A litigation funder receives cases, studies them one by one and funds some of them. This model works, but each new case costs as much to study as the last. To grow, the funder has to hire in line with its volume. We believe that in France, the change of scale in litigation funding will come through technology. Hello Justice was built on that conviction.

The limit of case-by-case funding.

In this model, the constraint is analysis more than capital. Each case received takes hours of legal and financial analysis, whether it is funded or not. Many cases received without prior screening are not funded.

The cost of the rejected cases then weighs on the funded ones, and it grows with volume. Doubling the activity means doubling the team. The business remains a services business.

Detection through data.

Hello Justice looks for cases first where they leave traces, in public sources. France has been putting its court decisions online since 2021, in stages and in pseudonymised form. We describe this in our article on court decision open data.

Vigie™, our proprietary litigation detection algorithm, reads these decisions. It spots the legal questions that recur and flags possible series from their first decisions. A case found through data costs less to find than a case sorted by hand. It also arrives earlier, when the series is starting.

Preparing cases online.

An online journey then organises the preparation of each case. It asks the decisive questions first, then lists the documents specific to the dispute. At each step, the client’s space shows the documents received and those still to be provided.

The file reaches the analysis complete and in order, and email exchanges shrink. The legal analysis does not change. Specialised partner lawyers analyse the eligibility of each case. They look at the characteristics of the dispute, limitation (the time limit for bringing a claim), the completeness of the documents and the reasonable chances of success. Technology reduces the cost and time of everything around that analysis.

Monitoring the portfolio.

Hello Justice follows more than 500 live cases, engaged since 2024. Each one has its procedural stage, deadlines, documents and lawyer. A new decision can change the reading of many similar cases.

A monitoring platform keeps this information up to date, case by case, through to judgment and collection. Reports to the fund’s investors draw on this data.

What stays human.

Funding decisions are still taken by people. The legal analysis remains that of the specialised partner lawyers. The litigation strategy belongs to the client’s lawyer, and the terms of each case are those of the signed agreement.

The law also governs how court decisions are used. People are pseudonymised in them. Article L. 111-13 of the French Code of Judicial Organisation prohibits reusing judges’ identities to assess or predict their practices. Our analyses are therefore made by court, never by judge.

What volume teaches.

Every case handled leaves something useful behind: standard documents, sharper qualification questions, durations observed court by court, documented reasons for failure. As a result, the next case is analysed faster and selected more finely.

Why France lends itself to this.

Several conditions make this model possible in France. Court decisions are published online, which allows detection through data. The legal framework has existed since 2025, with article 16 of the law of 30 April 2025 and the decree of 10 December 2025. We analyse it in a dedicated article.

The large listed funders target bigger cases. Burford Capital, for example, takes on cases of at least $5 million. Hello Justice focuses on disputes with €100,000 to €1m at stake.

This organisation is in place. Vigie spots the series, the platform prepares and monitors the cases, specialised partner lawyers analyse each case, and then the client’s lawyer argues it. The Hello Justice Capital 1 fund, managed by Hello Justice SAS, funds the cases that are accepted. Our method is described on the method page, and the algorithm on the Vigie page.

A bank offers the same loan terms to all its customers. An insurer applies the same general conditions to everyone it covers. If one of those clauses is open to challenge, it is open to challenge in every contract signed, and the same dispute recurs for a large number of people. Taken alone, each loss rarely justifies the cost of a lawsuit. Handling the cases as a series spreads that cost across them, while each case stays individual.

Why series exist.

Large businesses work with standard contracts and standardised procedures. This standardisation is an economic necessity. It has a legal consequence: a design error is reproduced identically in every contract concerned.

Every customer then suffers the same breach. Many do not act, because their loss is smaller than the cost of proceedings.

Handling the cases as a series changes that calculation. The legal analysis, the model pleadings and the list of documents serve every case in the series. The cost of each case falls, and each client keeps their own file.

The conditions for a series.

Before opening a series, we check that the law is sound, that many people are affected, that the claim is not time-barred and that the defendant can pay. These checks concern the series. No individual litigant is rated.

A common breach.

The same contract, the same clause or the same practice must appear from one case to the next. This common basis allows the analysis and the pleadings to be shared across cases.

Identifiable people.

The people affected must be identifiable and reachable. A series whose members cannot be contacted remains theoretical.

A loss that can be quantified.

Each loss is calculated case by case, from the client’s documents. That calculation supports the claim put to the judge.

A solvent defendant.

Hello Justice checks at the outset that the defendant will be able to pay a judgment. This analysis comes before any proceedings.

Detection.

Detection starts from public sources: published court decisions, regulators’ sanctions, legal notices. Vigie™, our proprietary litigation detection algorithm, reads these sources. It flags the legal questions that recur and the groups of people they affect. We describe this work in our article on court decision open data. At this stage, a series is still a hypothesis.

Legal analysis.

A specialised partner lawyer then analyses the legal basis, the state of the case law and limitation (the time limit for bringing a claim). The review also covers the documents needed and the reasonable chances of success. This analysis rules out candidate series: a fragile legal basis, unfavourable case law, people who cannot be found, an insolvent defendant. Not every series detected becomes a programme.

Informing the people affected.

The people affected often do not know their rights. They must be informed, then given a way to check their situation and gather their documents. An online journey asks the relevant questions and lists the documents specific to the dispute.

The first case in a series takes the most work. The following ones benefit from standard documents, pleadings already drafted and the experience gained. Each case is still analysed individually by a specialised partner lawyer, and not every case is accepted.

The proceedings and their outcome.

Each client’s lawyer then runs the proceedings: hearing, decision, possible appeal, enforcement. Outcomes come at different times, case by case. Monitoring must show where each case stands and what a new decision changes for the others.

Series and class actions.

The class action is a legal procedure, reformed by the law of 30 April 2025. In it, an association or entity acts on behalf of a group. We explain it in a dedicated article.

A series funded by Hello Justice works differently. Each client has their own file, agreement, lawyer, judgment and compensation, calculated on their own loss. The two routes can coexist for the same breach.

The example of Swiss franc loans.

The Swiss franc loan programme follows these steps. On 9 July 2025, the Cour de cassation published two rulings on these loans, recent case law, liable to change. The programme covers loans taken out between 2002 and 2015. We estimate the number of eligible cases at around 50,000. The average loss is estimated at around €180,000, and each loss is calculated case by case.

An online journey guides borrowers through checking their situation and filing their documents. Specialised partner lawyers analyse each case. Our method is described on the method page.

Litigation funders often present their assets as uncorrelated with the markets. The outcome of a case depends on the evidence, the applicable law and the solvency of the defendant, whatever the stock market does. This independence has limits, however, and an investor should know them before subscribing.

What “uncorrelated” means.

Most investments in a portfolio depend partly on the same factors: interest rates, growth, market liquidity. When these factors turn, equities, bonds and real estate can fall together. Financiers call this link correlation.

The outcome of a case depends on other factors. It turns on the facts, the evidence, the applicable law, the lawyer’s work and the solvency of the losing party. A portfolio of cases therefore draws its result from a risk that differs from market risk. The word “uncorrelated” describes this difference in the source of risk.

