CONTRACT LAW

Image and reputation of the host: the Cour de cassation upholds the nullity of the NRJ/CAUET contract

***

Cass. com., 2 Sept. 2026, No. 25-11.818, published in the Bulletin

The facts. On 18 June 2018, the company Be Aware Radio entered into a contract with NRJ for the production of a daily entertainment programme hosted by Cauet, the director and principal shareholder of the Be Aware Group; several amendments extended the contract, the last of which (18 July 2023) provided for exclusivity until the 2025/2026 season. Following allegations against the host relating to rape and sexual assault, the programme was taken off air on 23 November 2023. On 10 January 2024, NRJ declared the production contract and related contracts to be null and void, whilst Be Aware and Cauet sought the reinstatement of the contracts, their termination on the grounds of NRJ’s breach of contract, and compensation for their losses.

The Paris Court of Appeal ruled that the contracts had lapsed on 22 November 2023, finding that the allegations, which had been widely reported in the media and on social media, had damaged the host’s image and reputation and prevented him from remaining on air. Be Aware and Cauet lodged an appeal with the Cour de cassation, arguing in particular that no element of the contract had definitively ceased to exist.

The ruling. The Cour de cassation dismissed the appeal: the contract was fundamentally based on the ‘monetisation of the public profile’ associated with Mr CAUET’s personality, making his reputation and positive public image an essential element. However, the specific allegations of sexual violence, which were continually publicised, had damaged his honour and dignity. The Court also endorsed the lower court judges’ finding that no reasonably foreseeable restoration of this element was possible within a short or foreseeable timeframe during the remaining term of the contract. The disappearance of this essential element, beyond the control of the parties, justified the termination of the contract pursuant to Article 1186, paragraph 1erof the French Civil Code, whilst the validity of the related contracts remained unaffected.

Our view. The decision is not surprising in principle – since the 2016 reform, Article 1186 of the French Civil Code has allowed for the termination of a contract where an essential element ceases to exist – but it marks a milestone in its application to ‘image’ contracts. The Court expressly recognises the possibility of incorporating a public figure’s reputation and image into a contract as an essential element of a service, such that their loss may justify the termination of the contract.

➡️ For a broadcaster, the judgement provides certainty regarding the possibility of terminating the contract without waiting for the outcome of criminal proceedings, whilst avoiding the need to prove a breach of contract on the part of the host. Conversely, for the celebrity or their production company, the risk is high: the contract lapses ‘irrespective of the parties’ will’ and deprives the host of compensation, with related contracts consequently falling through.

 

 

UNFAIR COMPETITION

Unfair competition: the mere possession of confidential information on an employee’s work computer constitutes misappropriation by the new employer

***

Cass. com., 2 Sept. 2026, No. 25-12.718, published in the Bulletin

The facts. An employee resigned from a company in September 2018 before being recruited a few days later by a competing company, his new employer; his contract was subsequently transferred to a subsidiary of the latter. In 2021, the former employer brought proceedings against the new employer and its subsidiary for unfair competition. A bailiff’s report revealed, on the work computer provided to the employee by his new employer, the presence of a file containing, amongst other things, the contact details of the former employer’s clients as well as several confidential commercial proposal templates.

The Toulouse Court of Appeal found that the former employee was in possession of this information but considered that it had not been proven that the competing companies had appropriated it, as they denied having known that the employee had it in his possession. It dismissed the claim against the new employer’s subsidiary and limited the compensation payable by the new employer for economic loss to 283 euros.

The ruling. Pursuant to Article 1240 of the French Civil Code, the Cour de cassation quashed the decision. It reiterated that the misappropriation of confidential information belonging to a competitor and provided by a former employee constitutes an act of unfair competition, even in the absence of a non-competition clause. Above all, it specifies that the mere possession of such information on the employee’s work computer constitutes its misappropriation by the new employer. Thus, the Court of Appeal, which had itself noted this possession, should therefore have drawn the appropriate legal conclusions.

