The Matera ruling: France's top court and the cooperative syndic supported by a platform

Background: five years of litigation

Matera runs an online platform for condominiums that have adopted the cooperative syndicate management mode. From March 2020 it ran an advertising campaign, notably on billboards. Several industry players took it to the same court:

• Emeria Europe (formerly Foncia Groupe) sued it and its president for unlawful and misleading advertising and disparagement;
• the Association nationale des gestionnaires de copropriété (ANGC) intervened voluntarily, arguing that Matera unlawfully practised as a syndic and asking that it be barred from presenting itself as a professional syndic or performing its duties;
• the FNAIM Grand Paris chamber sued for disparagement harming the syndic profession;
• the SNPI sued for unlawful comparative advertising, disparagement and misleading commercial practice.

The cases were joined. In a ruling of 20 March 2024 (pôle 5, chamber 1), the Paris Court of Appeal held that Matera was not unlawfully practising as a syndic and that its advertising was not a misleading practice. The ANGC and FNAIM Grand Paris lodged a principal appeal, Emeria Europe and the SNPI cross-appeals. On 17 September 2026 the Third Civil Chamber dismissed them.

The ruling at a glance

What the Hoguet Law says

The law of 2 January 1970 (Hoguet Law) reserves certain operations on other people's property to holders of a professional card. Its article 1(9) covers people who habitually "engage in or lend their assistance, even on an ancillary basis" to operations relating to syndic functions. Article 14 punishes doing so without a card, as well as using the title "syndic de copropriété" without one.

The question was therefore: by giving a cooperative syndic extensive support, does Matera lend its assistance to syndic functions?

The framework: cooperative syndicate and the 1967 decree

Article 14 of the law of 10 July 1965 lets the association take the form of a cooperative syndicate: management is then handled by owners on the syndical council, not by a professional. The decree of 17 March 1967 lets the council seek advice from anyone it chooses and ask a professional for technical opinions (article 27, paragraph 2). Article 42 extends this to the syndic, who may also, under its own responsibility, entrust certain tasks to a cooperative union or other outside providers.

The Court's reasoning

The claimants argued that Matera's contract went beyond giving an opinion or a specific task and provided general, personalised support across all the cooperative syndic's duties, and that the coordination and accumulation of services amounted to habitual practice. The Court first recalls what the Court of Appeal found:

• the contract, a subscription, is aimed only at condominiums with a cooperative syndicate and offers "support on technical topics: administrative, accounting, legal", through a team of specialists and a platform;
• its services cover in particular generating legal documents, accounting management, making documents useful to the condominium available, and assistance with and monitoring of works;
• documents are generated automatically and Matera does not sign them;
• opening a payment account does not make Matera responsible for that account;
• providing information on works monitoring and helping with dealings with contractors is not unlawful;
• the syndic has fully autonomous access to the platform, Matera having only a supporting role.

The Court holds that the Court of Appeal correctly deduced from article 42 of the decree that Matera was entitled to offer support for the functions of a cooperative syndic. It also finds that the Court of Appeal carried out the research allegedly omitted (on the accumulation of services) and thereby established a service that was "limited to assistance and support": it was right to conclude that Matera was not unlawfully performing syndic functions.

The advertising: ambiguous, but not misleading

The slogans at issue, such as "Thank your syndic for good – Vote Matera at the next general meeting" or "Thank your syndic and switch to Matera", were, per the Court of Appeal, likely to create ambiguity by suggesting that Matera could itself provide syndic services. But a practice is misleading only if it materially distorts, or is likely to materially distort, the consumer's economic behaviour. Here:

• before using Matera's services the condominium must opt for the cooperative syndicate: a general meeting votes on a pre-set agenda and authorises both the change of management mode and the contract;
• the council members who undertake to manage the condominium take on responsibility for it;
• owners who are "normally informed and reasonably attentive and shrewd" therefore look into the offer rather than relying on the campaign alone.

The Court notes that the Court of Appeal did not base this on press articles or interviews correcting the message, so it did not have to compare their reach with the campaign's, as the claimants complained.

What the ruling allows… and what it does not say

Reactions from the industry

• ANGC: its president says it takes note of the decision and recalls that the case aimed to obtain clarification for professional syndics.
• FNAIM Grand Paris (Olivier Princivalle): calls for continued reflection on the level of consumer protection as new models develop.
• UNIS (in solidarity with the claimants): stresses the obligations and guarantees that still bind professional syndics (card, training, standard contract, ethics code, insurance, financial guarantee) and wants the ruling's scope confined. It says it will continue its actions, notably to obtain an update of the standard syndic contract.
• Matera, according to MySweetImmo, obtained a professional card in 2024 and now also offers a professional syndic service alongside its support for cooperative syndicates.

What should a condominium take away?

• Getting support is lawful for a cooperative syndic, provided it remains the one who decides, signs and represents the association.
• Vote separately at the meeting on the change of management mode, then on the contract with the provider.
• Keep control of the accounts: the condominium's bank account and access should stay under the syndic's and council's control.
• Read the contract: who does what, who is liable for what, what insurance applies.
• Weigh the burden: being a cooperative syndic engages an owner's personal responsibility; the tool eases it but does not remove it.

The cooperative model is growing: according to the national register, condominiums with a cooperative syndic rose from 10,076 to 12,586 between 2025 and 2026 (see our analysis).

Sources

• Journal de l'Agence — Affaire Matera : jusqu'où peut-on externaliser les missions d'un syndic de copropriété ?
• Becquet Avocats — La Cour de cassation précise jusqu'où Matera peut assister un syndic coopératif
• MySweetImmo — La Cour de cassation donne raison à Matera sur son modèle coopératif
• L'Officiel des métiers — Copropriétés : la Cour de cassation confirme la légalité de Matera

Informational article based on the text of the ruling (Cass. 3rd civ., 17 September 2026, appeal no. Y 24-15.665, ECLI:FR:CCASS:2026:C300502) and on commentaries from the trade press and law firms. Not legal advice. Quotations from the ruling are our translation.