What decorrelation does not protect against.

The risk of loss.

The outcome of a case remains uncertain. A loss can be partial or total, and no mechanism guarantees the capital invested. Decorrelation changes the source of risk without removing it.

Liquidity.

A case lasts as long as the proceedings, appeals and enforcement included, which means two to four years, sometimes longer. Hello Justice Capital 1 has a ten-year lock-up in its articles, and distributions are paid as cases are resolved. This investment does not suit an investor who may need the money before then.

Case-law risk.

A reversal of case law can affect several cases at once when they rest on the same legal basis. This is the specific risk of cases handled as a series. Spreading the portfolio across disputes with different legal bases limits that risk without removing it.

Where a portfolio’s result comes from.

The result depends first on the legal strength of each case: the law, the evidence, limitation (the time limit for bringing a claim). It depends next on the defendant’s solvency, because a judgment still has to be paid. It depends finally on how the proceedings are run, from the writ to enforcement.

Case selection is therefore the first risk-management tool. A specialised partner lawyer analyses each case’s eligibility. The review covers the characteristics of the dispute, limitation, the completeness of the documents and the reasonable chances of success. Not every case is accepted.

Listed funders publish their results. Burford Capital reports a multiple of 1.8 and an internal rate of return (IRR) of 25% on cases concluded since 2009, as at 31 March 2026. Omni Bridgeway reports a cumulative multiple of 2.4. These are third-party figures, unrelated to the performance of Hello Justice Capital 1. We explain how to read them.

Its place in a portfolio.

Litigation assets belong among long-term alternative investments. The amount should be sized on capital the investor can leave untouched for a long time. Hello Justice Capital 1 is offered as a private placement (article L. 411-2 of the French Monetary and Financial Code), from €100,000. Its documentation is provided once the investor’s eligibility has been checked.

Questions to ask a funder.

Knowing that an investment is uncorrelated tells you little. Other questions help compare funders.

• Who analyses each case, and against which criteria?
• How is the portfolio spread across disputes with different legal bases?
• How is case-law risk monitored?
• Who runs the cases through to collection?
• What are the exit terms, and how are distributions paid?

Our method is described on the method page. The fund documentation is provided after the eligibility check, from the investors page.

In France, pending proceedings are not public. Decisions become public once handed down, free of charge and in pseudonymised form. This is called court decision open data: making decisions available to the public in a format that software can read. The movement, launched by the Digital Republic law of 2016, has been rolled out in stages since 2021. It changes how serial litigation is spotted.

The texts, from 2016 to 2021.

The Digital Republic law of 7 October 2016 sets the principle in its articles 20 and 21. Court decisions are made available to the public free of charge. The justice programming law of 23 March 2019 sets out the arrangements and adds a limit, described below. The decree of 29 June 2020 organises the system. The order of 28 April 2021 sets the timetable, court by court.

The publication timetable.

Decisions concerned · Online from Cour de cassation · 30 September 2021 Courts of appeal, civil matters · April 2022 Commercial courts · End of 2024 Tribunaux judiciaires, civil matters · 30 September 2025 Labour tribunals · Scheduled for 30 September 2026

The decisions are distributed through Judilibre, the Cour de cassation’s open database. Anyone can consult it, and software can query it through a dedicated interface. Since autumn 2025, most civil litigation at first instance and on appeal can therefore be read by software, decision by decision.

What it changes for detection.

Serial litigation starts with a legal event: a landmark decision, a challenged standard contract, a regulator’s sanction. Before open data, spotting these events required long and costly documentary monitoring. Series were discovered late, often through the press.

Since 2025, the flow of civil decisions can be analysed continuously. It allows several uses.

• Following case-law trends, court by court.
• Counting decisions by legal question, to estimate the size of a series.
• Finding the regions where the same dispute recurs.
• Watching a series develop, from the first decision to the next ones.

A funder can thus spot a series before the first cases reach it.

Vigie.

Vigie™, our proprietary litigation detection algorithm, applies this principle. It queries open sources, Judilibre first, with queries specific to each type of dispute. It removes duplicates and keeps the history of each signal.

Vigie then ranks the series it finds against the criteria of serial litigation: the strength of the law, the number of people affected, limitation and the defendant’s solvency. Limitation is the time limit for bringing a claim. It assesses series of disputes, and no individual litigant is rated.

Detection is automated. The legal analysis and the decision to fund remain human: specialised partner lawyers confirm or reject each series. The method is described on our method page.

The Swiss franc loan programme illustrates this cycle. The series appeared in published decisions well before the Cour de cassation’s two rulings of 9 July 2025, recent case law, liable to change. The programme organises the preparation of cases online.

The limits set by law.

Open data has rules. Individuals are pseudonymised in published decisions and must remain so. Article L. 111-13 of the French Code of Judicial Organisation was introduced by the law of 23 March 2019. It prohibits reusing the identities of judges and court clerks to assess, analyse or predict their practices. The law makes such reuse a criminal offence.

Analyses are therefore made by court, never by judge. These limits do not hinder the detection of series, which concerns legal questions and groups of people. Vigie complies with these rules.

France and the United States.

In the United States, the dockets of pending proceedings are public, and a dispute can be spotted as soon as it is filed. In France, writs are not public, but the decisions handed down become public. Detection therefore starts from the decisions. It identifies the legal questions that recur and the people they affect, which requires legal analysis backed by software.

From data to case.

Detection is followed by legal analysis by specialised partner lawyers and by informing the people affected. Each situation is then checked online, and each case gathers its documents. Finally, the proceedings are run through to their outcome. We describe these steps in our article on serial litigation.

The global litigation funding market is estimated at around $11bn in 2018 and $19bn in 2024. Studies by SNS Insider, Research Nester and Market Research Future project it at $51bn to $65bn by 2035, an annual growth rate of 8 to 14%. These figures are often repeated as they stand. They deserve a careful reading.

The market’s trajectory.

Year · Estimated global market size · Nature of the figure · Sources 2018 · Around $11bn · Estimate · Facts & Factors, McKinsey 2024 · Around $19bn · Estimate · SNS Insider, Research Nester, Market Research Future 2035 · $51bn to $65bn · Projection · SNS Insider, Research Nester, Market Research Future

According to these estimates, the market almost doubled between 2018 and 2024. The 2035 projections extend that trend, with annual growth of 8 to 14% depending on the method.

What the studies measure.

The studies do not all measure the same thing. Depending on their method, some count the capital committed in the year, others the assets managed, others still the value of the disputes funded. They also differ in the geography they cover and in the weight they give each region.

The $51bn to $65bn range is therefore not a forecast in the strict sense. It gives an order of magnitude, drawn from different methods. A market projection guarantees neither the growth nor the result of a portfolio.

Europe’s share.

For a European player, another figure matters more. According to a 2021 European Parliament study, the European legal market is worth around €125bn, of which litigation funding captures only 0.8%.

The projected global growth therefore does not assume a break in Europe. It assumes that Europe closes part of the gap with the countries where the practice is older.

