French Duty of Vigilance: Litigation Tracker

At issue: Climate & environment
Status: Pending

In November 2023 and April 2024, formal notices were sent by Bloom and Foodwatch to Carrefour in relation to its tuna supply chain. The NGOs considered that Carrefour's tuna sourcing practices lead to significant health, environmental and human rights risks. Dialogue took place during two years between the NGOs and Carrefour but, according to the NGOs, it was unsuccessful.

In March 2025, the NGOs therefore decided to launch legal proceedings against Carrefour before the Paris first-level Court, on the ground of the French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law. Bloom and Foodwatch consider that Carrefour failed to uphold its legal duty of vigilance regarding its tuna supply chain.

The NGOs claim, in particular, that (i) Carrefour continues to source tuna from fishing methods that are environmentally harmful (overfishing and significant marine pollution) and that (ii) Carrefour failed to demonstrate that its tuna products are free from human rights abuses such as forced labour and exploitation.

At issue: Human rights
Status: Pending

On 27 June 2025, the association Jurists for the Respect of International Law (JURDI) filed a lawsuit against BNP Paribas before the Paris first-level Court, in relation to its obligations under the French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law.

JURDI's legal action is motivated by alleged violations of international humanitarian, criminal, and human rights law committed by the Israeli military in Palestine, particularly in Gaza. According to JURDI, BNP Paribas guaranteed an $8 billion bond issuance for the Israeli government and has supported Elbit Systems, a major weapons supplier to Israel.

In December 2024, JURDI sent a formal notice to BNP Paribas, requesting the bank to update its vigilance plan to reflect these alleged high-risk activities. BNP Paribas refused in March 2025.

As a consequence, JURDI launched legal proceedings and criticizes BNP Paribas for supporting the Israeli state and arms companies, without acknowledging these activities in its 2024 vigilance plan. JURDI requests the Court order BNP Paribas to comply with its obligations in relation to the duty of vigilance and to update its vigilance plan.

At issue: Human rights
Status: Decided

In February 2024, the CFDT and the CGDT (French union labours) launched legal proceedings against SNCF, requesting the judge order SNCF to revise its vigilance plan and comply with its obligations French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law provides for, in relation with the potential consequences of the dismantling of its freight subsidiary, Fret SNCF.

The unions labours argue that SNCF failed to adequately assess and address social and environmental risks, such as job losses and increased CO₂ emissions due to a potential shift from rail to road freight. The unions also put forward that SNCF's actions were inconsistent with France's national freight rail strategy and climate commitments.

In a ruling handed down on 13 February 2025, the Paris first-level Court dismissed union labour's claims against SNCF, especially by considering that the unions did not provide sufficiently detailed and concrete evidence to necessitate an update to SNCF's risk mapping.

This case is notable as it is the first decision on the merits handed down by the newly established chamber of the Paris first-level Court dedicated to corporate social responsibility and vigilance obligations.

At issue: Human rights
Status: pending

26 Ugandan citizens as well as French and Ugandan NGOs and Maxwell Atuhura (a human rights defender) issued proceedings on 27 June 2023 before the Paris first-level Court against TotalEnergies regarding its obligations under the French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law.

The claimants allege that they have suffered serious damages relating to their rights to land and food. They seek to hold TotalEnergies liable and request compensation for the human rights violations caused over the past 6 years in Uganda by TotalEnergies' Tilenga and EACOP projects. According to the claimants, their claim clearly demonstrates the causal link between the failures in the development and implementation of TotalEnergies' vigilance plan, on the one hand, and the damages they have suffered, on the other. They add that TotalEnergies failed to identify the risks of serious human rights abuses associated with its mega-oil projects, to act when TotalEnergies was alerted to their existence, and to implement corrective measures once the human rights violations had occurred.

At issue: Human rights
Status: pending

In October 2022, NGOs Comissão Pastoral da Terra and Notre Affaire à Tous sent BNP Paribas a formal notice regarding its financing of businesses allegedly responsible for the deforestation of Amazon and violations of human rights. According to the NGOs, BNP Paribas' vigilance plan is not adequate to prevent the violation of human rights and the deforestation.

BNP Paribas was sued by the NGOs before the Paris first-level Court in February 2023. The NGOs claim that BNP Paribas violated the French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law by providing financial services without adequate due diligence to corporations such as Marfrig, one of the world's largest producers of beef. The beef sector is the largest driver of deforestation in the Amazon. The claims relate to how BNP Paribas' plan is drafted and also to the fact that the plan does not identify the seizure of indigenous peoples' land, forced labour and methane emissions as risks of human rights violations.

The NGOs request the Court order BNP Paribas to comply with its obligations in relation to the duty of vigilance and to issue a new vigilance plan.

