Mistakes during a DGCCRF interview: what makes a case worse is almost never the initial act

There is a persistent belief among executives summoned by a Departmental Directorate for the Protection of Populations (DDPP), a Regional Directorate for the Economy, Employment, Labor and Solidarity (DREETS), or a fraud prevention service: that the case is already written, the hearing is merely a formality, and its outcome depends solely on the severity of the facts. Experience suggests otherwise. In a significant proportion of cases, the difference between an educational follow-up and a referral to the public prosecutor's office comes down to what was said, written, signed, or done in the hours surrounding the interview.

This is the central paradox of DGCCRF hearing mistakes : they are committed by well-intentioned executives who thought they were doing the right thing. Denying to protect oneself, explaining at length to demonstrate transparency, providing a figure in a spirit of cooperation, or correcting a page to prove good faith: each of these reflexes seems reasonable, yet each can shift a case one or two notches up the scale of potential consequences. Unlike the initial act, which belongs to the past, these mistakes are created on the day of the hearing, in a matter of seconds.

This third and final installment of the series describes five mistakes that mechanically worsen a situation, the mechanism by which each produces its effect, and the resulting legal cost. It describes the downfall, not the recovery: how to avoid these mistakes cannot be summarized in general instructions and depends on the specific case, the intended legal qualification, and the evidence held by the administration. If you are currently facing a summons, our DGCCRF, DDPP, and DREETS audit and litigation team intervenes before the interview, not after.

The legal framework in three minutes: what you need to keep in mind before addressing the mistakes

A voluntary hearing, backed by extensive investigative powers

The interview for which you have been summoned is a voluntary interview. It is based on Article L. 512-10 of the Consumer Code, which authorizes authorized agents to hear any person likely to provide information useful to the investigation, whether by summons or on-site. The minutes must include the questions asked and the answers given, be read by the person being heard, include their observations and signature, with any refusal to sign being noted. This formality gives your statements their evidentiary value.

This power to conduct hearings is linked to a very broad power to request information. Article L. 512-8 of the Consumer Code allows agents to demand the communication of documents of any kind, to obtain them, to make copies on any medium, and to seize them wherever they may be found. The administration is therefore not dependent on what you provide: it can seek the same information from a service provider or an intermediary.

Rights notified under Article 61-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Through the reference in Article 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 61-1 applies to these hearings. Any person against whom there are plausible reasons to suspect that they have committed an offense must be notified of the following before being heard:

• The qualification, the date and the alleged locationsof the offense they are suspected of having committed or attempted to commit.
• The right to leave at any time , as a voluntary interview is based on consent.
• The right to make statements, answer questions, or remain silent.
• The right to be assisted by a lawyer when the offense is punishable by imprisonment, which is the case for the main offenses under the Consumer Code.
• The right to be assisted by an interpreter.
• The right to receive legal advice from a legal aid organization.

These points define the landscape where the five errors are likely to occur. Regarding the flow of the interview and the sequencing of questions, the first part of this series is dedicated to the mechanics of the interview and its trick questions ; regarding the content of the summons and the formal report process, the second part covers the summons, the official report, and the rights of the executive. This article assumes these elements are already understood.

Error 1: Denying facts already documented by the authorities

The starting point: the administration has already investigated before issuing a summons

A summons does not initiate an investigation; it occurs at an advanced stage of one. By the time the letter setting a date arrives, the administration has already observed, collected, and cross-referenced information. It possesses its own findings, documents obtained under the right of communication provided by Article L. 512-8, and sometimes statements from third parties. The hearing is intended to confront this body of evidence with your version of events, not to discover facts. Executives often perceive what is frequently a verification process as an open-ended inquiry. It is in this gap that the most costly mistake of all is born.

The mechanism: denial does not eliminate the fact, it adds a problem

Denying an established fact does not produce any of the desired effects. The fact remains, documented by a dated observation, a contractual document, or a written exchange. Denial does not erase it; it adds a piece of information to the file that was not there before, a question of credibility.

This question of credibility has a formidable property: it is contagious. When a statement is proven to be contradicted by a document, it is not just that statement that loses its weight, but all statements made on the same day by the same person. A file where the executive was credible on ten points but contradicted on one becomes a file where nothing is taken for granted. A generic example: a home repair company whose manager claims that prices have always been displayed before work begins, while the administration holds contractual documents given to customers that do not include this display. The fact has not changed, but all their other explanations are now read with suspicion.