Growth drivers in Europe.

A legal framework.

In France, article 16 of the law of 30 April 2025 recognised litigation funding as part of the reform of class actions. Decree no. 2025-1191 of 10 December 2025 details how it applies. We analyse this framework and the class action reform in two articles.

The cost of justice.

Asserting a serious claim costs €30,000 to more than €300,000 in fees and costs, over two to four years of proceedings, sometimes longer. According to the French Ministry of Justice, 52% of French people consider legal costs too high (2024). As long as that cost remains, individuals and businesses decide not to act.

Investor interest.

The outcome of a case depends on the evidence, the law and the defendant’s solvency, not on the stock market. That guarantees nothing, since a case can be lost. We look at this independence and its limits in our article on decorrelation.

Detection through data.

France has been putting its court decisions online since 2021, in stages. This publication makes it possible to spot serial litigation from the decisions themselves. We explain this in our article on court decision open data.

What listed funders show.

Burford Capital reports a multiple of 1.8 and an internal rate of return (IRR) of 25% on its cases concluded since 2009, as at 31 March 2026. Omni Bridgeway reports a cumulative multiple of 2.4. In France, managers such as IVO Capital Partners also invest in this asset class. These are third-party figures, unrelated to the performance of Hello Justice Capital 1. We explain how to read them.

How Hello Justice uses these figures.

Hello Justice uses this data to place the market in context. It says nothing about the result of a portfolio. That result depends on case selection, with each case analysed by specialised partner lawyers. It also depends on spreading the portfolio across disputes with different legal bases and on following each case through to its outcome.

How the portfolio is built is described in the documentation of the Hello Justice Capital 1 fund, provided after the investor’s eligibility has been checked.

On 9 July 2025, the First Civil Chamber of the French Cour de cassation published two rulings on Swiss franc mortgages. They concern borrowers paid in Swiss francs, whom the case law had excluded until then. This case law is recent and liable to change.

Mortgages exposed to the Swiss franc.

Between 2002 and 2015, banks offered French borrowers mortgages indexed to the Swiss franc or repayable in Swiss francs. The borrowers included cross-border workers and buy-to-let investors. The loan looked attractive, with rates tied to a currency seen as stable.

The Swiss franc then rose durably against the euro, and the instalments increased. For some borrowers, the outstanding capital, converted into euros, even grew while they were repaying.

The litigation turns on two points: whether certain clauses are unfair, and the information given about the exchange-rate risk at signing. Depending on the case, a clause can be deemed unwritten, with financial consequences calculated case by case.

From the CJEU to the Cour de cassation.

On 10 June 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered several judgments on foreign currency loans. They are case C-609/19 and joined cases C-776/19 to C-782/19. The Court set out the transparency required on exchange-rate risk and how the imbalance between the parties is assessed. It also held that no time limit applies to a claim to have a term declared unfair. We have published an analysis of these judgments.

The Cour de cassation then built its case law step by step. Its two rulings of 9 July 2025 (no. 24-19.647 and no. 24-18.018) are the latest step. They assess the exchange-rate risk over the whole term of the contract, even for a borrower paid in Swiss francs. In one of the two cases, however, the Court dismissed the appeal, because the bank had informed the borrower clearly. This case law is recent and liable to change. Our review of the 2022-2025 rulings covers each decision.

Who is concerned.

Hello Justice’s Swiss franc loan programme covers loans taken out between 2002 and 2015. We estimate the number of eligible cases in France at around 50,000, with an estimated average loss of around €180,000. The limitation period, meaning the time limit for bringing a claim, runs until 2030, and how it applies depends on each case.

These cases form a series, with the same type of contract, the same legal questions and the same documents. We explain this idea in our article on serial litigation.

Each situation nevertheless remains specific. A specialised partner lawyer analyses the eligibility of each case on the documents. The review covers the characteristics of the dispute, limitation, the completeness of the documents and the reasonable chances of success. Not every case is accepted.

The time limit for bringing a claim.

The limitation period depends on the legal basis relied on and the circumstances of each case. Preparing a case takes time. You need to find the loan offer, the amortisation schedule, any amendments and your correspondence with the bank. The case must then be analysed and the agreement signed.

Starting early leaves time to gather the documents before a claim becomes time-barred.

Preparing a case.

The programme organises the preparation of your case online.

1. The eligibility test places the loan: year taken out, currency, type of transaction.
2. You file your documents following a list specific to this litigation: loan offer, amortisation schedule, amendments, correspondence.
3. A specialised partner lawyer analyses the complete case.
4. If the case is accepted, you sign the agreement, which sets the terms of the proceedings.

Reviewing your case costs you nothing. Hello Justice covers the flat fees of COGEP AVOCATS (€5,000). Costs and disbursements remain capped at €300 including VAT. If the case succeeds, a success fee of 14% including VAT, shared between the lawyer and Hello Justice, is taken from the sums actually recovered. If it fails, you owe Hello Justice nothing.

What the past year shows.

Each case benefits from the experience gained on the previous ones, from the documents to gather to the pleadings.

Reaching borrowers remains a difficulty. Many do not know that their contract falls within the period concerned.

The case law keeps evolving. Each new decision clarifies the reach of the rulings of 9 July 2025, recent case law, liable to change.

Frequent questions.

Is my loan concerned?

The reference period covers loans taken out between 2002 and 2015, indexed to or repayable in Swiss francs. The programme’s eligibility test places your contract. A specialised partner lawyer then analyses the eligibility of your case.

Until when can I act?

The limitation period runs until 2030, and how it applies depends on each case. It is better to have your case analysed early. In this programme, reviewing your case costs you nothing and commits you to nothing.

What do the proceedings cost?

Hello Justice covers the flat fees of COGEP AVOCATS (€5,000). Costs and disbursements remain payable by you, capped at €300 including VAT. If the case succeeds, a success fee of 14% including VAT, shared between the lawyer and Hello Justice, is taken from the sums actually recovered. If it fails, you owe Hello Justice nothing. The process starts on the programme page.

Burford Capital and Omni Bridgeway, two litigation funders listed on the stock market, have published their figures in audited accounts for years. Their publications show what litigation funding has produced, across many cases and over a long period. They call for careful reading, because several traps distort comparisons.

Why these figures exist.

A listed company must publish its results. Burford Capital is listed in New York and London, and Omni Bridgeway on the Australian stock exchange. Both publish audited accounts, periodic reports and investor presentations.

The sector therefore has a public, verifiable track record. These are third-party figures, unrelated to the performance of Hello Justice Capital 1.

The measures that matter.

Measure · The question it answers · The reading trap Multiple · How much did each sum committed return? · It ignores time. IRR · How fast did the capital work? · It falls as duration lengthens, for the same multiple. Duration · How long is the capital tied up? · It depends mainly on the court calendar.

The multiple answers the question “how much?”. A multiple of 1.8 means that each dollar committed to concluded cases returned $1.80, capital included.

The IRR, or internal rate of return, answers the question “how fast?”. It relates the gain to the time during which the capital was committed.

Duration depends on the court calendar, on appeals and on enforcement. The three measures are read together, and only on concluded cases.