At issue: Human rights
Status: pending

Two individuals were tortured by Emirati forces at the Yemeni Balhaf gas liquefaction plant in 2018 and 2019. The plant is operated by Yemen LNG, a natural gas liquefaction company whose biggest shareholder is TotalEnergies. In 2022, Mena Rights Group sent TotalEnergies a formal notice to revise its vigilance plan by including the plant in its plan and to identify risks and prevent human rights violations related to the plant. TotalEnergies rejected the allegations by arguing that it does not control the site operator Yemen LNG.

Further to the formal notice, Mena Rights Group (acting on behalf of the victims) sued TotalEnergies before the Paris first-level Court in February 2023. Mena Rights Group request the Court order TotalEnergies to include the plant in its upcoming vigilance plans and to take the necessary measures to prevent the recurrence of  human rights abuses as well as to grant compensation to both individuals.

At issue: Environment
Status: pending

In September 2022, three NGOs (Zero Waste France, ClientEarth and Surfrider Foundation Europe) sent a formal notice to Danone claiming that Danone failed to comply with its obligations under the French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law and alleging that Danone does not adequately address the risks in relation to the plastic pollution it produces.

Further to the formal notice, the NGOs sued Danone in January 2023 and they claim that Danone's vigilance plan is "silent" on the plastic issue whereas they expect a complete assessment of Danone's plastic use. The NGOs request the judge order Danone to map the impacts its use of plastics has on the environment, climate, health and human rights from production to end-of-life, as well as to provide a complete assessment of its plastic footprint.

On 18 September 2023, the claimants and Danone announced agree to enter into a mediation procedure ordered by the Court.

At issue: Climate
Status: pending

In October 2022, three NGOs (Oxfam, Friends of the Earth and Notre Affaire à Tous) sent a formal notice to BNP Paribas which detailed that BNP Paribas vigilance plan did not comply with the bank's obligations to limit the climate risks resulting from its activities. In their formal notice, NGOs notably criticised BNP Paribas for financing new oil and gas projects and the companies planning to develop such projects.

In February 2023, the NGOs sued BNP Paribas over its massive support to fossil fuels and for its substantial contribution to climate change. The NGOs allege the bank's loans to big oil and gas companies breach the bank duty, under the Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law, to ensure its activities do not harm the environment.

This is the world's first climate lawsuit against a commercial bank.

At issue: Human rights
Status: decided (subject to appeal)

On 23 March 2022, two NGOs as well as one Turkish union labour and 34 workers sued Yves Rocher (French cosmetics company) on the ground of the French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law. They claim that Yves Rocher failed to comply with its obligations issued by the law in relation to freedom of association and workers' fundamental rights. It follows from the summons that Yves Rocher's Turkish subsidiary, between March and September 2018, dismissed over 130 of its employees, most of them women, while their working conditions were deplorable.

The claimants request the Court order Yves Rocher to take appropriate preventive measures regarding the risks to workers' fundamental rights caused by the activities of its Turkish subsidiary, and to pay compensation for the damage suffered by employees and the union labour as a result of this lack of vigilance.

The Paris first-level Court handed down its decision on 12 March 2026, which is subject to appeal.

The Court firstly ruled that the French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law applies whenever a breach is committed by a French parent company subject to this law, regardless of where the damage occurs. Consequently, a French parent company cannot rely on the local law of its subsidiary to evade its vigilance obligations. The Court also ruled that Yves Rocher’s 2017 and 2018 vigilance plans did not cover the group’s subsidiaries, focusing only on suppliers and risky purchases. The Court therefore sentenced the Yves Rocher, for acts committed by its subsidiary, to pay €8,000 to each former employee and €40,000 to the union labour.

This ruling of 12 March 2026 is the first conviction on the merits of a parent company for failing to prevent the misconduct of one of its subsidiaries.

At issue: Human rights
Status: decided

In April 2021, Data Rights and their Kenyan partner organisations (the Kenya Human Rights Commission and the Nubian Rights Forum) sent Idemia a formal notice to revise its vigilance plan by identifying and addressing human rights risks related to its provision of a technology to capture the population's biometric data in Kenya.

On 29 July 2022, Idemia was sued by the claimants before the Paris first-level Court. They are requesting the Court order Idemia to adequately assess the risks inherent in Information Technology System (ITS) products and design appropriate mitigating measures.

On 24 July 2023, after discussions, the claimants and Idemia have agreed on amendments to Idemia's vigilance plan.

At issue: Environment
Status: Decided

The inhabitants of Osorno (Chile) were deprived of water for ten days in June 2019 due to the contamination of the drinking-water supply following an operational incident at a treatment plant controlled by Suez. In this context, four NGOs sent Suez a formal notice to comply with its obligations under the French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law and to take the necessary measures to respond to repeated failures in its provision of the drinking-water.

In July 2021, the NGOs decided to launch a legal action against Suez before the Paris first-level Court. The NGOs consider that Suez, as part of its due diligence obligations, has to take the necessary measures, to be incorporated in its vigilance plan, to prevent further health crises in Chile due to the negligent behaviour of its subsidiaries.

