Executive Summary
- The proposed questionnaire, ranking and purchase process constitutes insurance distribution. A comparison can fall within that definition without personalised advice when customers can conclude a contract directly or indirectly. A “no advice” disclaimer cannot exclude conduct that the statute covers. (French Code des assurances, art. L.511-1(I).)
- A Moroccan supplier can retain a narrower role by providing general information, a contact referral or technical services without taking further steps towards a sale. The recommended launch sends customers to a French-regulated distributor before collecting insurance needs or comparing products. (Code des assurances, art. L.511-1(II)(3)–(4); art. R.511-3(III).)
- A group company that operates the regulated sale in France needs the appropriate ORIAS intermediary registration and operating arrangements. Registration does not permit that company to insure the risk. A Moroccan intermediary approval supplies no European passport. (Code des assurances, arts. L.512-1, L.515-2 and L.310-2.)
- The carrier must have permission for the relevant French risk and insurance classes. For travel policies lasting no more than four months, French law locates the risk where the policyholder takes out the contract. Travelling to Morocco does not itself make a policy bought in France a Moroccan risk. (Code des assurances, arts. L.310-4(3) and L.310-2.)
- A Moroccan carrier can use the French market only through an applicable admission route. The third-country branch route requires French approvals; a Moroccan domestic authorisation alone is insufficient. A properly authorised French or EEA carrier provides the more suitable launch structure. (Code des assurances, arts. L.321-1, L.329-1 and L.362-1–L.362-2.)
- Launch should remain conditional on the carrier, distributor, customer documents and data arrangements meeting their respective requirements. Until then, the Moroccan business should not activate recommendations, premium collection, binding cover or claims decisions for the proposed French sale. The absence of an eligible carrier requires deferral, irrespective of the intermediary structure. (Code des assurances, arts. L.511-1, L.512-1 and L.310-2.)
The proposed online sale crosses the distribution boundary
The proposed website performs regulated activities before the customer pays. Article L.511-1 covers advice, proposals, preparatory work, contract conclusion and assistance with contract administration or performance. Its comparison limb includes information selected against customer criteria and rankings where the customer can conclude directly or indirectly. The questionnaire and product ranking therefore cannot be treated as passive advertising merely because another company issues the policy. (Code des assurances, art. L.511-1(I); art. R.511-1(I).)
France implemented Directive (EU) 2016/97 through Ordonnance no. 2018-361 and Décret no. 2018-431. The principal distribution provisions have applied since 1 October 2018. French rules govern the proposed distributor's conduct, while separate insurer-admission rules govern who can assume the risk. ACPR supervises insurance distribution; ORIAS maintains the intermediary register. An insurer's authorisation and a broker's registration answer different statutory requirements. (Ordonnance no. 2018-361, 16 May 2018; Décret no. 2018-431, 1 June 2018; Code des assurances, arts. L.512-1 and L.321-1.)
A neutral comparison does not require an express recommendation to enter the distribution definition. Conversely, the label “software supplier” cannot settle who performs the regulated acts. If Moroccan staff choose the product panel, apply customer-specific criteria or explain which cover the customer should buy, the proposed role exceeds technical hosting. Organising an insurance distribution network can itself constitute distribution under the French implementing provisions. (Code des assurances, art. L.511-1(I); art. R.511-1(II).)
A narrow referral can remain outside distribution
The introducer exclusion depends on conduct. Article L.511-1 excludes merely supplying information about potential policyholders, or information about products or intermediaries, without further steps towards conclusion. Article R.511-3(III) permits a referral commission where the introducer's role is confined to putting the parties in contact. Payment alone therefore does not turn every referral into insurance distribution, but a fixed fee cannot protect an otherwise regulated sales process. (Code des assurances, art. L.511-1(II)(3)–(4); art. R.511-3(III).)
The recommended referral page should identify the receiving distributor and offer a link to its service. Any contact transmission should use the minimum information needed for that introduction and a valid data-processing basis. The Moroccan page should not collect medical information, score needs, select policies, produce individual quotations or answer coverage questions. Those restrictions define the proposed operating boundary; they do not create an exemption for the complete purchase process described in the scenario. (Code des assurances, art. L.511-1; Regulation (EU) 2016/679, arts. 5, 6 and 9.)