Burford Capital’s figures.

Burford Capital reports a multiple of 1.8 and an IRR of 25% on its cases concluded since 2009, as at 31 March 2026. Burford takes on cases of at least $5 million. Its portfolio brings together large commercial disputes and international arbitrations. This cumulative figure since 2009 smooths out differences from one year to the next.

Omni Bridgeway’s figures.

Omni Bridgeway, present in 15 countries, reports a cumulative multiple of 2.4 on its concluded cases. This figure aggregates very different countries and types of dispute.

At both companies, litigation funding has produced multiples above 1 over a long period.

Realised and estimated.

The main trap is to confuse realised and estimated figures. The figures quoted cover concluded and collected cases. Funders also publish the value of their pending cases, based on each company’s own assumptions. Faced with a figure, the first thing to establish is whether it covers concluded cases or estimates.

Different scopes.

A portfolio of cases above $5 million does not have the same duration or the same risk as a portfolio of disputes worth €100,000 to €1m. Burford’s and Omni Bridgeway’s figures describe the business of those companies. They describe neither another segment nor another portfolio.

What these figures do not say.

Past performance is no guide to future performance. These references show what other companies achieved, in other conditions and over other periods. They are not a promise of return for any vehicle, ours included.

How a portfolio is built is a matter for each vehicle’s documentation. Hello Justice Capital 1 is offered as a private placement (article L. 411-2 of the French Monetary and Financial Code), from €100,000. Its documentation is provided after the investor’s eligibility has been checked.

Why we cite them.

An investor discovering litigation funding wants to know whether the mechanism has already worked, across many cases and over a long period. Burford’s and Omni Bridgeway’s accounts answer that question with audited figures anyone can check. How a portfolio is built and selected is then judged company by company.

Our approach is described on the Hello Justice Capital 1 fund page and in our article on decorrelation.

Until 2025, no French statute addressed litigation funding. Its legality rested on case law. Article 16 of the law of 30 April 2025 recognised it for the first time, within class actions. Decree no. 2025-1191 of 10 December 2025, which supplements it, has applied since 1 January 2026.

Where the French framework comes from.

Third-party funding of lawsuits existed in France before 2025. On 1 June 2006, the Versailles Court of Appeal described it as a lawful sui generis contract, meaning a contract of its own kind. The bodies of the legal profession took up the subject. The practice took hold in international arbitration, then in the courts.

Each agreement nevertheless rested on case law alone. A new client, law firm or investor first had to check that the mechanism was allowed.

What the texts organise.

Article 16 of law no. 2025-391 of 30 April 2025 reforms French class actions. It allows the association or entity bringing the action to receive funds from third parties. That funding must give the funder no influence against the interests of the people represented. The entity must also avoid conflicts of interest with its funders.

Decree no. 2025-1191 of 10 December 2025 sets the approval procedure for the associations and entities that bring a class action, domestic or cross-border. It details their obligations to disclose their funding.

These texts concern class actions. They give third-party funding its first recognition in a French statute.

What the agreement organises.

For an individual dispute, funding rests on an agreement signed by the client, their lawyer and the funder. The agreement Hello Justice proposes sets the following points.

• The lawyer’s fees, paid by Hello Justice as the proceedings go on.
• Hello Justice’s commission, from 14 to 30% including VAT of the sums recovered depending on the type of case, due only if the case succeeds.
• No repayment if the case fails: the client owes Hello Justice nothing.
• What happens to the procedural indemnity a judge may award (article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure).

The lawyer alone decides the strategy. Professional secrecy applies, and the funder does not attend exchanges between the client and their lawyer.

This is how litigation funding differs from credit, since the funder has no claim against the client if the case fails. It differs from the assignment of a claim, since the client keeps ownership of the right and remains a party to the case. It also differs from legal expenses insurance, which covers a future dispute in return for a premium.

What it changes for claimants.

Since 2025, a statute has recognised third-party funding. The need for funding remains. Asserting a serious claim costs €30,000 to more than €300,000 in fees and costs, over two to four years of proceedings, sometimes longer. According to the French Ministry of Justice, 52% of French people consider legal costs too high (2024).

The eligibility test and filing your case are free. If you apply for funding, the case analysis costs €1,500 excluding VAT (€1,800 including VAT), whatever the opinion, outside the Swiss franc loan programme. If the case is accepted, Hello Justice pays your lawyer’s fees and is paid out of the sums recovered, only if the case succeeds.

What it changes for law firms.

For a firm, the agreement writes down what professional ethics already required: the lawyer’s independence and where payments go. The funder pays the fees as the proceedings go on. The firm no longer depends on its client’s cash for these fees, and the client does not advance them. The relationship between lawyer and client stays the same.

Hello Justice works with specialised partner lawyers. Firms that wish to join this network will find the details on the lawyers page.

What it changes for investors.

An investor funds a practice that the law has recognised since 2025. The framework also imposes transparency rules on the entities that bring class actions.

Hello Justice follows more than 500 live cases, engaged since 2024. The Hello Justice Capital 1 fund is offered as a private placement (article L. 411-2 of the French Monetary and Financial Code), from €100,000. The investor’s eligibility is checked beforehand.

What the framework does not settle.

The framework says nothing about the quality of a case. A specialised partner lawyer analyses the eligibility of each case. The review covers the characteristics of the dispute, limitation (the time limit for bringing a claim), the completeness of the documents and the reasonable chances of success. Not every case is accepted.

The law also keeps evolving through court decisions. On 9 July 2025, the Cour de cassation published two rulings on Swiss franc loans, recent case law, liable to change. Our overview of litigation funding and the how it works page describe the mechanism as a whole.

Frequent questions.

Can the funder run the case?

No. The lawyer alone decides the strategy, and professional secrecy applies. The agreement only organises payments and information.

What happens if the case is lost?

The client repays nothing to Hello Justice. This non-recourse principle is what separates funding from credit. The case analysis, billed €1,500 excluding VAT (€1,800 including VAT) outside the Swiss franc loan programme, remains due whatever the opinion.

Which cases can be funded?

Hello Justice reviews civil and commercial disputes with at least €100,000 at stake: business disputes, banking and insurance litigation, enforcement of judgments, cases handled as a series. A specialised partner lawyer analyses the eligibility of each case. The online eligibility test is free.

Since 2022, several rulings of the French Cour de cassation have shaped Swiss franc loan litigation. Each one answers a specific question: the limitation period for the claim, the time allowed to seek restitution, the position of borrowers paid in Swiss francs. All of them apply the transparency standard set by the Court of Justice of the European Union on 10 June 2021. This case law is recent and liable to change.

The European starting point.

On 10 June 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) set out the transparency a bank owes to the borrower of a foreign currency loan (case C-609/19). On the same day, in cases C-776/19 to C-782/19, it held that a claim to have a term declared unfair is not time-barred. We have devoted an article to judgment C-609/19.

The ruling of 30 March 2022.

The facts.

In 2008 and 2009, the borrowers had taken out mortgages with BNP Paribas Personal Finance, denominated in Swiss francs and repayable in euros. They asked for the exchange-rate clauses to be declared unfair. The court of appeal had held their claim time-barred.

