You got a letter from Arcom or the DGCCRF — a French accessibility response playbook

Two tracks, and which one covers you is itself the open question

France supervises digital accessibility along two separate tracks, and unusually, working out which one actually applies to you is not a formality — it is currently the subject of live litigation. Get the track wrong and you will prepare the wrong response.

Track 1: Arcom, under article 47

Arcom oversees online public communication services under article 47 of the 2005 disability law, as reinforced by ordonnance n° 2023-859. After a formal notice, Arcom can fine a non-conforming service, and can fine separately for failures of the declaratory duties — the accessibility statement, the multi-year action plan, and the contact channel — renewable every six months while the breach continues. Stated as maximums: up to €50,000 for a non-conforming service, plus up to €25,000 for the declaratory failures, renewable every six months.

The detail that actually matters: article 47’s digital-accessibility duty attaches above a €250 million turnover threshold. Below that line, Arcom’s track does not reach you at all — which is exactly what a French court recently decided (see below).

Track 2: the DGCCRF, the actual EAA transposition

The DGCCRF supervises accessibility of consumer-facing products and services under the Code de la consommation (article L.412-13, detailed by décret n° 2023-931) — covering e-commerce, banking, transport, telephony, e-books, and audiovisual media, at the EAA’s own thresholds rather than the €250 million one Arcom uses. Stated as maximums: a 5th-class contravention, up to €7,500 per infringement, up to €15,000 on repeat, and cumulable across infringements.

What a French court actually decided about the seam

Ruling in référé on 5 May 2026, the Tribunal judiciaire de Lille dismissed a claim brought by disability associations against Auchan E-Commerce France — on a threshold ground. The court applied article 47, found Auchan did not meet the €250 million turnover threshold that triggers Arcom’s track, and dismissed on that basis, while separately noting that the site’s own accessibility was deficient — around 41% conformity. That is worth reading precisely: it is a dismissal on who is covered, not a finding that the site was accessible. The associations have appealed.

The practical takeaway: if you have received correspondence citing article 47 or Arcom, the first real question is whether your turnover actually crosses €250 million — not whether your site is accessible. If it doesn’t, the DGCCRF track, scoped to the EAA’s own thresholds, is the one that can actually reach you instead.

A third path: direct civil claims

Separate from both regulatory tracks, disability associations have also brought accessibility claims directly in civil court. Ruling in référé on 4 June 2026, the Tribunal judiciaire de Caen — on a claim by apiDV and Droit Pluriel — ordered Carrefour France to make carrefour.fr and its mobile application fully accessible within six months, backed by a coercive daily penalty (astreinte) of €500 per day of delay after that deadline. Carrefour’s position that 71% RGAA conformity was sufficient was rejected: the court held the obligation is full accessibility, not substantial accessibility. No money has fallen due — the compliance deadline is around December 2026, and the astreinte only starts if it passes unmet. If you are facing a similar civil claim, that standard — full, not substantial — is the one to plan a remediation timeline against.

The clock

Neither regulatory track has a universal published response window in the public record for the initial letter stage. Arcom’s own process runs through a formal notice before any fine is possible; the DGCCRF operates as a contravention regime. Read your specific correspondence for whatever date it names. If you are responding to a civil claim rather than a regulator, the deadline is set by the proceeding itself — read what you were actually served, and get counsel involved early given how fast a référé can move (the Lille and Caen rulings above were both summary proceedings).

What to send back

• Work out which track actually applies first. For Arcom, that means checking your real turnover against the €250 million threshold rather than assuming coverage either way. For the DGCCRF, check against the EAA’s own scope and the microenterprise exemption — fewer than 10 people and turnover or balance-sheet total under €2 million, for service providers — which may put you outside the obligation entirely.
• What was tested, on which surfaces.
• Against which standard and revision — EN 301 549 (v3.2.1 / WCAG 2.1 AA, or the v4.1.0 final draft / WCAG 2.2 AA).
• When it was tested, and what was found.
• A remediation plan with real dates. If you are responding to a civil claim, remember the Caen standard: a partial conformity percentage, however high, was not accepted as meeting the obligation. Aspirational dates without a credible plan behind them invite the same result.

What not to do

• Do not assume you are covered — or not covered — by a track without actually checking the threshold that applies to it. That determination is the entire legal question in the Lille case.
• Do not offer a partial conformity percentage as if it resolves the matter. A French court has already rejected that framing once, on the facts of the Caen case.
• Do not claim conformity you cannot evidence, to a regulator or to opposing counsel.
• Do not ignore correspondence on either track, or a civil claim, on the assumption that the seam between the two regimes protects you by default — for one company, in one ruling, it didn’t decide the accessibility question at all, only the coverage question.

Where an EN 301 549 report fits

A chapter-by-chapter EN 301 549 conformance report against a named revision, with a dated remediation plan, is what turns “which track applies to us” from a guess into a documented answer — and gives you something concrete to put in front of Arcom, the DGCCRF, or opposing counsel in a civil claim. See how we help, check the wider enforcement record across EU supervisory authorities, or get in touch to talk through which French track applies to you.

This article is informational only, not legal advice; which track applies to a specific organization, and how to respond to a specific letter or claim, is a determination for your organization and your own counsel.