The legal consequence: the mental element is reinforced

The aggravation does not stop at perception; it reaches the very characterization of the offense. Regarding misleading commercial practices, the intentional element is often presented by executives as their best protection, on the grounds that they did not intend to deceive. This interpretation is too comfortable. The Court of Cassation rules that manifestly deliberate negligence is sufficient to characterize the mental element of the offense (Cass. crim., January 29, 2019, No. 17-86.876). It is not necessary to demonstrate an intent to deceive: it is enough to establish that the professional deliberately disregarded the truthfulness of what they were disseminating. However, denying a documented fact fuels this demonstration by suggesting that they knew the situation and chose to present it otherwise. What could have been discussed as a lack of organization becomes assumed behavior, and the debate shifts from the material ground, where there was room for maneuver, to the intentional ground, where those margins close.

What the administration already holds before summoning you

The following table lists the main sources of information used prior to a hearing, their legal basis, and what they serve to establish.

At the time of the interview, the question is therefore no longer whether the administration knows, but exactly what it knows. Identifying this boundary based on the summons, the targeted qualification, and the history of the audit requires preparation with a consumer law attorney, which cannot be improvised in the waiting room.

Error 2: talking too much and breaking the boundaries of the investigation

The mechanism: stress, silence, and the need to justify oneself

The second error is the most universal because it stems not from strategy but from physiology. The summoned executive is under pressure, in an unusual environment, facing interlocutors whose intentions and level of information they do not know, regarding a subject that involves their company and sometimes their personal assets. Three factors then combine.

• The stress, which drives one to fill uncertainty with words, saying something that gives the impression of regaining control.
• The investigator's silencea legitimate and effective tool: one question, one brief answer, followed by a silence that most people being questioned will spontaneously fill.
• The need to justify oneself, which is very strong among executives who feel they have nothing to reproach themselves for: they want to be understood, so they explain and provide context.

The effect: every piece of unsolicited information expands the scope

A summons defines the boundaries of an investigation: it specifies a legal qualification, a time period, and a subject. This delimitation is not just an administrative courtesy; it is a procedural constraint. The paradox is that the person who breaks through this boundary is, in the vast majority of cases, the executive themselves.

Unsolicited information is new information. It may relate to a period prior to the one under investigation, to a range of products not involved, or to a related practice that no one had examined, thereby opening up a line of questioning that the agent had no reason to pursue. Imagine a food company summoned regarding the labeling of a specific product, whose executive, in an attempt to show that the situation is isolated, explains how product sheets are designed for their entire range and mentions a supplier whose certificates arrived late: they haven't answered any questions; they have created a new lead. The same dynamic is observed in energy renovation or telemarketing, where explaining advertising materials or a sales script leads to describing a network of lead generators or the origin of prospecting databases.

An additional grievance does not just add a line to the file: it changes the nature of the outcome. What could have been handled with a warning becomes an injunction; what was subject to an injunction becomes an administrative fine; what could have remained administrative becomes criminal. And this expansion is irreversible.

It would be tempting to conclude that one simply needs to exercise self-control. That is to misunderstand the problem: this is not about idle chatter, but a normal reaction to an abnormal situation. Above all, the executive does not know, in the moment, which of their sentences is neutral and which is fertile ground for the investigation—a distinction that requires knowledge of the constituent elements of the alleged offense and the status of the file. This type of assessment is built beforehand, with a lawyer specializing in DGCCRF audits, and never in the urgency of an interview.

Error 3: providing a figure from memory

The mechanism: a cooperative response that becomes verifiable

The question seems innocuous and is frequently asked: what is your turnover, how many orders were placed during the period, what share does this product represent, what budget did you allocate to this campaign? The executive wants to appear cooperative and answers from memory, using an approximation they believe is cautious.

The problem is that this figure, unlike an opinion, is objectively verifiable: through bank reconciliation, accounting review, or by questioning payment service providers. It is all the more so because Article L. 512-8 authorizes the administration to obtain documents from whomever may hold them. The approximation provided in good faith then becomes a formal statement, compared against exact data.

The aggravation: from an imprecision to a false declaration

When the discrepancy appears, it is not presented as a memory lapse but as a false declaration, recorded in the minutes and signed. The executive who announced a sales volume far lower than reality, often because they were thinking of a different fiscal year or scope than the one targeted, finds themselves in the position of someone who has downplayed the facts, triggering the credibility spiral described above. The direction of the discrepancy offers no protection: an inflated figure, given as a commercial reflex, expands the apparent base of consumer harm and worsens the administration's perception of the scale of the events.

