Can an article aimed at a competitor characterize a deceptive commercial practice

It is to this question that the Court of Appeal of Paris has just answered, in a judgment rendered on March 14, 2025  (RG No. 22/16356), in the context of a dispute between the company La Capsule, the companies La Loco and Le Wagon, competitors in the sector of training in computer coding. 

The dispute originated in the publication of an anonymous article criticizing the trainings offered by Le Wagon. Having identified the executives of the Capsule as the owners of the domain name of the website on which the disputed article had been published in the form of a testimony from a person posing as a former student, the targeted company had requested the deletion of the article from its competitor, to which it had been acquiesced, and compensation for the damage suffered, a request which had not been granted. 

The Wagon and La Loco had appealed to the Commercial Court of Paris, which had issued a judgment on September 9, 2022, under the terms of which it had found La Capsule guilty of unfair and misleading commercial practices, prohibiting it from republishing the disputed article entitled without removing the false information, and ordering it to pay the sum of 10,000 euros in compensation for the damage suffered. 

The company La Capsule then appealed this judgment. 

The Court of Appeal upheld in part the decision of the Commercial Court of Paris, while reversing it on certain aspects. 

The Court held that the publication of an anonymous article containing false information about Le Wagon’s formations, without identifying the person for whom this publication was made, constituted an unfair and misleading commercial practice. It notes:  “It therefore appears that, as the respondent companies rightly maintain, the publication in question does not contain the necessary elements identifying La Capsule as the person on whose behalf the article” Geekupyourlife “was published, and this in contravention of the provisions of the aforementioned Article L. 121-2 3° which provides” A commercial practice is misleading if it is committed in one of the following circumstances: 3° When the person on whose behalf it is implemented is not clearly identifiable.  

The Court also held that the false information contained in the article: “These major disadvantages have the consequence of misleading the consumer about the essential characteristics of the computer coding training provided by the respondents. The company La Capsule was guilty of misleading commercial practice within the meaning of Article L. 121-2, 2° b) ”. 

The Court considered that La Capsule had committed acts of unfair competition by seeking to divert the clientele of its competitors through this article noting that: “the appellant company committed acts of unfair competition to the detriment of the companies Le Wagon and La Loco by wanting to divert this clientele, interested in competing training, towards its own training but without providing it with objective elements allowing it to make its choice. The companies Le Wagon and La Loco have therefore suffered economic and image damage related to the wrongful acts of La Capsule.  

On the assessment of the damage, the Court noted the relevance of the methodology used, including the number of visits to the article, the conversion rate found between readings and applications, but applied a discount by limiting the damage to 40% of the estimated assessment. 

This decision underlines the importance of fairness and transparency in commercial practices, and recalls that the dissemination of false or misleading information about competitors can constitute unfair commercial practices and acts of unfair competition.  

Guillaume Gouachon

  Associate Lawyer