Eau et Rivières de Bretagne and CLCV v. Monsanto and Scotts France

Reference :

D 08-87.757 F-D ; 0077476

Complaint date :

January 1, 2001

Status :

Final judgment

Place of jurisdiction :

France, Paris

Plaintiffs types :

Environmental NGOs, Consumer Protection Organizations

Plaintiffs names :

Eau & Rivières de Bretagne ; Consommation, Logement et Cadre de Vie (CLCV)

Defendants :

Monsanto, Scotts France, Company

Lawyers for Health and Environmental Justice :

Alexandre Faro, Jérome Franck

Case nature :

Criminal court

Type(s), Product(s), Active substance(s) :

Roundup, Herbicide, Glyphosate, AMPA

Requests :

Recognition of Monsanto's advertising of its Roundup product as misleading; 15.000€ from the company.

Name of the Court :

Court of Cassation of Paris, France

Jurisdiction level :

Decision date :

October 6, 2009

Decision nature :

Positive

Decision content :

The Court held that Monsanto had lied about the safety of Roundup in its advertising. The defendants have been fined € 15,000 for misleading advertising

Legal basis :

Court Ruling :

Link to the ruling

Summary :

On 6 October 2009, the French Supreme Court handed down a final verdict against Monsanto and Scotts France for false advertising, based on the terms used to promote Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide produced by Monsanto and distributed in France by Scotts France.

In 2001, the associations CVLC and Eau et Rivières de Bretagne filed a complaint accusing Monsanto and Scotts France of misleading advertising. The complainant associations based their case on a report by the French Directorate-General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control, and accused the companies concerned of promoting Roundup as a "biodegradable" plant protection product that "protects the environment" and leaves the "soil clean", despite numerous scientific studies denouncing the harmful effects of glyphosate on the environment.

On 26 January 2007, the Lyon Criminal Court fined both companies €15,000 for false advertising. The Lyon Court of Appeal upheld this decision, ruling that "a pesticide remains a chemical substance with harmful effects on the environment", that "Monsanto's presentation was misleading" and that "confusion" resulted from the promotional messages chosen by Monsanto regarding the real effects of the product on the environment. The two companies then appealed to the French Supreme Court.

On 6 October 2009, the Court of Cassation upheld the appeal judgement, ruling that the Court of Appeal had "without insufficiency or contradiction, responded to the peremptory heads of the conclusions before it and characterised in all its elements, both material and intentional, the offence of which it found the defendants guilty".

Scientific references :

No scientifice reference for this case.