The decision.

In a published ruling (no. 19-17.996), the First Civil Chamber settled the question of limitation. A claim to have an unfair term deemed unwritten is not subject to the five-year period. The Court also requires the bank to explain the exchange mechanism in concrete terms.

Its reach.

A borrower can challenge the term long after signing. The ruling opened the claim to borrowers who had signed in 2008 or 2009.

The ruling of 12 July 2023.

The facts.

The loan at issue was denominated in Swiss francs, at a variable rate. The lower courts had found the exchange-rate clauses unfair. The question concerned the time allowed to seek restitution of the sums paid.

The decision.

In a published ruling (no. 22-17.030), the First Civil Chamber set the starting point of that period. A restitution claim becomes time-barred five years after the court decision that finds the term unfair.

Its reach.

The borrower’s timetable becomes clear. A claim to have the term found unfair is not time-barred. The restitution claim must be made within five years of the decision that finds it unfair.

The rulings of 9 July 2025.

The facts.

The cases concerned cross-border workers who worked in Switzerland and were paid in Swiss francs. The property financed was in France. On 1 March 2023 (no. 21-20.260), the Cour de cassation had held that a borrower paid in Swiss francs when the contract was signed bore no exchange-rate risk.

The decision.

In two published rulings of 9 July 2025 (no. 24-19.647 and no. 24-18.018), the First Civil Chamber departed from that position. This case law is recent and liable to change. The exchange-rate risk is assessed over the whole term of the contract. The judge takes into account foreseeable changes in the borrower’s situation, such as a new job, a return to France or retirement. The Court did not defer the effects of this ruling, which applies to pending proceedings.

The two rulings do not reach the same result. In case no. 24-18.018, the Court dismissed the borrower’s appeal, because the bank had given clear information on the effects of a change in the exchange rate. The outcome therefore depends on the documents in each case.

Its reach.

Since these rulings, a borrower paid in Swiss francs can rely on the protection against unfair terms. The information the bank provided remains decisive. A borrower who lost under the earlier case law can have a lawyer check what the stage of their proceedings allows.

The rulings cited.

Ruling · Date · What it holds Cass. 1re civ., no. 19-17.996 · 30 March 2022 · A claim to have an unfair term deemed unwritten is not time-barred. Cass. 1re civ., no. 22-17.030 · 12 July 2023 · A restitution claim is time-barred five years after the decision finding the term unfair. Cass. 1re civ., no. 24-19.647 · 9 July 2025 · For a borrower paid in Swiss francs, the exchange-rate risk is assessed over the whole term. Cass. 1re civ., no. 24-18.018 · 9 July 2025 · Same principle, appeal dismissed: the bank had informed the borrower clearly.

European case law.

The Cour de cassation applies the CJEU’s transparency standard. On 21 September 2023 (C-139/22), the CJEU made clear that the average consumer test is objective. The borrower’s professional experience, even in banking, does not release the lender from its duty to inform.

Questions still open.

Several points are still argued before the courts. They concern additional damages, the calculation of restitution after early repayment, and bullet loans repaid in a single sum at maturity. The civil consequences of the criminal conviction of BNP Paribas Personal Finance for misleading commercial practices are also still debated. The trial courts decide case by case.

What it means for a borrower.

A borrower can challenge an exchange-rate term long after signing. Restitution must be claimed within five years of the decision that finds the term unfair. Since 9 July 2025, a borrower paid in Swiss francs can also rely on these rules. This case law is recent and liable to change.

In the Swiss franc loan programme, reviewing your case costs you nothing. Hello Justice covers the flat fees of COGEP AVOCATS (€5,000). Costs and disbursements remain capped at €300 including VAT. If the case succeeds, a success fee of 14% including VAT, shared between the lawyer and Hello Justice, is taken from the sums actually recovered. If it fails, you owe Hello Justice nothing.

The programme’s eligibility test checks whether your loan falls within the period concerned, then a specialised partner lawyer analyses your case. A dedicated page summarises the latest rulings.

Sources.

• CJEU, 10 June 2021, C-609/19, and C-776/19 to C-782/19.
• CJEU, 21 September 2023, C-139/22.
• Cass. 1re civ., 30 March 2022, no. 19-17.996.
• Cass. 1re civ., 12 July 2023, no. 22-17.030.
• Cass. 1re civ., 1 March 2023, no. 21-20.260.
• Cass. 1re civ., 9 July 2025, no. 24-19.647 and no. 24-18.018.
• CCV Avocats, Dana Avocats, Village de la Justice.

This article describes the state of the law. It does not constitute legal advice.

On 10 June 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in BNP Paribas Personal Finance (case C-609/19). It sets out what a bank must explain to a consumer who borrows in a foreign currency. The French Cour de cassation has applied this transparency standard since 2022. It did so again in its two published rulings of 9 July 2025, recent case law, liable to change.

The original dispute.

The borrower had taken out a mortgage with BNP Paribas Personal Finance, denominated in Swiss francs and repayable in euros. Each instalment was calculated in Swiss francs, then converted into euros at the day’s rate.

On 15 January 2015, the Swiss National Bank abandoned the franc’s floor against the euro, and the franc rose. Despite years of repayments, the outstanding capital, converted into euros, exceeded the amount borrowed. The borrower brought proceedings before the Lagny-sur-Marne district court, which referred questions to the CJEU.

The questions referred.

Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 protects consumers against unfair terms. An unfair term creates, to the consumer’s detriment, a significant imbalance between the parties’ rights and obligations. The court asked the CJEU how this text applies to exchange-rate clauses.

• Do the clauses that place the exchange-rate risk on the borrower define the main subject matter of the contract, within the meaning of article 4(2) of the directive?
• What transparency does the directive require for these clauses?
• Is the significant imbalance assessed only on the day of signing, or in light of later movements in the exchange rate?

The main subject matter of the contract.

The directive excludes from the unfairness review the terms that define the main subject matter of the contract, on one condition. Those terms must be drafted in plain and intelligible language.

The Court reads this exception strictly. A term falls within the main subject matter if it sets an essential performance under the contract. The exchange-rate clauses at issue can qualify, because they set the currency of the loan and how the instalments are converted.

That qualification protects the term only if it is clear. If it is not, the judge can review whether it is unfair.

The transparency requirement.

For the Court, transparency is not limited to grammatically correct drafting. The consumer must be able to assess, from precise information, the economic consequences of the term for their obligations. The benchmark is the average consumer, “reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect”.

For a foreign currency loan, the information expected from the bank covers several points in practice.

• How the exchange mechanism works, from the instalment calculated in Swiss francs to its conversion into euros and the outstanding capital.
• Figured simulations of adverse scenarios, including a sharp and lasting rise of the Swiss franc.
• A clear warning that the borrower alone bears the exchange-rate risk.
• Any protective mechanisms, such as a conversion option or a cap, and their limits.

General documentation may not be enough. The bank must show that it enabled the consumer to understand the economic consequences of the transaction.

The significant imbalance.

