Accessibility: Caen condemns, Lille dismisses — the case law is split, and no one says so

The two decisions

Within a few weeks, two French tribunaux judiciaires (civil courts) ruled in opposite directions on the accessibility of online-commerce sites, on the same basis — article L. 412-13 of the code de la consommation (French Consumer Code). The press remembered Caen; almost no one set the two decisions side by side.

TJ Caen, ordonnance de référé (interim order) of 4 June 2026 — apiDV and Droit Pluriel (with the support of Intérêt à Agir) v. Carrefour France, on the basis of article L. 412-13 of the code de la consommation (opens in new tab) (French Consumer Code): remediation of carrefour.fr and the mobile application ordered within six months, under an astreinte (daily penalty) of €500 per day of delay, plus €10,000 in damages. The 71% conformity rate Carrefour argued was set aside.

TJ Lille, 5 May 2026 — the same associations dismissed against Auchan's e-commerce subsidiary, on a threshold question; on appeal before the cour d'appel de Douai (Douai Court of Appeal). The case law is split: no position is taken here.

What Caen actually set aside

Carrefour did not contest its obligation. Its defence rested on a number: a 71% conformity rate, measured on its own scope. The judge set it aside in one sentence, and that is the sentence to keep:

“the e-commerce site concerned cannot be only a little accessible — it must be so entirely”

TJ Caen, ordonnance de référé of 4 June 2026

That is the operative point of the decision. A partial audit report, even a quantified one, is not a defence. The applicable referential — RGAA 4.1.2 (France's accessibility referential, 106 criteria) — is read criterion by criterion, as met or not met; it does not aggregate into a percentage that would buy a discharge. A site that is “71% accessible” remains, for the other 29%, a site part of its users cannot use.

Lille, the other way — and the Douai appeal

Five weeks earlier, the Tribunal judiciaire de Lille had dismissed the same associations against Auchan's e-commerce subsidiary, on a threshold question. That case is on appeal before the cour d'appel de Douai (Douai Court of Appeal). No line is therefore fixed: two trial courts, two readings, an appeal open. Saying otherwise — “the courts have ruled”, either way — is untrue as of today. The legal characterisation of your situation is for your counsel, not for a watch note.

The arithmetic, without the superlatives

Put the amounts side by side. At the six-month deadline, the astreinte (daily penalty) ordered in Caen runs at €500 per day of delay. Against it, the fifth-class petty fine set by article R. 451-4 of the code de la consommation — created by décret n° 2023-931 of 9 October 2023 (opens in new tab) — caps at €7,500 for a legal person. The observation is factual, with no appeal to urgency: in France today it is the judicial route, through the astreinte, that carries the financial exposure — not the administrative one.

What it changes for engineering

One lesson fits on a line. A conformity percentage is not a defensible deliverable; what is, is a list of numbered non-conformities, each tied to a named criterion, sampled across identified templates, dated, and closed by traceable fixes. The difference is not cosmetic: “the site is 71% accessible” does not hold up, “here are the remaining gaps, their criterion and the fix for each” does. It is the form a judge can read, and a publisher can sign.