Cass. 1st civ., 2 April 2025, no. 23-12.384

In a ruling dated 2 April 2025, the Court of Cassation confirmed the effectiveness of a jurisdiction clause included in the terms and conditions of use (TCU) of a professional Instagram account. The Court of Cassation dismissed Article 1171 of the Civil Code, a French protective provision protecting the weaker party against a clause creating a significant imbalance in an adhesion contract.

A post-hacking dispute against Meta

Ms [W], a content creator, had opened a professional Instagram account in 2010. This account, managed by her company VRT, had been hacked, leading the plaintiffs to sue Meta Platforms Ireland in the Paris Court of Justice, seeking damages.

Meta invoked a jurisdiction clause in its T&Cs, designating the Irish courts as the sole competent jurisdiction.

Article 1171 of the Civil Code, a mandatory rule?

Ms [W] invoked Article 1171 of the Civil Code, which prohibits any clause in adhesion contracts that creates a significant imbalance between the parties. She argued that this provision constituted a mandatory rule, which was binding even in the presence of a jurisdiction clause.

The Court of Appeal did not accept this argument, and the Court of Cassation upheld this decision.

The Court of Cassation pointed out that agreements on jurisdiction are expressly excluded from the scope of the Rome I Regulation on applicable law No 593/2008.

The Brussels I bis Regulation No. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters, which governs jurisdiction in the European Union, does not provide for any specific reservation in favour of mandatory rules.

For the Court of Cassation, the jurisdiction clause is therefore binding on the French court, which must declare itself incompetent. It is for the Irish court to rule on its validity.

A rigorous but consistent interpretation of European law

The judgment is in line with established case law, although sometimes criticised: jurisdiction clauses in the terms and conditions of major platforms are fully enforceable against professionals, even in the event of contractual imbalance.

The Court reiterates that any review of the validity of the clause can only be carried out in accordance with the law of the Member State designated – in this case, Ireland – without France being able to invoke its rules protecting the weaker party to the contract.

This ruling reinforces companies’ strategy of judicial centralisation and highlights the limitations of Article 1171 of the Civil Code in the case of an international contract that is not intended to apply to jurisdiction clauses.

By Olivier Vibert, Lawyer at the Paris Bar

Kbestan