Publication – Payment Fraud: Two New Case Law Commentaries in the Gazette du Palais
Étienne Gastebled and Anne-Gaëlle Le Merlus, partners at the law firm LUSSAN, have published two commentaries in Issue 28 of the Gazette du Palais (September 15, 2026) on rulings handed down by the Commercial Chamber of the Court of Cassation on July 1, 2026, regarding payment fraud:
Fraudes aux moyens de paiement : de nouvelles précisions de la Cour de cassation sur les notions d’opérations autorisées, non autorisées ou mal exécutées [French]
and :
Fraudes aux moyens de paiement : précision de la Cour de cassation sur les notions d’opérations autorisées, non autorisées ou mal exécutées (suite) [French]
These decisions provide important clarifications on several issues at the heart of contemporary banking litigation, in a context marked by a rise in fraud and the constant evolution of the regulatory framework applicable to payment services.
The first commentary focuses on Judgment No. 25-13.134, in which the Court of Cassation reiterates that merely demonstrating that the payment instrument was used in accordance with the agreed terms is not necessarily sufficient to establish the payer’s consent to the disputed transaction. This decision raises important questions regarding the burden of proof on payment service providers and the scope to be attributed to strong authentication mechanisms.
The second commentary focuses on Judgment No. 25-15.283 concerning fraud involving the substitution of bank account information. In this judgment, the Court of Cassation confirms that the bank cannot be held liable when it has executed the payment order in accordance with the unique identifier provided by the customer, even when the customer has been the victim of fraud.
These two decisions illustrate the tensions currently present in payment services law between user protection, transaction security, and the liability of banking institutions.
Through their comparative analysis of these rulings, the authors revisit the concepts of the payer’s consent, authentication, unique identifier, and burden of proof, as well as the practical implications of this case law for stakeholders in the banking sector.
We thank the Gazette du Palais, as well as Guillaume Valdelièvre and Antonin Pitras, for this publication.
References:
- Cass. com., July 1, 2026, No. 25-13.134
- Cass. com., July 1, 2026, No. 25-15.283