Business litigation lawyers in Paris

Influencer, content creator, artist, label, influencer marketing or communications agency, audiovisual producer, SaaS publisher, startup founder or company director, we represent you as claimant and as defendant, before the civil and commercial courts, with the same demand for precise submissions and clear strategy.

We act on both sides of these relationships, which gives us a realistic reading of the strengths and weaknesses of every case.

Before acting, we secure the evidence.

Judicial officer reports on posts, stories, videos and online reviews, preservation of content and accounts, collection of royalty statements and exploitation data, then, where needed, an investigative measure ordered before any trial under Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure to identify the author of anonymous content or obtain documents held by the opposing party.

We then choose the most effective procedural route: summary proceedings, ex parte application, action on the merits or negotiation.

Obtaining a decision is not enough; it must be enforced. We implement enforcement measures, penalty payments, attachment of receivables, protective seizure, and we follow up removal orders with platforms and hosting providers, including where they are established abroad. Our Brussels presence allows us to support enforcement in a French-Belgian and European framework.

Exiting an agency or agent contract, challenging an exclusivity or non-compete clause, unpaid remuneration from a brand or agency, reclassification of a collaboration, disputes with a brand over performance or reuse of a campaign, content takedowns, suspension or restriction of an Instagram, TikTok, YouTube or Twitch account, demonetisation, Content ID claims, identity theft, online reputation attacks, DGCCRF inspections or injunctions.

We represent creators and YouTubers before the civil and commercial courts, with systematic coordination with press litigation where the harm continues online.

Commercial influence contracts must be in writing on pain of nullity and must contain mandatory particulars (Article 8 of Act no. 2023-451 of 9 June 2023), which weighs in any dispute between a creator and their agency or brand.

Unpaid brand invoices, abrupt termination of an established relationship with a brand, wrongful termination or departure of a talent during an exclusivity period, poaching of creators, disputes over commissions, disputes with platforms and media buyers, joint liability with the creator towards third parties, campaigns challenged by a brand or by a public authority.

We defend agencies in their relations with talent and with brands, before the Paris Economic Activities Court for disputes between companies and before the Judicial Court where the creator is an individual.

Disputed royalty statements, accounting obligations, termination of an artist or phonographic production contract, restitution or blocking of masters, disputes with a digital distributor over streaming revenue, music publishing or rights assignment disputes, disputes between co-producers or with a beatmaker, disagreements with a manager, disputes with collecting societies (SACEM, SPPF, SCPP, ADAMI, SPEDIDAM), sample or composition infringement.

Our music law and artists' rights practice brings these disputes before the Judicial Court, which has jurisdiction over literary and artistic property, and before arbitral tribunals where the contract so provides.

We maintain the distinction between the master, covered by the producer's neighbouring rights (Article L.213-1 of the Intellectual Property Code), and the work, covered by copyright, and we check the validity of every performer authorisation, which must be in writing (Article L.212-3 of the same code).

Production and co-production disputes, challenges to rights assignments or revenue sharing, disagreements with broadcasters, video-on-demand platforms and distributors, claims by authors and performers, image rights of participants in a programme, of a contributor or of a person filmed without authorisation, exploitation of images beyond the consent given.

The audiovisual production contract carries a presumption of assignment of exclusive exploitation rights to the producer, unless otherwise agreed (Article L.132-24 of the Intellectual Property Code), and authorisation to exploit a person's image must be express, specific and limited.

Our audiovisual law team runs these cases relying on infringement seizure (Article L.332-1 of the same code) and on pre-trial investigative measures, in summary proceedings and on the merits.

SaaS and cloud disputes, non-compliant IT services, refusal of acceptance, scope creep, data reversibility, supplier disagreements, disputes relating to artificial intelligence and personal data, shareholder disputes before or after a funding round, cybersecurity disputes, Web3 and crypto-asset disputes, suspension of a service by a platform.

Our digital DNA allows us to put technical evidence before the court and to obtain protective measures suited to the pace of the sector, including through expedited short-notice summary proceedings.

Shareholder conflicts, enforcement of a shareholders' agreement, removal of a director, calling on a warranty of assets and liabilities after a sale, abrupt termination of an established commercial relationship, post-funding disputes, attacks on an executive's reputation.

We defend executives, founders and companies before the Economic Activities Court and the Judicial Court, from summary proceedings to enforcement, aligning litigation strategy with governance and valuation issues.

Unpaid invoices from brands or clients, breach of a service, production or distribution contract, abrupt termination of an established commercial relationship between an agency and a brand or between a label and a distributor, shareholder conflicts.

We defend your interests before the Economic Activities Court and the Judicial Court, from the formal notice to enforcement.

Trademarks, copyright, neighbouring rights of performers and producers, designs, software.

We bring and defend infringement and unfair competition or free-riding actions, notably where a sample, a format, a visual, a stage name or a brand identity has been reproduced, relying on infringement seizure to establish proof of the acts and on the statutory criteria for assessing damage (Article L.331-1-3 of the Intellectual Property Code).

Defamation, disparagement, fake reviews, invasion of privacy and breach of image rights, identity theft, delisting, cyberharassment of a creator or an executive.

We act to have unlawful content removed, to identify its authors and to obtain compensation, in summary proceedings and on the merits, favouring the civil route whenever it is available. See our analysis on how to remove a fake Google review.

Where urgency requires it, summary proceedings allow rapid cessation of a manifestly unlawful disturbance or an interim payment, under Article 835 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the President of the Judicial Court or Article 873 of the same code before the President of the Economic Activities Court, without waiting for judgment on the merits.

In cases of extreme urgency, expedited short-notice proceedings allow a hearing within days (Article 485 of the same code).

