By its decree dated January 10, 2018, the French Supreme Court does not fail to surprise by adopting a formalistic approach of the franchisor’s precontractual disclosure obligation. It seemed rather established by case law that the franchise agreement (or, more specifically, any agreement providing a person with a trade name, brand or sign, and requiring from the latter an exclusivity or near-exclusivity obligation to practice their activity), could be canceled for failure of the franchisor to its pre-contractual disclosure obligation, only if the franchisee managed to establish that the missing information of the pre-contractual disclosure document (that has to be handed in 20 days prior to the signature of the agreement) had vitiated the latter’s consent. However, in the case at hand, the Supreme Court censored the Bordeaux Court of Appeal because it did not verify if the precontractual disclosure document contained the information required by the Commercial Code. The Court of Appeal indeed settled to note that it follows from the facts of the case that the franchisee knew the concept of the franchise and its functioning and that it declared in the franchise agreement that it had received all the necessary information. As such, it did not answer the franchisee that reproached the franchisor of the absence of information regarding the liquidation of companies formerly managed by it and by former franchisees, the absence of a test site, of an operational handbook, of reliable information on the state of the market and of a credible forecast regarding development opportunities and the activity’s results. The Supreme Court therefore overturns the decision of the Court of Appeal and refers the matter before another Court. This tougher approach from the Supreme Court must be taken into account seriously by the franchisors due to the significant consequences that a lack of information can raise: the invalidity of the agreement and its potential contagion effect on the entire network