The specific stakes: turnover serves as the basis for calculation, and personal circumstances influence the fine

In consumer law, turnover is not just contextual data: it is a basis for sanctionsArticle L. 132-2 of the Consumer Code provides for an alternative proportional ceiling, in addition to fines expressed as an absolute value, which can reach 10% of the average annual turnover, calculated based on the last annual financial years known at the time of the events, or 50% of the expenses incurred for the creation of the advertisement or the practice constituting the offense. A figure mentioned from memory during a hearing therefore directly affects the calculation basis for the maximum penalty incurred.

Individualization must also be taken into account. Articles 132-1 and 132-20 of the Penal Code require that the sentence be pronounced in consideration of the circumstances of the offense and the personality of the perpetrator, and that the amount of the fine be determined by taking into account their resources and liabilities. The Court of Cassation recently reiterated the requirement for justification regarding this individualization (Cass. crim., November 25, 2025, No. 24-85.437 and No. 24-85.443). The information provided about your personal financial situation and that of the company is therefore not just casual conversation: it informs the reasoning that will determine the quantum.

Numerical data is thus the easiest to provide spontaneously and the most consequential. Determining which data falls within the scope of the investigation and at what point it should be entered into the file is a trade-off that should be prepared in advance with a white-collar criminal defense attorney.

Error 4: Incriminating yourself without realizing it

The mechanism: an ordinary word that fulfills a constituent element

The fourth error is the most subtle and, in many cases, the most decisive: it consists of using a term in everyday language that has a technical legal meaning, thereby fulfilling a constituent element of the offense yourself. Describing a presentation as a bit exaggerated, a display as deliberately catchy, or a statement as intentionally placed at the bottom of the pageamounts to describing in non-legal terms what the law defines otherwise. The executive believes they are providing context; they are actually providing a legal characterization.

Case in point: misleading commercial practices

Misleading commercial practices provide the clearest demonstration. Article L. 121-2 of the Consumer Code targets practices based on allegations, indications, or presentations that are false or likely to mislead regarding exhaustively listed elements such as the essential characteristics of the good or service, its price, or the identity of the advertiser. Article L. 121-3 targets misleading practices by omission, where substantial information is omitted, concealed, or provided in an unintelligible, ambiguous, or untimely manner.

Two concepts structure the analysis. The first is that ofa false allegation or one likely to mislead : it is sufficient that the statement is capable of deceiving. The second is the risk of substantially altering the economic behavior of the average consumer, assessed abstractly by reference to a normally informed and reasonably attentive consumer, rather than to dissatisfied customers. The Court of Cassation holds that characterizing a misleading commercial practice does not require proof of actual individual harm (Cass. crim., July 11, 2017, No. 16-84.902; Cass. com., July 7, 2021, No. 19-16.028).

A cosmetics executive who explains that the wording on packaging was intended to highlight a product benefit when the efficacy study was incomplete, or an e-commerce executive who indicates that the delivery time notice was written broadly so as not to discourage orders, are not debating the legal classification: they are reinforcing it.

Added to this is Article L. 121-2-1 of the Consumer Code, which places the burden of proof for the accuracy of allegations, indications, and presentations on the advertiser. Every statement made during a hearing regarding the truthfulness of a commercial claim therefore requires justification that it is your responsibility to provide.

The fundamental principle: classification is legal work, acknowledgment is a decision

There is a very common, and very costly, confusion between describing facts and classifying them. Describing is the role of the person being interviewed. Classifying is the role of the law: comparing facts against the constituent elements of a criminal statute or an administrative breach requires knowledge of the relevant case law, conditions, and limitations.

Acknowledging a legal classification is therefore neither a gesture of courtesy nor a sign of good faith: it is a legal decision that shapes the outcome of the case, weighs on all subsequent discussions, and reduces the scope for challenging the matter before a judge. Many executives confuse loyalty—which consists of not lying—with the acknowledgment of a legal classification, which consists of endorsing a legal interpretation that one is not equipped to evaluate. Distinguishing between these two registers over several hours of questioning is what preparation with a consumer law attorney is intended to make possible.

Error 5: Tampering with documents and records

The mechanism: the corrective reflex

The fifth error is the most serious and almost always stems from a desire to fix things. Once a summons is received, the manager wants to make the problem disappear: they modify an online page, change a product sheet, delete an internal communication, or have an incomplete contract redrafted and backdated to the time of the events.