A technical supplier can develop or maintain the distributor's software without making the customer-facing insurance decisions. The distributor should control the questions, product eligibility, ranking logic, disclosures and contract acceptance. Supplier instructions should prohibit independent changes to those functions. A white-label interface requires the same division of responsibility as a redirected sale, but makes that division harder to demonstrate. Initial redirection is therefore the recommended design. (Code des assurances, arts. L.511-1 and L.521-1; Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2358, arts. 8 and 10–12.)
Offshore sales operations defeat that separation. ACPR's notice of 15 September 2025 warns against third-country call centres distributing French-risk insurance, including arrangements involving French intermediaries' offshore branches. The notice concerns telephone distribution and is supervisory guidance, rather than a new statutory prohibition on software outsourcing. Its practical relevance here is the same allocation problem: a French registration cannot serve as a front for Moroccan staff performing the regulated sale. (ACPR, “Démarchage téléphonique hors espace économique européen”, 15 September 2025, sections “Des pratiques inadéquates” and “Rappel des attendus”; Code des assurances, arts. L.511-1 and L.512-1.)
Insurance broker registration France
An appropriately registered French group intermediary is the alternative when the group wants to operate the comparison and sale itself. A broker registration fits an intermediary placing business in that capacity; an agent or mandatary category has different contractual authority. The company must select its category against its actual functions, rather than register first and expand the functions afterwards. French registration requires the applicable professional capacity, good-repute, liability-insurance and financial-security conditions. French brokers and relevant broker mandataries must also meet the approved-association requirement, subject to the statutory exceptions. (Code des assurances, arts. R.511-2, L.512-1 and L.512-4–L.512-7; art. L.513-3.)
The registered entity needs actual responsibility for its sales operation. Its agreements must identify who advises, binds, receives premiums, handles complaints and communicates with customers. A Moroccan approval cannot be passported under the EEA intermediary regime. An intermediary established and registered elsewhere in the EEA may instead use the applicable French cross-border notification route; that is a separate structure from operating through the Moroccan company. (Code des assurances, arts. L.512-1 and L.515-2; ACPR, “Démarchage téléphonique hors espace économique européen”, 15 September 2025, section “Une chaîne de distribution juridiquement encadrée”.)
The ancillary-intermediary exemption does not fit merely because the product is travel insurance or the premium is small. It requires a qualifying non-insurance principal activity, complementary insurance and the statutory coverage and premium conditions. A marketplace whose business is insurance comparison cannot rely on that exemption solely because its customers are booking holidays. A genuine travel-service seller requires a separate analysis, and exempt ancillary distribution retains specified customer safeguards. (Code des assurances, arts. L.513-1 and L.513-2.)
The policy term and place of purchase locate the risk
The carrier analysis starts with the insurance risk's legal location. For a travel or holiday policy lasting no more than four months, article L.310-4(3) uses the state where the contract was taken out. A French resident who purchases that policy while in France therefore presents a French-located risk under this rule, despite travelling to Morocco. The four-month threshold concerns the contract's duration, not merely the length of the holiday. (Code des assurances, art. L.310-4(3); Directive 2009/138/EC, art. 13(13)(c).)
An annual multi-trip policy falls outside that short-contract rule. For an individual policyholder, the residual rule ordinarily uses the state of principal residence, subject to the specific property and vehicle rules. A French resident who buys short-duration cover after arriving in Morocco requires a different situs analysis. The launch should therefore establish the policyholder, purchase location, policy term and insured interests before selecting the carrier admission route. (Code des assurances, art. L.310-4(1)–(4); Directive 2009/138/EC, art. 13(13).)
