Opinion on the French Decree Implementing the 2026 Class Action Regime

This development is notable, firstly, because effective access to justice requires not only the existence of substantive rights, but also the presence of enforceable procedural mechanisms. In the absence of implementing measures, legislative reforms risk remaining inactive. Prior to the decree, the absence of implementing provisions limited the regime’s practical applicability.

Second, the decree’s focus on accreditation advances the principles of fairness and balance. Accreditation functions as a gatekeeping instrument, identifying qualified entities, imposing governance obligations, and limiting opportunities for abusive or profit-driven litigation practices. When calibrated appropriately, such controls protect consumers against inadequate representation and protect businesses from unmeritorious claims.

Article 7 sets detailed disclosure obligations for any entity bringing a class action on behalf of consumers. The entity must publish the required information on its website no later than the day the action is filed. The obligations include:

List of funders
Disclosure of third parties providing litigation funding. The list must identify
• the ten most significant amounts paid in funding in the previous year, or
• any funding representing more than 5 percent of the representative entity’s
annual resources, or
• any funding exceeding a total of €20,000 over twelve consecutive months.

Identification details
For each listed funder
• Legal entities: company name, registered office address, commercial registry
number, or equivalent
• Natural persons: name, first name, profession.

Financial scope
Disclosure of the amount or valuation of the funding received.

Key terms of the Litigation Finance Agreement.
Publication of key terms
• duration,
• nature of funding, donation or loan,
• possible amount of remuneration for the third party,
• main obligations of the parties.

The requirements exceed the baseline disclosure standards under the Representative Actions Directive. The new obligations relating to the disclosure of the funder’s identity, the
amount of funding, and essential contract terms are essential for improving the transparency related to the financial interests that drive collective litigation. Greater transparency reduces informational asymmetries that affect courts and all the parties, while strengthening the monitoring of potential conflicts of interest.

The decree introduces structured accreditation requirements for entities entitled to initiate collective actions. Accreditation operates as a gatekeeping mechanism. Qualified entities must meet the governance, independence, and compliance standards as set down in the Decree. This supports two objectives:

• Safeguarding consumers from inadequate representation, and
• Protecting businesses from opportunistic or unmeritorious claims.

The decree embodies a measured regulatory approach. The guardrails provided in the new law constrain funding arrangements whose purpose or effect would lead to abusive litigation or prejudice the interests of represented parties. While certain provisions contain some ambiguities in interpretation, the regulatory direction remains clear: third-party funding is authorized but only within defined boundaries.

As long as they are robustly regulated, collective redress systems can reduce claim fragmentation and improve the efficiency of dispute resolution for mass claims. Greater predictability in the new funding rules is likely to contribute to increased collective litigation in France. The overall impact on businesses in France will also depend on other important elements not covered in the decree, such as judicial filtering of unmeritorious claims, evidentiary thresholds, and cost allocation rules, as well as the elements discussed at EU level, including responsibility for adverse costs, limits on funder remuneration, and conflict of interest controls.

In summary, the decree advances legal certainty, procedural discipline, and transparency in litigation funding which should contribute to fairness, balance, and efficiency in France’s mass claims process. Residual risks may arise primarily in relation to implementation practices such as inconsistent accreditation decisions, uneven enforcement of disclosure obligations, divergent judicial standards on what constitutes funder influence, procedural delays linked to compliance checks, and uncertainty regarding the scope or timing of required funding disclosures, judicial interpretation of funding influence, and the proportionality of disclosure obligations imposed on defendants.

By adopting this important decree, France is taking the lead in the regulation of third-party litigation funding which lacks a harmonized EU framework and is instead subject to only opaque and vague rules across the EU. A cross-sector group of associations called on 21 January 2026 for proportionate, binding EU level rules on professional third-party litigation funding, citing rapid market expansion, limited safeguards under the Representative Actions Directive, and the need for transparency, licensing, conflict of interest controls, and predictable Single Market treatment.

In its study into litigation funding in Europe, the EU Commission identified over 300 funders operating in the EU. A study by ECIPE further indicates that, depending on the growth trajectory of mass litigation, the economic impact could be significant, with the high growth scenario projecting private enforcement costs of up to €84.8 billion, potential market capitalisation losses for innovative companies of up to €46.5 billion, and litigation costs rising to 27.1 percent of claim value.

In this context, the introduction of appropriate EU-level safeguards would be pro-competitive for the EU economy and protect consumers by increasing transparency, reducing regulatory fragmentation, and providing predictable operating conditions, while aligning with the EU’s Simplification agenda focused on improving legal certainty and reducing systemic compliance risks. France’s actions should encourage other Member States to follow their example and continue this important work at both the national legislative level and across Europe in order to protect both consumers and businesses from US-style profit-driven or abusive litigation.

Download your copy here.