These actions do not erase anything, as the authorities frequently possess prior evidence: dated screenshots, copies of pages, documents obtained from third parties under Article L. 512-8, or copies held by customers. Instead, they create a new offense, distinct from the one that prompted the summons, and often more severe.

The two threatening charges

The first is forgery. Article 441-1 of the Penal Code punishes any fraudulent alteration of the truth, capable of causing harm, committed in a written document or any other medium intended to, or capable of, serving as proof of a right or a fact with legal consequences. Forgery and the use of forged documents are punishable by three years' imprisonment and a 45,000 euro fine. Reconstructing a contract, backdating a document, or producing a modified version of a record falls squarely into this category.

The second is obstruction of justice. Articles L. 512-4 and L. 531-1 of the Consumer Code punish the act of obstructing the investigative powers of authorized agents with a penalty of two years' imprisonment and a 300,000 euro fine, an amount that may be increased, in proportion to the benefits derived from the breach, to 10% of the average annual turnover calculated based on the last three financial years known at the time of the events. These charges do not require the maneuver to have been successful.

The scale of the risk is counter-intuitive: these penalties are of a comparable order, and sometimes higher, than those incurred for the initial grievance. Trying to eliminate a risk of sanction therefore exposes one to an at least equivalent sanction, on grounds where defense is more difficult: challenging a legal qualification is a matter of debate, whereas challenging the alteration of a document is a matter of material fact.

The essential distinction: correcting for the future is not tampering with evidence

A company under investigation is not condemned to total immobility. The law distinguishes between two entirely different types of operations. The first is lawful correction for the future : bringing a practice or medium into compliance, which the administration itself may impose by way of an injunction. The second is thetampering with evidence : interfering with anything intended to establish the prior state of affairs.

The line between the two is not deduced from subjective intent or a general rule: it depends on the medium, the stage of the procedure, what the administration has already observed, and the intended legal qualification. The same action may be classified as regularization in one case and tampering in another. Determining this limit requires the analysis of a lawyer specializing in DGCCRF, DDPP, and DREETS litigation, as the period following a summons is when the slightest isolated initiative can cost more than the original grievance.

Summary: the five errors and their effects

The table below summarizes the five errors, their mechanism of aggravation, the text or concept involved, and the resulting consequence.

The sixth error, which contains the other five: attending without preparation

A category error, not a behavioral one

The five errors described all stem from the same cause: a manager who attends the interview without knowing what is at stake. They are unaware of what the administration possesses, what the intended qualification requires to be proven, which data falls within the scope, and which words carry legal weight. Deprived of these benchmarks, they improvise, and improvisation mechanically produces the five errors.

If this error is so widespread, it is due to a misunderstanding of the nature of the event. Many managers perceive the hearing as an explanatory conversation and see it as an opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding. However, it is a procedural act, subject to a precise formal regime, the product of which is a report intended to serve as the basis for administrative or criminal follow-up.

What public data says about the intensity of inspections

Added to this is a second misunderstanding regarding the probability of follow-up actions. The idea that inspections generally end with a reminder of the regulations does not hold up against data published by the administration itself. The campaign conducted by the DGCCRF in the influencer marketing sector in 2022 and 2023 offers a documented order of magnitude: more than 300 professionals inspected, 151 follow-up actions taken, divided into 35 warnings, 81 injunctions, and 35 criminal proceedings.

Warnings, the least restrictive response, therefore represent less than a quarter of the follow-up actions; injunctions, which impose compliance within a set timeframe, constitute the primary mode of intervention; and nearly one in four follow-up actions is a criminal proceeding. One sector cannot be directly compared to another, but the structural lesson remains: when an administration initiates an inspection and issues a summons, it takes action.

Two consequences for the summoned manager

The first is that the useful time lies between the receipt of the summons and the date of the interview: afterwards, the essentials are set in stone. The second is that preparation does not consist of learning answers, but of understanding a file, which involves reconstructing what the administration may have gathered, analyzing the announced qualification, and identifying the areas where a statement produces a legal effect. This work falls to a lawyer specializing in business criminal law and consumer law. On the procedural side, the right to remain silent in administrative sanction proceedings constitutes a point of support in this regard, the exact scope of which varies according to the nature of the proceedings initiated.