The Moroccan destination, a Moroccan website and a Moroccan-law clause do not replace those statutory connecting factors. The IDD also excludes distribution concerning risks and commitments situated outside the Union from its scope. That exclusion requires the actual risk-location facts; it does not establish that every foreign-destination trip falls outside French regulation. A product bought in Morocco should undergo its own territorial analysis rather than inherit clearance from the proposed France-purchase model. (Directive (EU) 2016/97, art. 1(6); Code des assurances, art. L.310-4.)
Permission to sell travel insurance in France
For the proposed French-risk sale, the preferred carrier is a French-authorised insurer or an eligible EEA insurer operating through the relevant French establishment or services procedure. Its permissions must cover every component it writes. Medical expenses, accident benefits, assistance and cancellation losses require a class-by-class analysis; calling the bundle “travel insurance” does not establish the necessary scope. The signed placement documents should identify the legal insurer behind each promise. (Code des assurances, arts. L.310-2, L.321-1, R.321-1 and L.362-1–L.362-2.)
A Moroccan insurer remains a third-country insurer for this purpose. French law permits an applicable third-country branch admission route, with administrative approval and an approved general representative under article L.329-1. This route requires insurer-level work beyond an intermediary registration. A branch approval in another EEA state is not equivalent to authorisation of an EEA-incorporated insurer carrying European passport rights. (Code des assurances, arts. L.310-2 and L.329-1; Directive 2009/138/EC, arts. 14–15 and 162.)
An “underwriter” must be classified by its legal role. An authorised insurer can bear the risk; a delegated underwriting intermediary needs authority from that insurer to perform the delegated functions. A binder cannot confer the insurer's authorisation on the intermediary. If the marketplace promises compensation on its own balance sheet in exchange for premiums, its proposed role requires insurer-level analysis. Purchasing reinsurance would not supply the missing direct-insurance admission. (Code des assurances, arts. L.310-1, L.310-2 and L.321-1; ACPR, “Je propose des produits d'assurance”, section on taking insurance risk.)
French-law retail wording is the recommended contractual choice for the France-purchase launch. Rome I restricts choice of law for ordinary insurance risks within its scope, including through the policyholder's habitual residence. Its default rule generally uses the risk-location state for these contracts. The special choice for events limited to another Member State is not a general permission to choose Moroccan law for a Moroccan holiday. Contract law must be checked separately from the insurer's right to sell. (Regulation (EC) no. 593/2008, art. 7(1), (3)(b), (3)(d) and final subparagraph of art. 7(3).)
Advice, paid rankings and customer documents
French distribution requires the distributor to record the customer's demands and needs and explain why the proposed contract is consistent with them. The optional personalised-recommendation service involves explaining why one or more contracts or options best meet those needs among several contracts or options. Calling the comparison neutral does not remove the basic French duty. The distributor should record the customer's answers and the reason for the proposed cover before acceptance. (Code des assurances, art. L.521-4(I)–(II).)
For this product, the questionnaire should distinguish destination, trip dates, intended activities, cancellation needs and eligibility restrictions. Existing insurance and payment-card benefits can affect duplication and suitability. ACPR's Recommendation 2024-R-03 supports gathering information relevant to the product and resolving inconsistent answers. It is supervisory guidance, not an independent permission to process health data or sell a particular policy. The insurer and distributor must determine which questions are necessary for their product. (ACPR Recommendation 2024-R-03, 21 November 2024, sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.4; Code des assurances, art. L.521-4.)
The distributor must explain its status, registration, complaints arrangements, relevant insurer relationships and basis of advice. Remuneration disclosure concerns the nature of the compensation: customer fee, embedded commission, other benefit or a combination. Where the customer pays a fee directly, the amount or calculation method must be disclosed. This is not a universal requirement to publish every commission percentage. Claims of impartial market analysis require the statutory breadth of analysis. (Code des assurances, art. L.521-2.)
Paid ranking needs its own disclosure and control. A comparison operator must explain remuneration or contractual relationships that influence ranking where article L.111-7 applies. The insurance distributor must also prevent remuneration arrangements from encouraging a recommendation contrary to the customer's interests. A sponsored position should not be presented as the customer's best match without the required needs-based justification. Disclosure alone does not cure an unsuitable recommendation. (Code de la consommation, art. L.111-7(II); Code des assurances, arts. L.521-1 and L.521-4.)