Not every dispute is meant to end at a hearing. Negotiation, mediation and settlement agreements often allow a faster and more controlled outcome, notably to organise the exit from an agency or artist contract, the return of a catalogue or the sharing of a programme's revenue. Once the decision is handed down, we ensure it is effectively enforced.

An influencer campaign delivered and unpaid, a production service invoiced and unpaid, royalties or commissions withheld, an instalment plan not honoured.

The formal notice (Article 1344 of the Civil Code) starts default interest running, an injunction to pay or a référé-provision secures a title quickly where the claim is not seriously contestable (Article 835 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Judicial Court, Article 873 before the Economic Activities Court), protective seizure safeguards recovery where it is at risk (Article L.511-1 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures), and enforcement measures secure effective payment.

Between professionals, the flat-rate recovery indemnity of 40 euros and late payment penalties are due as of right, without reminder (Article L.441-10 of the Commercial Code).

Ending an ongoing commercial relationship without sufficient written notice, even partially, engages the liability of the party responsible (Article L.442-1, II, of the Commercial Code). The provision now also covers a substantial reduction in order volumes liable to upset the balance of the relationship.

A brand that suddenly stops entrusting its campaigns to an agency, a distributor that interrupts a multi-year collaboration with a label, a platform that ends a commercial partnership without notice, are all situations where this provision applies.

Loss is calculated on the margin lost during the notice period that should have been given, and liability cannot be engaged for insufficient duration once an 18-month notice period has been observed. This litigation falls within specialised courts and often combines with unfair competition or disparagement.

Termination without notice remains possible where the other party fails to perform its obligations, which makes documenting those failures essential before any termination.

Suspension or restriction of a professional account, demonetisation of a channel, removal of content following an abusive notice, delisting of a shop, termination of a digital distribution contract, withholding of streaming revenue.

Where the opposing party is a platform, we rely on Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, known as Platform to Business, breach of which engages the liability of the intermediation service (Article L.442-1, III, of the Commercial Code), on the internal complaint and out-of-court dispute settlement procedures provided for by Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 on digital services, then, if necessary, on summary or expedited merits proceedings before the President of the Judicial Court (Article 6-3 of Act no. 2004-575 of 21 June 2004). Knowingly reporting content as unlawful when it is not is a criminal offence (Article 6, VII, of the same Act).

Termination may result from a termination clause, from unilateral notification at the creditor's risk after formal notice (Article 1226 of the Civil Code) or from a court decision. In an artist or influencer contract, judicial termination is often the only safe route out of an exclusivity, since unilateral termination exposes the party giving notice to having to prove the seriousness of the breach.

Compensation covers the loss foreseeable at the date of conclusion, absent gross or fraudulent fault (Article 1231-3 of the same code). We secure the chronology of formal notices and notifications, which is often decisive at the hearing.

The penalty clause, common in agency and influencer contracts, may be reduced or increased by the court where its amount is manifestly excessive or derisory (Article 1231-5 of the Civil Code). The limitation of liability clause, common in SaaS contracts, is deemed unwritten where it deprives the debtor's essential obligation of its substance (Article 1170 of the same code). Exclusivity and non-compete clauses imposed on a creator or an artist are assessed by reference to their duration, scope and consideration.

As for the jurisdiction or arbitration clause, it determines the competent court and must be checked before any writ is issued, as must the formal requirements specific to commercial influence contracts, where the absence of a written contract or of mandatory particulars renders it void (Article 8 of Act no. 2023-451 of 9 June 2023).

Service levels not met, scope creep, refusal of acceptance, data reversibility at the end of the contract, software licence, bespoke development or artificial intelligence disputes, outages or data loss.

These cases require technical evidence to be put before the court, where needed through an official report, private expert analysis or court-appointed expert analysis (Articles 232 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure). This is at the heart of our digital law practice.

Summary proceedings are the tool of urgency. The judge may order, even where there is a serious dispute, the protective or restorative measures required to prevent imminent damage or to stop a manifestly unlawful disturbance, and may grant an interim payment where the obligation is not seriously contestable.

An action on the merits seeks a final decision on the right in dispute, carrying res judicata. It is required where the dispute is serious or where the measure sought exceeds the powers of the summary proceedings judge, as is the case for terminating a contract, awarding final damages or establishing infringement.

Review of the file and the contracts, assessment of whether to act, choice of court and procedural route, cost-benefit calculation before any commitment.

Judicial officer report on online content and accounts, preservation of posts and royalty statements, technical expert analysis, pre-trial investigative measure and infringement seizure.

Summary proceedings, ex parte application, action on the merits, written submissions, oral argument and appeals, including cassation.

Penalty payments, enforcement measures, follow-up of removal orders with platforms and effective recovery of what has been awarded.

We draft daily the agency, influencer, artist, production and distribution contracts that we later litigate, which allows us to read a dispute through the eyes of the person who built it. We know the platforms, their internal procedures and their contacts, as well as the collecting societies and the practices of each sector.

Our dual presence allows us to plead before the Paris courts and to support Belgian and cross-border proceedings, anticipating from the outset questions of jurisdiction, applicable law and enforcement of decisions within the European Union (Regulation (EU) no. 1215/2012, known as Brussels I bis).

Every file is handled with the same discipline. Opportunity audit, securing of evidence, reasoned choice of procedural route, then effective enforcement. No action is started without a costed risk-benefit analysis, and the amicable route is proposed whenever it serves your interests better than a trial.

Every enquiry receives an initial analysis within 24 working hours. Financial terms, fixed fee, hourly fee, additional success fee, are set out in writing in a fee agreement signed before any work begins, in accordance with Article 10 of Act no. 71-1130 of 31 December 1971, which prohibits any fee based solely on the outcome and permits an additional success fee.