Week of 14 to 21 September 2026
Legislative, regulatory and case-law review
Legislation and case law.
A word on the period. The past week extends the institutional lull of late summer. No text of general scope directly concerning company law, commercial law or insolvency was published in the Journal officiel between 14 and 21 September. The commercial chamber of the Cour de cassation handed down no decision during the period, the Conseil constitutionnel has ruled on no case since 14 August 2026, the Autorité de la concurrence has issued no press release since 31 July 2026 and the AMF has published nothing since 11 September. The week’s material therefore consists of a few second-tier regulatory texts, a European initiative dated 17 September and, above all, academic commentary on decisions handed down before the judicial vacation, several of which deserve mention.
Legislation
Usury and bank charges on estates. The order of 7 August 2026, published in the Journal officiel on 16 September 2026, amends the framework applicable to credit institutions on two fronts. It first adjusts the order of 24 August 2006 setting the categories of loans used to apply Article L. 314-6 of the Consumer Code and Article L. 313-5-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code on usury. It then inserts into the order of 3 December 2024 implementing Article L. 312-1-4 of the Monetary and Financial Code an Article 2-1 postponing its entry into force to 20 November 2026, contracts in progress at that date remaining governed by the previous provisions. The extension of the scheme to New Caledonia, French Polynesia and the Wallis and Futuna Islands has applied since 17 September 2026. Institutions therefore have until 20 November to comply, a deadline their legal departments should put in the calendar.
Delivery platform workers. The decision of 12 September 2026, published in the Journal officiel on 17 September, approves the amendment of 10 July 2026 introducing a guaranteed minimum income for self-employed delivery riders using a matching platform. Ministerial approval has its characteristic effect here: it makes the sector agreement binding on all platforms and workers within its scope, not only on the signatories. The text bears directly on the contractual structure of last-mile operators, whose business model relies on payment per delivery.
Asset freezes and financial compliance. Three orders of 16 and 17 September 2026, published on 18 and 19 September, implement Articles L. 562-2 et seq. of the Monetary and Financial Code. These individual measures freezing funds and economic resources apply immediately. They remind the businesses concerned, beyond the financial sector alone, that the duty to screen business relationships requires weekly updates of the national lists, not just the European ones.
Foreign investment screening: a reform now in force. Decree No. 2026-718 of 30 July 2026 and the order of the same date (JO of 2 August 2026) extend the scope of foreign investment screening in France to French companies listed on certain foreign regulated markets. The existing thresholds are unchanged, but the decree specifies the list of markets concerned by the 10% threshold. Applicable since 17 August 2026 (the eleventh working day after publication), the text drew substantial commentary this week: it shifts the focus in M&A transactions to targets listed outside France, which advisers had so far assumed fell outside the scheme.
Inside information: the delegated regulation stemming from the Listing Act. Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/789 of 8 April 2026 (OJEU of 16 July 2026) supplements EU market abuse law on two points set to shape issuers’ practice: the time for disclosing inside information relating to a protracted process in several stages, and the definition of situations in which delaying disclosure is simply prohibited. Internal procedures for managing inside information, in particular decision grids for delaying disclosure, should be reviewed in the light of this text.
Law simplifying economic life: the insurance component. Law No. 2026-403 of 26 May 2026 (JO of 27 May 2026) includes a part on insurance law whose scope was set out in detail this week: rules on loss assessment and compensation deadlines, the regime for terminating policies, specific protection for local authorities and the development of out-of-court dispute resolution. For insurers these are new obligations; for insured businesses, a welcome strengthening of their position when a claim arises.
European Union: proposed EU Kids Act. On 17 September 2026 the European Commission unveiled its proposal for a regulation known as the « EU Kids Act » (Keeping Internet Digital Spaces Accountable and Trustworthy). It is the only text actually dated within the week under review. It continues the path opened by the Digital Services Act on protecting minors online and, if adopted, will add a layer of obligations for platforms and marketplaces accessible to minors.
Case law
The commercial chamber of the Cour de cassation handed down no judgment between 14 and 21 September 2026, the court not yet having returned to its normal hearing schedule after the vacation. The decisions reported below were handed down between June and early September; all were the subject of commentary published this week, which is why they are reported now.