The real cost of a poorly conducted hearing

The criminal aspect: penalties incurred for misleading commercial practices

Article L. 132-2 of the Consumer Code punishes misleading commercial practices with two years' imprisonment and a 300,000 euro fine. The penalty is increased to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 750,000 euros when the offense is committed through the use of an online public communication service or digital medium, a circumstance that applies to the vast majority of cases today, since it is sufficient for the practice to have been deployed on a website, marketplace, or application.

The same article provides that the amount of the fine may be increased, in proportion to the benefits derived from the offense, to 10% of the average annual turnover, calculated based on the last three financial years known at the time of the facts, or to 50% of the expenses incurred for the implementation of the advertising or practice constituting the offense. For a growing company, this ceiling frequently exceeds the fine in absolute value.

For legal entities, Article 131-38 of the Penal Code sets the maximum rate of the fine at five times that provided for individuals: the 300,000 euros become 1,500,000 euros and the 750,000 euros become 3,750,000 euros. Furthermore, the executive and the company are frequently prosecuted together, each on their own legal basis.

Added to this are the additional penalties of Article L. 132-3 of the Consumer Code and, above all, Article L. 132-4, which provides that the court shall order the publication of the conviction: this is not a judge's option, it is an obligation. For companies whose business relies on consumer trust, this lasting consequence is often more severe than the fine. This topic is developed in our article dedicated to the publication of DGCCRF sanctions and name and shame.

The administrative aspect: injunction, fine, and publicity

The administrative route, often perceived as milder, is above all faster. Article L. 521-1 of the Consumer Code allows the administrative authority, following an adversarial procedure, to order the professional to comply with their obligations, to cease any illicit conduct, or to remove any illicit clause, within a timeframe the expiration of which triggers further consequences.

Article L. 522-1 grants the administrative authority the power to impose administrative fines sanctioning the breaches mentioned in Title II of Book V. Article L. 522-5 organizes the adversarial procedure prerequisite: the party concerned is informed of the proposed sanction, their right to review the case file and be assisted by counsel of their choice, and is invited to submit their observations. Article L. 522-6 allows for ordering the publication of the sanction decision, at the expense of the sanctioned party.

The point almost everyone gets wrong: one month, not sixty days

There is a very common error in this area that can cost you the entire adversarial phase. The time limit for submitting observations after notification of a proposed administrative sanction in consumer matters isone month : Article L. 522-5 of the Consumer Code refers to a decree for setting this deadline, and Article R. 522-2 of the same code states that the period mentioned in Article L. 522-5 is one month.

The sixty-day period frequently mentioned regarding administrative sanctions is not the one that applies here. It appears in section IV of Article L. 470-2 of the Commercial Code and concerns procedures falling under Book IV of that code, primarily controls regarding payment deadlines between businesses. The two regimes coexist and are similar in their logic, but they do not apply to the same breaches and do not provide for the same time limits.

The consequence of this confusion is severe: a company that receives a proposed sanction based on the Consumer Code and plans its response based on sixty days will let the actual deadline expire before it has even begun drafting. It loses the phase during which its arguments could still have influenced the decision and is forced to challenge a sanction that has already been issued. Our guide on challenging a DGCCRF fine and administrative and criminal appeals details the avenues available at this stage, which are always more burdensome than the lost adversarial phase.

The scale of potential sanctions

The following table outlines the main potential penalties, distinguishing between individuals and legal entities.

The cumulative effect, often underestimated

Reading this table line by line leads to an undervaluation of the real risk: these are combinations that actually occur. A misleading practice aggravated by digital circumstances, pursued against both the manager and the company, combined with mandatory publication and a legal qualification arising from the hearing itself: this cumulative effect transforms a manageable case into a critical event, and each of the five errors is a tipping point. For an overview of the qualification, our guide to misleading commercial practices for SME managers covers the constituent elements point by point.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What are the most common mistakes during a DGCCRF hearing?

Five errors recur regularly: denying a fact that is already documented, which raises a credibility issue; speaking beyond what is asked, which expands the scope defined by the summons; providing a figure from memory that is verifiable through cross-referencing and decisive for the penalty base; using vocabulary that fulfills a constituent element of the offense; and altering documents after receiving the summons. None of these exist before the interview: they are created during it.

Is lying during a voluntary interview with the DDPP an offense?

