In a ruling handed down on 12 February 2016, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled that the jurisdiction clause in Facebook's general terms and conditions of use, which gives jurisdiction to the courts of the State of California (US), constitutes an unfair term.
The Court of Appeal held that :
- the Internet user who sued Facebook to have his account reactivated is a consumer
- Facebook is a professional, although its service is free to the user, since it makes significant profits from its services, particularly through advertising.
It therefore relied on the Consumer Code to rule that :
"the jurisdiction clause in favour of the Californian courts contained in the contract has the effect of creating, to the detriment of the non-professional or the consumer, a significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract; it also has the effect of creating a serious obstacle for a French user to take legal action".
The jurisdiction clause is therefore deemed null and void and the determination of the competent court is based on the applicable legislation, in this case the European Regulation of 22 December 2000, which states that a consumer may bring an action before the court of the place where he is domiciled.
As a result, the Tribunal de Grande Instance has jurisdiction over the dispute between Facebook and an Internet user domiciled in Paris.
The Court of Appeal thus confirms theorder of the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris dated 5 March 2015.
French 
English