Cour de cassation, 10th December 2025, nº 24-20.778

 

The case concerns a company that provided credit card details over the phone strictly for a hotel reservation, only to have the merchant process an immediate charge without further permission.

The company’s manager had booked a hotel room and provided the company’s credit card number and security code. Upon arrival at the hotel reception, the manager was surprised to learn that the reservation could not be honoured.

While a Court of Paris initially dismissed the claim for a refund, the Cour de cassation (the French Supreme Court) overturned that decision, ruling that sharing card information for booking is not synonymous with an order of payment. 

The Cour de cassation annulled a judgment that had refused to reimburse a company (RJSAM) for a card payment made after it communicated its card number and cryptogram by phone to a hotel for a room reservation.

Applying Articles L.133‑6 and L.133‑7 of the Monetary and Financial Code, the Court held that a payment is authorised only if the payer has consented in the form agreed with the payment service provider, and absent such consent, it is deemed non-authorised.

The lower court inferred authorisation solely from the spontaneous disclosure of the card data to the hotelier, without examining whether the bank could prove the customer’s consent to immediate payment, even though that consent was disputed. This lack of investigation deprived the decision of a legal basis, leading to its cassation and the remittal of the case to another formation of the Paris judicial tribunal.

 

Principal aspects of the French Supreme Court decision:

1. Definition of an authorised payment: A payment operation is authorised only if the payer has given consent to its execution, and this consent must be given in the form agreed between the payer and the payment service provider.

2. Consequence of missing consent: If such consent is not given in the agreed form, the payment operation is deemed “non‑authorised.”

3. Burden of proof on the provider: When the payer contests having consented (for example, to an immediate payment after giving card details by phone), the court must verify whether the payment service provider proves that consent; failure to carry out this verification deprives the lower court’s decision of a proper legal basis.

 

Carlos Torres