The Court confirms that the significant imbalance is assessed at the date of signing. The judge takes into account the circumstances the bank could know at that date and their possible effect on the performance of the contract.

For a foreign currency loan, the judge therefore asks whether the bank could foresee, when signing, that a sharp rise in the currency would increase the borrower’s burden.

The asymmetry between the parties also matters. The borrower bears the entire exchange-rate risk. The bank knows the currency market and has hedging instruments. This asymmetry, combined with a lack of transparency, can establish the significant imbalance.

The Cour de cassation rulings that apply it.

The ruling of 30 March 2022.

On 30 March 2022, in a published ruling (no. 19-17.996), the First Civil Chamber settled the question of limitation, meaning the time limit for bringing a claim. A claim to have an unfair term deemed unwritten is not subject to the five-year limitation period. The borrower can therefore challenge the term long after signing. The Court also requires the bank to explain the exchange mechanism in concrete terms.

The ruling of 12 July 2023.

In a published ruling of 12 July 2023 (no. 22-17.030), the same chamber set the starting point of the claim for restitution of the sums paid. The five-year period runs from the court decision that finds the term unfair.

The rulings of 9 July 2025.

On 9 July 2025, the First Civil Chamber delivered two published rulings (no. 24-19.647 and no. 24-18.018) concerning borrowers paid in Swiss francs. This case law is recent and liable to change. The exchange-rate risk is assessed over the whole term of the contract, taking into account foreseeable changes in the borrower’s situation. The Court thereby departed from a ruling of 1 March 2023 (no. 21-20.260). That ruling had ruled out the risk for a borrower paid in Swiss francs at signing.

In case no. 24-18.018, however, the Court dismissed the borrower’s appeal, because the bank had given clear information on the effects of a change in the exchange rate.

The documents that matter.

Transparency is proved with documents. The judge looks in particular at the following.

• The pre-contractual information sheet given to the borrower, dated and signed.
• The simulations of adverse exchange-rate scenarios, tailored to the amount, the term and the borrower’s situation.
• The contract documents that explain the exchange mechanism.
• Records of exchanges with the adviser, such as meeting notes, emails or branch notes.
• Where relevant, the documents on protective mechanisms and their limits.

When these documents are missing or stay general, the bank finds it harder to show that it informed the borrower. The judge assesses each case.

The average consumer.

The average consumer test is objective. The judge asks whether a reasonably well-informed consumer would have understood the risk from the documents received.

According to the CJEU (21 September 2023, C-139/22), the borrower’s particular knowledge does not change this test. The bank must inform the borrower even when they are its own employee and know the field.

The banks’ arguments.

Banks raise several arguments in their defence.

• The main subject matter. The term would escape review because it defines the loan. The judge then checks whether it is plain and intelligible, and reviews its fairness if it is not.
• Limitation. The ruling of 30 March 2022 rules out the five-year limitation period for a claim to have the term deemed unwritten.
• No imbalance. The exchange rate could move either way. The judge then looks at the asymmetry between the bank and the borrower, and at the protection the borrower had.

Each case remains a matter for the judge.

What the judgment leaves open.

Judgment C-609/19 leaves several questions open. On the same day, the CJEU dealt with the limitation of restitution claims in cases C-776/19 to C-782/19. The Cour de cassation dealt with the position of borrowers paid in Swiss francs in its rulings of 9 July 2025, recent case law, liable to change.

What it means for a borrower.

If the bank cannot show that it gave sufficient information, the exchange-rate term can be deemed unwritten. Depending on the decision, the loan is then recalculated as if it had been made in euros. Restitution is calculated on the gap between the sums paid and those that would have been due. The judge assesses each situation.

In the Swiss franc loan programme, reviewing your case costs you nothing. Hello Justice covers the flat fees of COGEP AVOCATS (€5,000). Costs and disbursements remain capped at €300 including VAT. If the case succeeds, a success fee of 14% including VAT, shared between the lawyer and Hello Justice, is taken from the sums actually recovered. If it fails, you owe Hello Justice nothing.

The programme’s eligibility test shows whether your loan falls within the period concerned. A specialised partner lawyer then analyses its eligibility. We follow all the decisions in our review of the 2022-2025 rulings.

Sources.

• CJEU, 10 June 2021, C-609/19, BNP Paribas Personal Finance.
• CJEU, 10 June 2021, C-776/19 to C-782/19.
• CJEU, 21 September 2023, C-139/22.
• Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993.
• Cass. 1re civ., 30 March 2022, no. 19-17.996.
• Cass. 1re civ., 12 July 2023, no. 22-17.030.
• Cass. 1re civ., 1 March 2023, no. 21-20.260.
• Cass. 1re civ., 9 July 2025, no. 24-19.647 and no. 24-18.018.
• CCV Avocats, Dana Avocats, Village de la Justice, Actu-Juridique.

This article describes the state of the law. It does not constitute legal advice.

Litigation funding lets a claimant go to court without paying the lawyer’s fees up front. A third party, the funder, pays them while the case runs. The funder is paid out of the sums recovered, and only if the case is won. If the case is lost, the client repays nothing.

The mechanism answers a problem of cost. Civil or commercial proceedings in France commonly absorb €30,000 to more than €300,000 in fees and costs, over two to four years, sometimes longer. According to the French Ministry of Justice, 52% of French people consider legal costs too high (2024).

How it works.

Funding rests on an agreement signed by three parties: the client, their lawyer and the funder. It sets the fees the funder pays to the lawyer. It also sets the share of any recovery that goes to the funder if the case succeeds.

The client keeps ownership of the claim and remains a party to the case. The lawyer runs the proceedings and stays bound by professional secrecy. The funder does not decide the strategy.

If the case is lost, the funder loses what it has committed. It has no claim against the client, which is what “non-recourse” means. This is what separates funding from a loan.

Litigation funding · Bank loan Repayment · Out of the sums recovered, if the case succeeds · Due whatever the outcome Security asked of the client · None · Guarantee, mortgage or pledge Risk of failure · Borne by the funder · Borne by the borrower Decision criterion · Strength of the case and solvency of the other side · Borrower’s creditworthiness

The legal framework in France.

Before 2025.

Until 2025, no statute addressed litigation funding, and French law did not prohibit it. On 1 June 2006, the Versailles Court of Appeal described it as a sui generis contract, meaning a contract of its own kind. Funding agreements were governed by ordinary contract law (articles 1101 et seq. of the French Civil Code).

The law of 30 April 2025.

Law no. 2025-391 of 30 April 2025 adapts French law to several European texts. Its article 16 transposes Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of 25 November 2020 on representative actions and reforms French class actions. For the first time in a French statute, it recognises the funding of proceedings by a third party.

That funding is regulated within class actions. It must give the funder no influence against the interests of the people represented, either over bringing the action or over conducting it. The association or entity bringing the action must also disclose its funding.

