Pay TV subscription, automatic renewal is null and void

A tacit renewal clause of a contract entered into by signing a form unilaterally prepared by one of the contracting parties is null and void if the consumer did not exclude it (so-called opt-out) by ticking a specific box, but did not approve it by specifically signing it: this was affirmed by the Supreme Court, in its order 12153 of 30 April 2026, with regard to a subscription contract to a pay-TV that, in its general conditions, contained a clause of automatic renewal in the absence of cancellation.

The Court observes that Article 1341(2) of the Civil Code is not limited to requiring that the general terms and conditions be knowable by the contracting party other than the one that prepared them, but imposes, for the so-called vexatious clauses (such as that of tacit renewal), a specific written approval. This requirement serves to draw the attention of the potential adherent to the content unfavourable to him or her in contracts unilaterally prepared by the professional: the function of the separate endorsement is a minimum safeguard of the adherent's awareness of the onerous terms included in the form.

For the Court of Cassation, the mechanism used in the form at issue reversed the legal model: with the second signature the weaker party was not asked to approve the unfair terms, but to exclude those not accepted, after prior approval of all general terms. In other words, the negotiation clauses were automatically accepted, unless the consumer indicated that they were deleted.