Skip to main content
About HEC About HEC
Summer School Summer School
Faculty & Research Faculty & Research
Master’s programs Master’s programs
Bachelor Programs Bachelor Programs
MBA Programs MBA Programs
PhD Program PhD Program
Executive Education Executive Education
HEC Online HEC Online
About HEC
Overview Overview
Who
We Are
Who
We Are
Egalité des chances Egalité des chances
HEC Talents HEC Talents
International International
Campus
Life
Campus
Life
Sustainability Sustainability
Diversity
& Inclusion
Diversity
& Inclusion
Stories Stories
The HEC
Foundation
The HEC
Foundation
Summer School
Youth Programs Youth Programs
Summer programs Summer programs
Online Programs Online Programs
Faculty & Research
Overview Overview
Faculty Directory Faculty Directory
Departments Departments
Centers Centers
Chairs Chairs
Grants Grants
Knowledge@HEC Knowledge@HEC
Master’s programs
Master in
Management
Master in
Management
Master's
Programs
Master's
Programs
Double Degree
Programs
Double Degree
Programs
Bachelor
Programs
Bachelor
Programs
Summer
Programs
Summer
Programs
Exchange
students
Exchange
students
Student
Life
Student
Life
Our
Difference
Our
Difference
Bachelor Programs
Overview Overview
Course content Course content
Admissions Admissions
Fees and Financing Fees and Financing
MBA Programs
MBA MBA
Executive MBA Executive MBA
TRIUM EMBA TRIUM EMBA
PhD Program
Overview Overview
HEC Difference HEC Difference
Program details Program details
Research areas Research areas
HEC Community HEC Community
Placement Placement
Job Market Job Market
Admissions Admissions
Financing Financing
Executive Education
Home Home
About us About us
Management topics Management topics
Open Programs Open Programs
Custom Programs Custom Programs
Events/News Events/News
Contacts Contacts
HEC Online
Overview Overview
Degree Program Degree Program
Executive certificates Executive certificates
MOOCs MOOCs
Summer Programs Summer Programs
Youth programs Youth programs
Article

Restoring Balance in a GAFA World with a New Legal Tool from France

Law
Published on:

The four giants collectively known as GAFA yield such power that it's easy for them to strike unfair deals with business partners and consumers. But a French commercial court has created a game-changing precedent by holding accountable a US-based online booking platform using the concept of significant imbalance. This has shaped a whole new doctrine which potentially brings more balance to transactions with GAFA. Explanation by David Restrepo Amariles, HEC Paris Professor of Law.

justice balance and french flag

©ErenMotion on Adobe Stock

Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple – commonly known as GAFA – have so fundamentally changed the rules of business that their model has been dubbed “GAFAnomics”. And that economic world is no level playing field. The digital giants exploit every imaginable tax loophole. They relocate when data protection laws they deem inconvenient come into force.

They don't just use their dominant power to escape the taxman; business partners are also at their mercy. For instance, they use data gathered through applications without paying the developers, although data is expensive these days. And yet, today, the GAFA are no longer completely untouchable. 

What is significant imbalance?

France has come up with a legal tool that may become a useful weapon to restore some balance in commercial relations with these digital behemoths: the doctrine of significant imbalance. 

Significant imbalance is a legal standard meant to assess whether a contractual clause is unfair (abusive in French). It originated in EU law and was introduced in France in consumer law. Significant imbalance in France was extended to commercial law in 2008 and to general contract law in 2016, resulting in a radical change in its scope and nature.

 

France has come up with a legal standard meant to assess whether a contractual clause is unfair (abusive).

 

The original idea behind this doctrine was to protect consumers when they are not in a position to negotiate, such as when customers buy a flight from Air France and are obliged to accept their conditions to make the purchase. This is quite different from protecting Danone from Carrefour, in a business-to-business relation, as could now be the case in France under the new application of this tool. Such a level of interventionism is far removed from the Anglo-Saxon idea of contracts, where each party just needs to bargain for the best possible deal.
 