Implementing decrees followed. Decree no. 2025-653 of 16 July 2025 designates the eight courts with jurisdiction: the tribunaux judiciaires of Bordeaux, Lille, Lyon, Marseille, Nancy, Paris, Rennes and Fort-de-France. Decree no. 2025-734 of 30 July 2025 sets the procedure and creates a public register of class actions. Decree no. 2025-1191 of 10 December 2025 details the disclosure rules on funding and the approval procedure for the entities that bring actions. It has applied since 1 January 2026.

Class actions open to every area of law.

The reform replaces the separate regimes for consumer law, health, the environment, personal data and discrimination with a single framework. Every type of loss can be compensated, whether economic, material, bodily or moral, whatever the area of law. We explain the regime in our article on class actions.

A class action is a specific legal procedure in which an association or entity acts on behalf of a group. Hello Justice also funds individual cases handled as a series, such as those of the Swiss franc loan programme. Each client keeps their own file, lawyer and agreement.

Funding with Hello Justice, step by step.

The eligibility test, free.

A few questions about the dispute, the amount at stake and the other side give a first indication. The test result is not a decision.

Filing the case, free.

You send the account of the dispute and your documents. A specialised partner lawyer then analyses the case’s eligibility. The review covers the characteristics of the dispute, limitation (the time limit for bringing a claim), the completeness of the documents and the reasonable chances of success. Not every case is accepted.

The case analysis, €1,500 excluding VAT.

If you apply for funding, Hello Justice analyses the case in depth: the amount at stake, the cost and length of the proceedings, the solvency of the other side. This analysis costs €1,500 excluding VAT (€1,800 including VAT). You receive a written report and a funding opinion, favourable or unfavourable. The fee pays for the analysis work and is due whatever the opinion. It does not apply to the Swiss franc loan programme.

The agreement.

If the opinion is favourable, you sign a fee agreement with your lawyer and Hello Justice. It sets your lawyer’s fees, which Hello Justice pays. It also sets Hello Justice’s commission, from 14 to 30% including VAT of the sums recovered, depending on the type of case. The rate is written down before any commitment.

The proceedings and their outcome.

Your lawyer runs the case, and you follow its progress in your online space. If the case succeeds, the commission is taken from the sums recovered. If it fails, you repay nothing to Hello Justice. The procedural indemnity a judge may award (article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure) is dealt with in the agreement.

The disputes concerned.

Hello Justice reviews civil and commercial disputes with at least €100,000 at stake, against an opponent able to pay a judgment. Its activity centres on disputes worth €100,000 to €1m. Cases filed with us come, for example, from the following areas.

• Banking and finance, including Swiss franc loans.
• Commercial law, for a breach of contract, the abrupt termination of an established relationship (article L. 442-1 of the French Commercial Code) or unfair competition.
• Consumer law, for unfair terms or hidden defects.
• Intellectual property, for patent or trademark infringement.
• Construction, for defective work or the ten-year builder’s warranty.
• Company law, for an asset and liability warranty, a shareholder dispute or a director’s liability.
• Insurance, when a claim is refused.
• Arbitration, domestic or international.

The market.

The global litigation funding market is estimated at around $11bn in 2018 (Facts & Factors, McKinsey) and $19bn in 2024. Studies by SNS Insider, Research Nester and Market Research Future project it at $51bn to $65bn by 2035, an annual growth rate of 8 to 14%. These projections guarantee nothing. In Europe, litigation funding captures about 0.8% of a €125bn legal market (European Parliament, 2021).

Burford Capital and Omni Bridgeway, two listed funders, publish their results. Burford, founded in 2009, is listed in New York and London. It reports a multiple of 1.8 and an internal rate of return (IRR) of 25% on cases concluded since 2009, as at 31 March 2026. A multiple of 1.8 means each dollar committed returned $1.80, capital included. Omni Bridgeway, listed in Australia and present in 15 countries, reports a cumulative multiple of 2.4. These are third-party figures and promise no return elsewhere. We explain how to read them.

In France, legal recognition dates from 2025. Hello Justice’s Swiss franc loan programme covers loans taken out between 2002 and 2015. We estimate the number of eligible cases at around 50,000.

To find out whether your dispute fits what we fund, start with the eligibility test. The mechanism is set out on the how it works page, and the legal terms in the glossary.

Sources.

• Law no. 2025-391 of 30 April 2025, article 16 (Légifrance).
• Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of 25 November 2020.
• Decree no. 2025-653 of 16 July 2025, decree no. 2025-734 of 30 July 2025 and decree no. 2025-1191 of 10 December 2025.
• Versailles Court of Appeal, 1 June 2006.
• French Ministry of Justice, 2024.
• Burford Capital, figures published as at 31 March 2026. Omni Bridgeway, investor publications.
• SNS Insider, Research Nester, Market Research Future (projections), Facts & Factors, McKinsey (2018 estimate).
• European Parliament, 2021 study on third-party litigation funding.
• A&O Shearman, “Class action reform: key changes introduced by the law of April 30, 2025”.
• DLA Piper, “Class actions à la française : la réforme de l’action de groupe”, December 2025.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees everyone access to a court. In France, the Constitutional Council bases the right to an effective remedy on article 16 of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. In practice, the cost of a case limits that right. According to the French Ministry of Justice, 52% of French people consider legal costs too high (2024).

What a case costs.

Civil or commercial proceedings commonly absorb €30,000 to more than €300,000 in fees and costs. They last two to four years, sometimes longer. The cost is spread across several items.

• The lawyer’s fees, which vary with the complexity of the case and the number of hearings and appeals.
• Expert fees, when the judge orders a technical, accounting or medical assessment.
• Procedural costs, such as court registry fees, deposits and the acts of commissaires de justice, France’s judicial officers.
• Ancillary costs, such as sworn translations and travel.

Parties with unequal means.

Facing a bank, an insurer or a large group, an individual or a small business has limited means. The other side often has its own legal department and a budget set aside for disputes. It can make the proceedings last.

Someone who cannot fund long proceedings sometimes gives up, even with a sound case.

The limits of legal aid.

Legal aid (aide juridictionnelle) is the main public scheme for access to the courts. The State covers all or part of the legal costs of people with modest means, according to a scale.

It leaves two groups out. Households whose means exceed the scale are not eligible, even when they cannot pay for long proceedings. Businesses are excluded: only certain non-profit legal entities can obtain it, on an exceptional basis (article 2 of the law of 10 July 1991).

Lawyers who take legal aid cases are paid a flat fee, according to a scale set by the State.

What litigation funding brings.

Litigation funding follows a different logic. The funder looks at the case: the strength of the law, the amount at stake, the solvency of the other side. The decision does not depend on the claimant’s income.

Hello Justice applies the following terms.

• The eligibility test and filing your case are free.
• If you apply for funding, the case analysis costs €1,500 excluding VAT (€1,800 including VAT), whatever the opinion. This fee does not apply to the Swiss franc loan programme.
• If the case is accepted, Hello Justice pays your lawyer’s fees set in the agreement.
• If the case succeeds, Hello Justice’s commission is 14 to 30% including VAT of the sums recovered, depending on the type of case.
• If the case fails, you repay nothing to Hello Justice.

The funder is paid only if the case succeeds. It therefore has an interest in accepting only sound cases and in following their progress.

The limits of funding.

