Expansion of Class Action Rights for Workers: A New Era in French Employment Law?

The Late Emergence of Class Actions in French Labor Law

For decades, the concept of class actions—widely popular in the United States—remained a distant concept in the French legal landscape. The so-called Hamon Law opened the door to class actions, initially in the field of consumer protection. Gradually, the scope expanded to banking, real estate, health, environmental matters, and data protection.

In the realm of employment law, class actions remained conspicuously absent. The only exception was the ability of trade unions to act in the collective interest of a profession—a mechanism that fell short of the true class-action model. It was not until the Law for the Modernization of Justice, enacted on November 18, 2016, that class actions made their first, limited appearance in the labor law landscape. However, these initial steps were hampered by significant restrictions: only cases involving discrimination could be handled as class actions; only certain associations or trade union organizations (i.e., meeting strict criteria) were empowered to initiate such class actions; and only prejudice suffered by the claimants after the law’s entry into force could be indemnified.

What Was the Result?

Between 2016 and 2022, only four class actions were recorded by the French National Assembly—none of which was successful. This stands in stark contrast with the United States, where, according to the 2024 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey, labor-related class actions number in the thousands and have increased in recent years.
A true turning point arrived with the transposition of the European Directive 2020/1828 on representative actions for the protection of consumers’ collective interests into French law through the Act of April 30, 2025 (the “DDADUE” law). This reform promises to reshape the landscape of class actions in French labor law.

The Four Pillars of the Class Action Reform

The new law introduces four key changes.

1. Broader Range of Eligible Disputes

Perhaps the most significant innovation of the DDADUE law is the expansion of the types of disputes that can be addressed through class actions. No longer limited to discrimination, class actions can now be brought to stop any breach of obligations by the employer and/or to seek compensation for prejudice caused by such a breach to multiple workers under the employer’s authority. In practical terms, this means that almost any kind of collective grievance in the workplace can now be addressed through a class action.

2. Wider Standing to Sue

The reform also broadens the range of organizations eligible to initiate class actions:

• Authorized associations that have existed for at least 12 months (versus five years previously), provided they meet independence criteria and their objective is the defense of relevant interests.
• Non-authorized associations may act solely to end employer breaches, provided they have been active in the relevant field for at least 24 consecutive months.
• Representative trade unions in the company or the industry, or at a national level, retain their right to act, as long as they meet statutory representativeness requirements.

3. Expanded Scope of Compensable Prejudice

With the new law, the prohibition on claiming prejudice suffered before the law’s entry into force has ended. Workers can seek compensation for prejudice predating the reform, subject to applicable statutes of limitation.

4. Mandatory Attempt at Amicable Resolution

To limit litigation actions, the law requires that claimants first give the employers the opportunity to remedy an alleged breach. Employers are compelled in such cases to involve the employee representatives’ bodies.

A class action can be launched only if the employer expressly rejects the request or takes no action for six months.

What’s at Stake for Employers in France?

This reform gives legal recognition to a practice that has already existed in some form; indeed, employees were already used to grouping together to bring common claims before the same labor tribunal—typically in the context of company restructurings. The new law is likely to encourage—and hence amplify—this collective approach, especially where individual claims might not have been pursued because of low financial stakes.

The effect of this new class action is potentially contradictory: on the one hand, it will encourage social dialogue, which should consequently drastically reinforce the unions’ influence; on the other, it will adversely impact the employer’s freedom to run its business. The recalibration of the traditional balance of power between employers and employee representatives is expected to usher in a new era where collective interests will be more robustly defended, and social dialogue will become even more pivotal.

Conclusion

This reform is expected to mark a significant milestone in French labor law. It should prompt employers to audit and, if necessary, adjust their employment practices, including in areas where individual risks may seem minor.