Court of Cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber, 15 October 2025, No. 23-21.370 (dismissal).

The defence of professional interests cannot justify a collective call for a boycott. The French Union of Dental Surgeons (CDF) has been definitively sanctioned for anti-competitive practices. By encouraging its members to refuse to join healthcare networks such as Santéclair, the union exceeded the limits of freedom of association and committed an infringement of competition law.

The facts: a union against healthcare networks

This dispute originates from Decision No. 20-D-17 of the Competition Authority of 12 November 2020.

Between 2013 and 2017, the union Les Chirurgiens-Dentistes de France (CDF), formerly known as the Confédération nationale des syndicats dentaires (National Confederation of Dental Unions), ran an active campaign against dental care networks, particularly the Santéclair network.

The CDF called on dentists not to join these networks and to terminate their existing partnerships through various leaflets, press releases, manifestos, letters to practitioners and reports denouncing the ‘abuses’ of certain commercial platforms.

The Competition Authority considered this to be an anti-competitive agreement by object, imposing a fine of €680,000 and requiring publication in the press.

The CDF challenged the decision before the Paris Court of Appeal, invoking its freedom of association and freedom of expression, protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Does freedom of association allow for calls for boycotts?

The union argued that its positions were part of a militant discourse intended to defend professional ethics and protect patients against certain practices that it considered unethical: diversion of patients, breach of medical confidentiality, commercial incentives, economic dependence of practitioners, etc.

For the Court of Cassation, these considerations, even if based on an objective of general interest, cannot justify a restriction of competition.

It first refers to European case law:

« the action of a professional organisation must be regarded as an association of undertakings within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU where it seeks to obtain from its members that they adopt a particular course of conduct in the context of their economic activity (CJEU, judgment of 19 February 2002, Wouters et al., C-309/99) (…)« 

The Court of Cassation goes on to point out that, according to European case law, an agreement between undertakings or a decision by an association of undertakings which restricts the freedom of action of the undertakings party to that agreement is not necessarily punishable under Article 101(1) TFEU if two conditions are met:

– The agreement must pursue a legitimate objective of general interest

– The specific means used to pursue this objective must be genuinely necessary

– The restriction of competition must not go beyond what is necessary, in particular by eliminating all competition.

These conditions have been laid down in several decisions of the CJEU (rulings of 21 December 2023, European Superleague Company, C-333/21 and Royal Antwerp Football Club, C-680/21, and ruling of 4 October 2024, FIFA, C-650/22).

For the Court of Cassation, « this case law cannot be applied in the presence of conduct which, far from being limited to having the inherent “effect” of restricting, at least potentially, by limiting the freedom of action of certain undertakings, but which, in relation to that competition, are so harmful that they must be regarded as having the “object” of preventing, restricting or distorting competition. Indeed, the degree of harmfulness of such conduct to competition, and therefore the direct or indirect damage it is likely to cause to users and intermediate or final consumers in the various sectors or markets concerned, is too great for it to be considered justified and proportionate (CJEU, judgments cited above in European Superleague Company, paragraph 186; Em akaunt BG, paragraph 32, and FIFA, paragraph 150).« 

An association may therefore be penalised if it encourages its members to adopt a uniform attitude in a market, such as refusing to contract with a competing economic operator.

The solution: calling for a boycott is a punishable agreement

The Commercial Chamber rejected the union’s appeal and confirmed that its actions constituted an infringement of Articles 101 TFEU and L. 420-1 of the Commercial Code.

The Court highlighted several decisive factors:

• Healthcare networks are based on lawful partnerships, governed by the law of 27 January 2014, which was deemed to be in conformity with the Constitution.
• No professional regulatory authority had considered these partnerships to be contrary to the code of ethics for dental surgeons.
• The CDF’s publications went beyond a simple warning: they actively encouraged practitioners to terminate their contracts and patients not to use the networks.
• The union even put pressure on a supplier to dissuade it from collaborating with these platforms.

The Court therefore ruled that the CDF had exceeded its union mandate and that, by calling for a boycott, it had implemented an anti-competitive agreement through a decision by an association of undertakings.

In the Court of Cassation’s view, although the objective pursued was potentially legitimate, the actions taken by the CDF constituted an excessive and unnecessary infringement of competition.

The scope: a clarification of the limits of action by a professional organisation such as a trade union or professional association

This ruling serves as a reminder that freedom of association and freedom of expression, while protected by the Constitution, do not allow for interference with the free play of competition.

The defence of the interests of a profession cannot result in concerted action aimed at excluding or marginalising an economic player.

The Court of Cassation has adopted a rigorous approach, consistent with European case law. When a professional organisation directs the economic behaviour of its members, it acts as a collective enterprise, subject to competition law.

This solution reaffirms freedom of association while ensuring strict control of trade union actions that could undermine free competition.

Competition law therefore does indeed limit the actions of professional unions, which cannot obstruct the principles of free competition.

This control is important to prevent professional unions from using laudable principles as a cover to prohibit new players from entering the market or to undermine free competition through protectionism that is not strictly necessary.

Article written by Olivier VIBERT, partner at Kbestan a business law firm in Paris and Evreux.