Litigation funding does not replace legal aid. The two schemes serve different people.

It suits disputes whose stakes justify the cost of proceedings. Hello Justice reviews cases with at least €100,000 at stake. A specialised partner lawyer analyses the eligibility of each one, and not every case is accepted.

The commission also reduces the amount the client receives if the case succeeds. Its rate is set in the agreement, before any commitment.

The class action reform.

Law no. 2025-391 of 30 April 2025 reformed French class actions. A single procedure replaces the separate sector regimes, and it is open to every area of law. Eight courts have jurisdiction, the tribunaux judiciaires of Bordeaux, Lille, Lyon, Marseille, Nancy, Paris, Rennes and Fort-de-France (decree no. 2025-653 of 16 July 2025).

The same law allows third parties to fund these actions, subject to transparency rules. These texts could make possible actions that were too costly until now. Their effects remain to be seen.

For a dispute of at least €100,000, the eligibility test shows whether it fits what we fund. The mechanism is set out on the how it works page.

Sources.

• European Convention on Human Rights, article 6.
• Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, article 16.
• Law no. 2025-391 of 30 April 2025 and Directive (EU) 2020/1828.
• Decree no. 2025-653 of 16 July 2025.
• French Ministry of Justice, annual statistics.
• Service-public.fr, legal aid, 2026 scales.

International arbitration settles disputes between companies from different countries, or between an investor and a State. The parties entrust their dispute to arbitrators they choose. In France, litigation funding took hold in arbitration before it reached proceedings in the courts. Several features of arbitration explain this link.

Why arbitration suits funding.

High costs.

A party to an arbitration pays its lawyers, experts and translators. It also pays the arbitrators’ fees and the charges of the institution that administers the proceedings. Before a French court, the judges are not paid by the parties.

Large amounts at stake.

The disputes concern international construction contracts, company sales, energy disputes or investments protected by treaties. The claims often reach large amounts.

Awards enforceable abroad.

The New York Convention of 10 June 1958 allows an arbitral award to be recognised and enforced in each of the States party to it. This reduces the risk that the decision cannot be enforced.

How a funding runs.

Funding an arbitration follows the same steps as funding a court case, with a few specific points.

• The funder analyses the legal basis, the amount at stake, the respondent’s solvency, the seat of the arbitration, the applicable law and the arbitration clause.
• It estimates the total cost of the proceedings, their length and the amount an award might grant.
• The party, its lawyer and the funder sign an agreement. It sets what the funder pays and the share of the proceeds it receives if the case succeeds.
• The funder receives progress reports on the proceedings. It does not intervene in the strategy.
• If the award is favourable or the case settles, the sums obtained are shared according to the agreement.

The main institutions.

• The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and its International Court of Arbitration.
• The Centre de médiation et d’arbitrage de Paris (CMAP), for domestic and European disputes.
• The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), in London.
• The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), part of the World Bank, for disputes between investors and States.

Paris as a seat of arbitration.

The ICC International Court of Arbitration has its seat in Paris. The Paris Court of Appeal hears actions to set aside awards made in Paris.

In France, funding an arbitration rests on contract law. The law of 30 April 2025 also recognised third-party funding within class actions. We present this framework in our overview of litigation funding.

Hello Justice and arbitration.

Hello Justice reviews disputes with at least €100,000 at stake, including domestic and international arbitrations. The eligibility test and filing your case are free. If you apply for funding, the case analysis costs €1,500 excluding VAT (€1,800 including VAT), whatever the opinion. If the case is accepted, Hello Justice pays the lawyer’s fees set in the agreement. Its commission is 14 to 30% including VAT of the sums recovered, and only if the case succeeds. If it fails, you repay nothing to Hello Justice.

For a company, funding makes it possible to bring an arbitration without paying for it out of its cash. The case filing form lists arbitration among the types of dispute.

Sources.

• New York Convention of 10 June 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.
• Law no. 2025-391 of 30 April 2025.
• ICC, CMAP, LCIA and ICSID.

Since the law of 30 April 2025, a class action can be brought in any area of French law. The same law allows a third party to fund it, under certain conditions. This single regime replaces schemes created one sector at a time since 2014.

The regimes before 2025.

The loi Hamon of 17 March 2014 (law no. 2014-344) created the class action in consumer law. Later texts opened it to health, the environment, personal data and discrimination. The law of 18 November 2016 on modernising justice for the 21st century (law no. 2016-1547) gave them a common procedural base.

Each sector nevertheless kept its own rules. Admissibility conditions and the associations entitled to act varied from one to the next.

A single regime since 2025.

Law no. 2025-391 of 30 April 2025 transposes Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of 25 November 2020 on representative actions. Its article 16 replaces the sector regimes with a unified framework. Every type of loss can be compensated, whether economic, material, bodily or moral, whatever the area of law.

A claim no longer has to fit a category, such as consumer law or health, to support a class action. Harm suffered by many people in banking, real estate or employment law can now found one.

The competent courts and the procedure.

Decree no. 2025-653 of 16 July 2025 designates eight courts with jurisdiction, the tribunaux judiciaires of Bordeaux, Lille, Lyon, Marseille, Nancy, Paris, Rennes and Fort-de-France. The court of appeal where each court sits hears the appeals. This specialisation is meant to ensure experienced judges and consistent decisions.

Decree no. 2025-734 of 30 July 2025 sets the procedure. It allows a manifestly unfounded action to be dismissed quickly and a claimant’s conflict of interest to be raised against it. It also creates a public register of pending class actions. A circular from the Ministry of Justice presents article 16 and its implementing decrees.

Third-party funding.

Article 16 allows the association or entity bringing the action to receive funds from third parties. That funding must give the funder no influence against the interests of the people represented, either over bringing the action or over conducting it. The entity must also avoid any conflict of interest with its funders.

The funding is made public. Decree no. 2025-1191 of 10 December 2025 organises this disclosure. It also sets the approval procedure for the associations and entities that bring class actions, domestic or cross-border. It has applied since 1 January 2026.

What the reform makes possible.

The single regime and third-party funding may make possible actions that were too costly until now. A single procedure carries the claims of many people, and negotiation with the business is conducted on behalf of the group.

A dispute that affects many people can also be handled another way. Hello Justice funds individual cases handled as a series. In the Swiss franc loan programme, each borrower keeps their own file, lawyer and agreement. The programme covers loans taken out between 2002 and 2015. We estimate the number of eligible cases at around 50,000.

We explain this method in our article on serial litigation. For a Swiss franc loan, the programme’s eligibility test is free.

Sources.

• Law no. 2014-344 of 17 March 2014 (loi Hamon).
• Law no. 2016-1547 of 18 November 2016.
• Law no. 2025-391 of 30 April 2025, article 16, and Directive (EU) 2020/1828.
• Decree no. 2025-653 of 16 July 2025, decree no. 2025-734 of 30 July 2025 and decree no. 2025-1191 of 10 December 2025.
• French Ministry of Justice, circular presenting article 16 and its implementing decrees.
• A&O Shearman, DLA Piper, Gide Loyrette Nouel, Dalloz Actualité.