A French brand almost always asks the creator for exclusivity, and almost always gets it for free. It is the most common clause in UGC contracts and the least negotiated on either side: the brand copies it from a template, the creator signs it without measuring what it forbids them for six months.
What an exclusivity clause actually forbids
It does not forbid talking about the product. It forbids, by contrast, working for a competitor, and the whole problem sits in the definition of that word.
A clause saying "no competing brand" without naming the category is unworkable in practice and dangerous in law. Is a moisturiser brand a competitor of a soap brand? Of a skin supplement? The creator signing does not know what they are giving up, and the brand drafting does not know what it has obtained.
The three boundaries that make the clause enforceable
An exclusivity clause stands up when it names three things, and collapses as soon as one is missing.
The scope, by product category and not by brand name. "Facial moisturisers" can be checked; "our competitors" cannot.
The duration, in days or months from a precise date. Exclusivity with no end is a clause a French judge will cut back, because a perpetual restriction on the freedom to work does not hold.
The territory, where it means something. A brand selling in France has no reason to stop a creator working for a Brazilian brand in the same category.
What French law requires here
An exclusivity clause is a restriction on the freedom to conduct business and on the freedom to work. French case law on non-compete clauses, developed in employment law, shows what judges look at when a restriction is challenged: it must be limited in time and space, proportionate to the legitimate interest it protects, and must not prevent the person from practising their trade.
A UGC creator is not an employee, and that case law does not apply to them directly. But article 1102 of the Civil Code recalls that contractual freedom does not allow derogation from rules of public policy, and total, unlimited and unpaid exclusivity would be argued on that ground.
The practical rule that follows is simple: broad exclusivity is paid for, and exclusivity that is not paid for has to be narrow.
The consideration, which almost never exists
This is where French practice is weakest. Six months of category exclusivity removes part of a creator's addressable market. If the contract provides no consideration distinct from the price of the video, the brand has obtained a free restriction, and the creator discovers the cost when they turn down a job.
Consideration does not necessarily mean money. A guaranteed volume over the period, an automatic renewal, an uplifted rate: all of that counts, provided it is written down.
The rule of thumb that circulates in the trade is to uplift the video rate by twenty to fifty per cent depending on how broad the exclusivity is. That is not a rule, it is a practice, and it has the merit of making the clause negotiable instead of implicit. A brand refusing any uplift should at least narrow the scope accordingly, otherwise it is asking for a favour while presenting it as a formality.
The table both sides should fill in before signing
| Item | What the brand writes | What the creator must check |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | A named product category | That their whole niche is not covered |
| Duration | A start and an end date | That it does not outlast the campaign |
| Territory | The countries covered | That a foreign market stays open |
| Consideration | An amount or a volume | That it is distinct from the video fee |
| Exit | The early termination cases | That a stopped campaign releases them |
The last line is the one nobody writes. A brand that stops its campaign after three weeks leaves the creator tied for the remaining five months, for a video that no longer runs.
What negotiates easily, and what does not
Negotiates easily: the duration, almost always halvable, and the territory, which most French brands have no reason to extend.
Does not negotiate: the scope, when the brand has a genuine direct competitor it wants to keep out. That is legitimate and the creator should accept it, provided that competitor is named rather than implied.
The specialist creator, whom the clause can shut down
Category exclusivity costs a generalist little and a specialist a great deal. Someone filming only haircare who accepts six months of exclusivity on that category is not giving up part of their market, they are giving up their market.
It is the one case where the clause changes nature: it stops being a restriction and becomes a shutdown. A brand recruiting a specialist should know that before offering its usual template, because the creator will refuse or, worse, accept and then look for a way out.
The wording that almost always unblocks the situation is to name two or three specific brands rather than a category. The brand gets the protection it actually wanted, the specialist keeps their trade, and the clause becomes checkable by both parties.
The brand's objection
"If we do not ask for exclusivity, the creator will film for our competitor next week with the same hook." That is a real risk, and it is not solved by a broad clause. It is solved by a narrow, paid one, because free exclusivity is the one a creator forgets fastest and contests most readily.
A brand that pays for exclusivity also gets something the clause itself does not give: a creator with a reason to respect it.
Sources
- Civil Code, article 1102, freedom of contract
- Civil Code, articles 1103 and 1104, binding force and good faith
- Law no. 2023-451 of 9 June 2023 on commercial influence
Checked on 6 September 2026. This guide is not legal advice. Where this guide and the official source disagree, the source prevails.