Our view. The judgement is consistent with established case law holding that the use or appropriation of client files and commercial documents originating from a former employer constitutes a distinct act of unfair competition, separate from the mere breach of a non-competition clause. However, it goes a step further in terms of the burden of proof: until now, case law on the merits frequently upheld the defence based on the new employer’s lack of knowledge or intent, which was contrasted with the employee’s isolated initiative. The Court has now ruled unequivocally: it is not necessary to demonstrate specific knowledge or intent on the part of the new employer, provided that the confidential information is stored on the work computer made available to the employee.

➡️ For claimants, the decision considerably simplifies proceedings for unfair competition: it is sufficient to have the employee’s IT equipment inspected to establish the new employer’s fault. For recruiting companies, the judgement establishes a genuine duty of care at the time of recruitment. Ignorance is no longer a defence.

Practical recommendations. Employers now have every interest in putting the following in place from the moment of recruitment:

  • clear reminders regarding the prohibition on possessing, retaining or using information belonging to a former employer;
  • checks on the data stored on the IT equipment made available to new recruits;
  • procedures enabling the immediate deletion or return of any identified confidential data;
  • appropriate provisions in IT charters and onboarding processes.

 

 

REAL-ESTATE LAW

Assistance to a cooperative condominium association: the Matera platform does not unlawfully practice the property manager profession

***

Cour de cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, 17 September 2026, No. 24-15.665

The facts. The company Matera operates an online platform aimed at co-ownership estates that have opted for cooperative management. Its services include, in particular, a platform for generating documents, as well as administrative, accounting and legal support and assistance with monitoring building works. Several industry players – including the Foncia Group, the National Association of Co-ownership Managers (ANGC), the FNAIM Chamber of Greater Paris and the National Union of Property Professionals (SNPI) – have brought proceedings or intervened voluntarily in the case against Matera and its chairman, accusing them in particular of unlawfully practising the profession of property manager, disparagement and misleading commercial practices in connection with its advertising campaign launched in March 2020.

The Paris Court of Appeal dismissed the claim regarding the unlawful practice of the profession of property manager and rejected the claims based on unfair and misleading commercial practices. The ANGC, the FNAIM Greater Paris, Emeria Europe and the SNPI lodged appeals with the Cour de cassation.

The ruling. The Cour de cassation dismissed the appeals. Having regard to Articles 1 and 14 of the Hoguet Act and Articles 27 and 42 of the Decree of 17 March 1967, it noted that a property manager may seek advice and entrust certain tasks to external service providers. It noted that Matera merely provided assistance and support: the automatic generation of documents which it did not sign, management tools, information on the monitoring of works, and support in dealing with contractors. The property manager retained their autonomy and responsibility, meaning that Matera could not be regarded as unlawfully performing the duties of a property manager.

However, the Court also upheld the Court of Appeal’s analysis that, whilst certain slogans might have created ambiguity regarding Matera’s status as a property manager, they were not likely to substantially alter the economic behaviour of the co-owners, given the steps required to adopt the cooperative model.

Our view. This judgement is the first, at the level of the Cour de cassation, to draw a distinction between the regulated activities of a professional property manager and the provision of digital support services to a co-operative housing association. The Court takes care to base its ruling on two objective criteria: (i) the absence of the service provider’s signature on legal documents; (ii) the preservation of the property manager’s autonomy and liability. These two criteria usefully delineate the boundary that players in the property legaltech sector must not cross.

On the second point, the Court confirms that advertising ambiguity is not, in itself, sufficient to constitute a misleading commercial practice: it must also be demonstrated that it is likely to substantially alter the economic behaviour of the average consumer. The requirement for a prior collective decision (a vote at a general meeting to adopt the co-operative model) plays a decisive role here in ruling out such an alteration.

➡️  For platforms and legaltech firms operating in the field of co-ownership, the judgement reinforces the ‘support’ model provided by the co-operative owners’ association, subject to the dual condition that they do not cross the line into actual management.