Internet.
This Client Bulletin is published for the clients and friends of Bryan Cave LLP. Information contained herein is not to be considered as legal advice.
This Client Bulletin may be construed as an advertisement or solicitation. Bryan Cave LLP. All Rights Reserved.
Bryan Cave LLP
America | Europe | Asia
www.bryancave.com
The 46 distinct recommendations issued by the UTC draw mainly from existing statutes and
1
regulations applying to consumer contracts concluded over the Internet.
This is the case, for example, of recommendations regarding exculpatory clauses or terms limiting
the 14-day withdrawal period afforded to consumers in distance or on-line sale contracts.
The Recommendation, however, also pinpoints certain terms and practices whose unfairness
was neither obvious nor directly based on applicable statutes or regulations.
Four recommendations are of particular interest for on-line sales via Internet websites due to their
innovative character:

Contractual documents must be readable both on screen and once printed out. The UTC
goes into the technicality of the matter and criticizes general terms and conditions that are
“not easily readable on the screen or on the paper after printing […] due to the graphics of the
[website] interface”;

Cross-referencing within one or several distinct contractual documents is acceptable
provided it is not excessive. For Instance this recommendation comes up against the practice
of separating customary contract terms from privacy policies, which are also contractual terms,
but often expressed in a different form;

The contractual nature of documents referred to for instance as “charter” or “policy” must
be specified;

Merely browsing through a website cannot be construed as an implicit and immediate
acceptance by the non-professional of the general terms and conditions of use of the
website. Consumers must be given the opportunity to read such terms and conditions before
accepting them. Any contrary term would qualify as an unfair term.
Those recommendations, by the generality of their terms, appear largely to spill over the scope of
social media network service providers and may be relayed by case-law, statute or regulation in the
context of all other contracts concluded on-line with non-professionals.
For more information on this subject, kindly send your questions to the author, your contact at
Bryan Cave or to any member of the Consumer Protection and Data Privacy Team.
Joseph Smallhoover, Paris
Direct Dial: +33 (0)1 44 17 77 10 / joseph.smallhoover@bryancave.com
Bryan Cave alerts/bulletins/briefings are available online at www.bryancave.com/bulletins.
1
See, notably, Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
personal data and on the free movement of such data; Directive 2000/31/EC of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of
information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (“Directive on electronic commerce”)
transposed into French Law by Law n°2000-575 of 21 June 2004; Directive 2011/83/UE of 25 October 2011 on consumers
rights, transposed into French Law by Law n°2014-344 of 17 March 2014.
2
Bryan Cave LLP
America | Europe | Asia
www.bryancave.com