The Court ruled on 01 July 2023 that NGOs claims were inadmissible for procedural reasons. Further to the appeal the NGOs lodged, the Paris Court of Appeal confirmed on 18 June 2024 the first-level decision.

At issue: Human rights
Status: Decided

Since 2020, Sud PTT (a French union labour) sent La Poste (French post) several formal notices to revise its vigilance plan and comply with its obligations French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law provides for. In particular, the union labour considers that La Poste failed to include in its vigilance plan a mapping of the risks and serious violations on human rights, fundamental freedoms, health and safety due its activities.

La Poste rejected the allegations and in December 2021, La Poste was sued before the Paris first-level Court by the labour union. The proceedings are about breaches of duty of vigilance by La Poste, as a parent company, which must take appropriate actions against the alleged abuses, even if they take place via the subcontractor's temp agency.

The Paris first-level Court handed down its ruling on 05 December 2023. It is the first decision on the merits in France. The Court ordered La Poste to: (i) amend its vigilance plan by including a risk map designed to identify, analyse and prioritise La Poste's risks activities; (ii) implement procedures for assessing subcontractors based on the risks identified under the risk map; (iii) amend its vigilance plan by including an alert mechanism after having collaborate with the relevant stakeholders; and (iv) publish an appropriate system for monitoring vigilance measures.

On 17 June 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the first-level decision.

At issue: Environment and Human rights
Status: pending

In September 2020, an international coalition of eleven NGOs sent Casino (French supermarket chain) a formal notice to comply with its obligations under the French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law by adopting appropriate measures to prevent and mitigate the risks of serious attacks on human rights, fundamental freedoms, human health and safety and the environment due to Casino's involvement in the cattle-industry causing deforestation in Brazil and Colombia. Casino responded in the nutshell that the measures requested would be unreasonable.

Following this formal notice, the claimants sued Casino and request the judge order Casino on the one hand to establish, implement and publish a detailed vigilance plan identifying risks caused by the activities of the group, and on the other hand based on a lack of vigilance, to compensate Brazilian indigenous communities for the loss of opportunity and moral damage.

At issue: Climate
Status: pending

In June 2019, four French NGOs along with more than a dozen French local governments sent TotalEnergies a formal notice to revise its vigilance plan by including adequate GHG emissions reductions targets as, according to the claimants, Total's vigilance plan did not mention the risks associated with climate change resulting from the overall increase in greenhouse gas emission from TotalEnergies' activities.

Further to this formal notice, the claimants launched legal proceedings against TotalEnergies requesting the judge order TotalEnergies to recognize the risks generated by its business activities and to make it conduct consistent with the goal of the Paris Climate Agreement limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

On 06 July 2023, the Paris first-level Court ruled plaintiff's claims inadmissible for procedural reasons and also refused to examine the consequences of TotalEnergies' activities on climate change.

The plaintiffs lodged an appeal and the case went before the new chamber recently created at the Paris Court of Appeal which is entirely dedicated to "emerging" disputes related to the French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law. On 18 June 2024, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled admissible the claims brought against TotalEnergies. Now the case will go on the merits.

At issue: Human rights
Status: pending

In September 2019, ProDESC (Mexican NGO) and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) sent EDF a formal notice to revise its vigilance plan regarding its Gunaa Sicarú wind farm project. According to ProDESC and the ECCHR, EDF's 2019 vigilance plan did not consider the risks related to the wind farm project which would have led to violations of indigenous communities rights. EDF rejected the allegations.

As a consequence, in October 2020, ProDESC and the ECCHR sued EDF before the Paris first-level Court. They claim that EDF did not take any specific action to analyze, prioritize and remediate the risks in relation with the project. ProDESC and the ECCHR also put forward that EDF failed to consult and obtain the informed consent of indigenous communities affected by the construction of the wind farm.

On 30 November 2021, the Paris first-level Court ruled plaintiff's claims inadmissible for procedural reasons. The plaintiffs lodged an appeal and the case went before the new chamber recently created at the Paris Court of Appeal which is entirely dedicated to "emerging" disputes related to the French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law. On 18 June 2024, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled admissible the claims brought against EDF. Now the case will go on the merits.

At issue: Climate and Human rights
Status: decided

In June 2019, six NGOs sent TotalEnergies a formal notice to revise its 2019 vigilance plan as part of its oil project in Uganda and Tanzania, along with a report detailing alleged inadequacies in the vigilance plan. The NGOs consider that TotalEnergies failed to adequately assess the project's threats to human rights and the environment. TotalEnergies rejected the allegations.

Following the formal notice, in October 2019, the NGOs sued TotalEnergies by requesting the judge order TotalEnergies to take urgent action to prevent the unlawful disturbance resulting TotalEnergies' failure to comply with its vigilance obligations.

On 28 February 2023, the Paris first-level Court handed down its decision by ruling that NGOs claims were inadmissible for procedural reason: claims formulated in the formal notice of 2019 differed too much from those raised in the last submissions of the NGOs and oral pleadings.