Sudden termination and standard road transport contracts. Cass. com., 1 July 2026, No. 24-19.356, FS-B (dismissed). The judgment finally sets out clearly how Article L. 442-1, II of the Commercial Code fits with the standard contracts for public road haulage. Where the parties have not stipulated a notice period, either because there is no written agreement or because it is silent, the period is set by the applicable standard contract and the provision on sudden termination of established commercial relationships does not apply; the same holds where the written agreement expressly refers to the standard contract clause. Where, on the other hand, the parties themselves stipulated the notice period in writing, Article L. 442-1, II applies again, but a party terminating with notice at least equal to that of the standard contract in force at the date of notification cannot be held liable on that basis. The drafting of transport agreements therefore becomes decisive: referring to the standard contract or copying its notice period does not have the same consequences in litigation.
Authentication and consent to payment. Cass. com., 1 July 2026, No. 25-13.134, F-B. A court of appeal reverses the burden of proof when, in order to find that payment transactions were authorised, it infers the payer’s consent solely from the use of the contractually agreed procedure, although the payer denied consenting. The ruling confirms that authentication is not consent: the payment service provider must establish both. It is of primary interest in transfer fraud litigation, where institutions readily take refuge behind the technical validity of strong authentication.
Date of the extinguishing effect of set-off. Cass. com., 1 July 2026, No. 24-20.979, F-B (partially quashed). Set-off takes effect on the date its conditions are met, not on the date it is invoked. The commercial chamber thus interprets new Article 1347 of the Civil Code in line with its earlier case law: the requirement to invoke set-off, introduced by the 2016 reform, does not move the date of the extinguishing effect. Limitation of the claim is therefore assessed on the day set-off operated, which may save a claim thought to be time-barred, or the reverse.
End date of a guarantee and assessment of disproportion. Cass. com., 8 July 2026, No. 25-16.540, F-B (partially quashed). In the absence of an express stipulation limiting in time the creditor’s right to bring proceedings, the fact that the guarantor is called upon after the end date of its undertaking does not affect its obligation, provided the debt arose before that date. The distinction between the end of the undertaking and the end of the right to bring proceedings, often overlooked in guarantee documents, proves decisive here.
Commercial lease: fixed increase clause deemed unwritten. Cass. 3e civ., 3 September 2026, No. 25-14.904, FS-B (quashed). A clause providing for an automatic rent increase of 1.5% a year must be deemed unwritten, since it defeats the mandatory rules on commercial rent review. The ruling calls for an audit of indexation clauses across lease portfolios, as striking out the clause opens the way to recovering sums unduly collected.
Over-indebtedness and business debts. Cass. 2e civ., 2 July 2026, No. 23-21.550, F-B (quashed). The share of business debts owed by a debtor who is a natural person acting in good faith does not deprive him of the over-indebtedness procedure under Book VII of the Consumer Code. The judgment clarifies the often disputed boundary between consumer over-indebtedness proceedings and insolvency proceedings applicable to sole traders.
Bank charges on estates: free-of-charge rule struck down. Cons. const., 19 June 2026, No. 2026-1207 QPC. On a referral from the Conseil d’État, the Conseil constitutionnel declared unconstitutional the provisions of Article L. 312-1-4-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code, as worded by Law No. 2025-415 of 13 May 2025, insofar as they required banking operations relating to an estate to be free of charge in three situations. The cap on charges at 1% of the total balances and savings products of the deceased is, however, held to be constitutional. The decision, widely commented on this week, leaves a price cap in place without requiring services to be free.
Competition: the end of the Google Android case. CJEU, 2 July 2026, Case C-738/22. Eight years after the Commission’s decision, the Court of Justice definitively upholds most of the EUR 4.125 billion fine. The judgment, analysed this week, marks a notable shift in the review of abuses of dominance in digital ecosystems: a lighter burden of proof on the Commission, limited weight given to the as-efficient-competitor test, and a highly deferential review of the General Court’s factual assessments. The balance between effective enforcement and legal certainty for operators is shifting as a result.
Merger control. The Autorité de la concurrence published the outcome of three phase 1 clearance decisions during the week: 26-DCC-183 of 15 September (acquisition of sole control of DG Finance and Verona by GBH), 26-DCC-184 of 15 September (acquisition of joint control of 28 stores under the Franprix and Monop’ banners by FZCO and SMD) and 26-DCC-185 of 17 September (acquisition of sole control of Zolea by ITM Entreprises). None raises any particular competition concern. As a reminder, the Authority was designated on 15 July 2026 as the competent authority to review the acquisition of SFR (Altice France), a case whose investigation will drive competition news in the coming months.
The firm advises on French business law, including commercial relationships and competition disputes.
Previous edition: Weekly Digest: Business Law (7-13 September 2026)
Our practice: lawyer in French business law