A person heard in a voluntary interview is not under oath, and Article 61-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure grants them the right to remain silent. However, denial is not without consequences: it does not make the already gathered evidence disappear, it has a direct effect on the mental element (mens rea), as the Court of Cassation has ruled that manifestly deliberate negligence is sufficient to characterize it (Cass. crim., January 29, 2019, No. 17-86.876), and it weakens other statements made on the same day.

Can you make your case worse by talking too much during a DGCCRF hearing?

Yes, and this is one of the most frequent mechanisms of aggravation. The summons limits the investigation in time and scope; a spontaneous explanation that goes beyond this framework introduces elements into the file relating to another period, another product, or a related practice. An additional grievance can then change the nature of the proceedings, moving a case from a warning to an injunction, or from an administrative path to a criminal one.

What are the risks of providing an inaccurate turnover figure to the DGCCRF?

There are two risks. The first concerns credibility: the figure is verifiable through bank or accounting cross-checks or via payment service providers, and any discrepancy turns an approximation into a declarative inaccuracy recorded in the official report. The second is structural: Article L. 132-2 provides for an alternative ceiling that can reach 10% of the average annual turnover, and information regarding the financial situation influences the individualization of the penalty (Arts. 132-1 and 132-20 of the Penal Code).

Is it serious to modify your website after receiving a DGCCRF summons?

This question is worth asking before taking action. The law distinguishes between lawful correction for the future, which falls under compliance, and the alteration of an element intended to establish the prior state of affairs, which exposes one to charges of forgery (Art. 441-1 of the Penal Code: three years and 45,000 euros) and the offense of obstructing an investigation (Arts. L. 512-4 and L. 531-1 of the Consumer Code: two years and 300,000 euros, an amount that can be increased to 10% of the average annual turnover). Since the administration often possesses prior screenshots, the modification does not eliminate the evidence: it creates new evidence.

What is the deadline for responding to a proposed administrative sanction from the DGCCRF?

In consumer matters, the deadline for submitting observations after notification of a proposed administrative sanction isone month : Article L. 522-5 of the Consumer Code refers to the decree, and Article R. 522-2 sets this deadline at one month. The sixty-day period often cited relates to a different regime, that of Section IV of Article L. 470-2 of the Commercial Code, applicable in particular to checks on payment deadlines. Confusing the two leads to letting the adversarial phase expire, which is the only time when observations can still influence the decision.

Do you need a lawyer for a voluntary interview with the DDPP, DREETS, or DGCCRF?

Article 61-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applicable via the reference in Article 28, provides that a person being interviewed may be assisted by a lawyer when the offense is punishable by imprisonment, which is the case for the main offenses under the Consumer Code. Beyond this right, the real issue lies in the period preceding the interview, during which one's understanding of the file, the intended legal classification, and the scope of the investigation is formed. Our in-depth article on voluntary interviews with the DGCCRF and DDPP details the applicable framework.

Conclusion

TheMistakes during a DGCCRF interview have one characteristic that should command the attention of any summoned executive: they are the only elements of the case that do not yet exist at the moment the summons arrives. The facts are behind you, the findings have been recorded, and the evidence has been collected. What remains open is what will be said, written, signed, and done in the days surrounding the interview.

They all share the same root: legitimate reflexes exercised without knowledge of the state of the file or the legal consequences attached to each statement. The sixth mistake, which encompasses all the others, is approaching an interview without understanding what is at stake. Public data confirms that the probability of formal follow-up is real, and the scale of sanctions means that the cost of a poorly handled case is measured in years of potential imprisonment and percentages of annual turnover.

This series has covered the mechanics of the interview, the rules regarding summonses and official reports, and the errors that aggravate a case. It describes a framework and does not replace the analysis of a specific situation. If you have received a summons from a DDPP, a DREETS, or a DGCCRF department, we invite you to contact the firm before taking any further steps.

Article written by Guillaume Leclerc, business lawyer in Paris, 34 Avenue des Champs-Élysées.

"To learn more":

• The mechanics of DGCCRF, DDPP, and DREETS interviews: the funnel approach and trick questions
• DGCCRF summons and interview reports: your rights as an executive
• DGCCRF and DDPP voluntary hearing: preparation and defense guide
• The right to remain silent in administrative sanction proceedings: a guide for executives
• Challenging a DGCCRF fine: a guide to administrative and criminal appeals
• Publication of a DGCCRF sanction: "name and shame" and how to contest it
• Misleading commercial practices: a practical guide for SME executives
• Lawyer for DGCCRF, DDPP, and DREETS audits and litigation

‍