Ministry of Economy versus Expedia: a landmark case

How can French courts attack Silicon Valley-based multinationals, who usually choose tax havens or business-friendly locations for their regional headquarters? The answer lies in the 2015 Expedia Inc. v. the French Ministry of Economy case. The case was a game changer. The Washington-based booking platform Expedia concludes contracts with hotels worldwide.

Those contracts included most favored customer clauses (MFC), which allow Expedia to automatically benefit from the hotels' best prices, as well as clauses that allowed it to retain its commission if the client cancelled – in short, contracts very much favoring Expedia. In 2015, the Ministry of Economy brought its case against Expedia before the Commercial Court of Paris and won, arguing that the MFC clauses caused a “significant imbalance” in the contracts thus requiring them to be voided. 

Significant imbalance overrides party autonomy

Now where the Expedia case really becomes relevant to the fight against GAFA's extraterritoriality is in how the court reasoned. The contracts binding the hotels and Expedia designated English courts (and law) as competent in case of litigation. Firstly, the Paris court ruled that the French Ministry of Economy, who initiated the proceedings, not being a contracting party, was not bound by the clause.

Secondly, the court affirmed its own jurisdiction, seeing as the damages, incurred by French hotels, were caused in French territory. Having thus discarded the “choice of court” of the contract, the court discarded the “choice of law” by considering that France's article L.442-6-I.2° regarding significant imbalance was an overriding mandatory provision (loi de police). In other words, its provisions are deemed so crucial for the respect of public order that they override the choice of the parties to subject the contract to English law. 

A new French doctrine

This may sound like an unusual legal arrangement, but it has been confirmed by a higher court (and used successfully against Amazon in 2017 and against Apple and Google in 2018). At this stage, it has indeed become a doctrine which other courts can rely upon to settle similar claims against the GAFA.

The doctrine is also the result of a political choice, creating a new balance between the protection of public economic order and the autonomy of business actors. Depending on individual politics, some may see this as a paternalistic move by the French state.

 

The French government, which, like any country these days, needs to attract business but risks making itself less attractive thanks to this new legal weapon, which introduces uncertainty in international business transactions.  

 

There also seems to be ambivalence towards this legal tool on the part of the French government, which, like any country these days, wishes – and needs — to attract business. This new legal weapon, which introduces uncertainty in international business transactions, risks making France less attractive to big business.

In wider, geopolitical terms, the question is not just the imbalance in relations between corporations, or corporations and states, but also the trade war between the US and the EU, with American authorities fining European banks, and the EU trying to tax GAFA and introducing its general data protection regulation with potential extraterritorial reach.

Will other countries wield the SI weapon?

France may not fight GAFA alone, but how applicable elsewhere is the concept of significant imbalance? The short answer is that it seems unlikely that other countries will adopt the French law: this legal tool is a uniquely French political vision.

 

The wider question here is not just the imbalance in relations, but also the trade war between the US and the EU, with American authorities fining European banks, and the EU trying to tax GAFA and introducing its general data protection regulation.

 

Given that the concept of significant imbalance is transposed from EU law, however, courts may tackle the matter from another angle, possibly that of consumer protection. For example, other courts could argue that the digital giants not giving application developers a fair deal will result in poor quality of service for consumers.

 

Managerial Applications

Focus - Application pour les marques
If this doctrine of significant imbalance is applied consistently, it will potentially affect a company from any place in the world, as long as they have a presence in France, for example a chain of hotels with establishments in France. For executives entering contracts, significant imbalance is a new element of risk assessment to be integrated into decision-making. But it's also a potential advantage for companies located in French territory, as they would be protected by this legal doctrine if they are the weaker party.
Based on an interview with David Restrepo Amariles on his article “Le déséquilibre significatif dans les contrats commerciaux : nouvel outil de lutte contre les GAFA”, co-written with Eva Mouial Bassilana and Lorenzo Colombani, just out in AJ Contrat (Dalloz), 2018, pp. 471-476. Article publié en français dans Forbes France.

Related content on Law