LOCAM CASE, END OF THE STORY?
FROM CRIMINAL SANCTION TO THE RECOGNITION OF PROFESSIONAL PROTECTION
In March 2025, we reported on the decision rendered by the Lyon Court of Appeal sentencing the company LOCAM to a criminal fine of €1.2 million for misleading commercial practices.
This decision formed part of large-scale criminal litigation initiated following systematic canvassing practices targeting independent professionals and small businesses.
A few weeks later, we published an in-depth legal analysis of the scope of this criminal conviction, highlighting both its statutory and case-law foundations, as well as its potential civil consequences for professionals affected by these contractual arrangements.
One year later, this analysis has now been validated by the Criminal Chamber of the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation), in a decision dated 6 January 2026 (No. 24-81.212, published in the Bulletin).
- Confirmation of a principle: the Consumer Code may apply between professionals
The successive decisions rendered by the criminal courts confirm the applicability of the Consumer Code between professionals, in cases of off-premises canvassing, where the following conditions are met:
– the contract does not fall within the core business activity of the canvassed professional;
– the professional employs five employees or fewer;
– the contractual arrangement is presented as a lease without a purchase option.
These criteria, set out in Article L.221-3 of the Consumer Code, have now been clearly upheld by the Supreme Court.
- The definitive rejection of the “financial services” argument
The decision of 6 January 2026 definitively closes the debate.
LOCAM argued that its contracts fell within the scope of “financial services” under European law, which would have excluded them from the application of the Consumer Code.
Relying on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21 December 2023, the Supreme Court dismisses this argument and endorses the reasoning of the Court of Appeal:
“The judges […] infer that long-term leasing contracts, even when concluded with professional clients, cannot be analysed as banking or credit operations within the meaning of the Monetary and Financial Code, nor as a financial service within the meaning of Directive 2011/83/EU of 25 October 2011.”
The Court further specifies that the decisive criterion is the main purpose of the contract: where leasing prevails over credit, the protective rules of the Consumer Code apply, even where the contracting party is a professional.
- An interpretation long shared by our firm
This position comes as no surprise.
As early as March 2025, in our publication, we wrote:
“A lease without a purchase option is not a credit transaction. […] Small entities may therefore benefit from the right of withdrawal.”
Our criminal law analysis published in April 2025 also concluded that:
“These contracts fully fall within the protective provisions of consumer law, provided that the criteria set out in Article L.221-3 are met.”
This is precisely what the Supreme Court has now confirmed.
- Practical consequences for the professionals concerned
Independent professionals, self-employed practitioners, craftsmen or managers of small businesses who have entered into a LOCAM contract or a similar arrangement (AXECIBLES + LOCAM, GRENKE, LEASECOM, etc.) now benefit from a solid and uncontested body of case law enabling them to:
– seek the nullity of the main contract;
– have the financing contract declared void due to interdependence;
– obtain reimbursement of the sums paid, with interest;
– put an end to ongoing direct debits;
– where applicable, obtain the deactivation of the relevant websites or software.
The limitation period is, in principle, five years from the date of signature or the last debit.
It is therefore still possible to take action, even for older contracts.
- Support provided by the DAMY law firm
DAMY – Law Firm has been assisting professionals affected by these contractual arrangements for several years, whether:
– as claimants (nullity, reimbursement, interdependence);
– in defence (resistance to formal notices, challenges to enforcement);
– or in the context of amicable negotiations or settlement agreements.