Before conclusion, the customer needs the required product and contractual information, including the standardised non-life insurance product information document. A certificate delivered after payment cannot replace that material. The interface should identify the insurer, insured person, premium, duration, principal cover, exclusions and claims route, with documents supplied on the legally permitted durable medium. French is the statutory starting point for policy wording, subject to the specified language exceptions. The recommended launch uses French throughout the customer documents. (Code des assurances, arts. L.112-2, L.112-3 and L.112-2-1(III)–(IV); Directive (EU) 2016/97, arts. 20 and 23.)
Distance selling includes the June 2026 changes
The launch must use the distance-selling rules applicable to new contracts from 19 June 2026. The ordinary consumer insurance withdrawal period is fourteen calendar days from conclusion or later receipt of the required documents. Travel, baggage and similar short-term policies lasting less than one month are excluded from that ordinary distance-withdrawal right. The exception must not be confused with the four-month risk-location test. A separate exception covers full performance by both parties at the consumer's express request before withdrawal. A policy sold as a qualifying supplement to a service can separately attract the thirty-day right under article L.112-10. For the travel cover described in article L.112-10(2), that right requires a contract lasting at least one month. (Code des assurances, arts. L.112-2-1(II) and L.112-10; Ordonnance no. 2026-2, 5 January 2026, arts. 17, 19 and 26.)
Where the distance-withdrawal right applies, missing information can affect its expiry. If the required information and contract terms were never received, the right ordinarily expires one year and fourteen calendar days after conclusion. If the consumer was not informed of the withdrawal right as required, that right remains exercisable without a time limit. (Code des assurances, art. L.112-2-1(II)(1).)
Where a withdrawal right applies to an online contract, the insurer must provide the prescribed free online withdrawal function. The interface must make that function visible and accessible during the applicable period and provide the required acknowledgement. The parties should test the relevant deadline and confirmation process against each product, rather than display a universal “no cancellation” statement for travel insurance. (Code des assurances, art. L.112-2-1(II)(4); art. D.112-5; Décret no. 2026-3, 5 January 2026.)
Premiums and claims need distinct mandates
Direct payment to the insurer is the recommended launch arrangement. A distributor that receives funds must satisfy the applicable financial-guarantee requirements or establish that the written insurer-mandate exception covers the particular flows. The agreements should address when payment discharges the customer, refunds, reconciliation and insolvency exposure. Routing money through a payment provider does not settle which insurance participant has authority to collect it. The Moroccan supplier should receive its separately documented remuneration without holding customer premiums. (Code des assurances, art. L.512-7.)
Claims support needs a defined boundary. Assistance with the administration or performance of a distributed contract can fall within insurance distribution. The exclusion for activities consisting exclusively in claims management, assessment and settlement does not exempt an entity's separate sales activities. For the first launch, the insurer or its appointed assistance provider should decide coverage and settlements. Moroccan support should be limited to agreed technical or administrative tasks, without representations that it can approve or guarantee payment. (Code des assurances, art. L.511-1(I) and (II)(2).)
Moroccan permissions remain separate
The Moroccan intermediary, the risk-bearing insurer and the software supplier require separate legal treatment. Moroccan public presentation of insurance is governed by the Insurance Code's authorised distribution arrangements. The insurer requires its own ACAPS approval and permitted operations. A French intermediary appointment cannot enlarge a Moroccan company's local approval or convert that company into an EEA intermediary. (Moroccan Code des assurances, Law no. 17-99, arts. 161, 165 and 289–291; French Code des assurances, arts. L.512-1 and L.515-2.)
For a Moroccan broker, premium collection requires the insurer mandate contemplated by article 297; claims settlement requires the special mandate in article 298. Article 302 prohibits an intermediary from issuing cover notes or certificates in its own name. The French-facing certificate should therefore identify the actual insurer and issue under documented authority. The company's existing claims assistance, as assumed in this composite, cannot establish settlement authority for the proposed product. (Moroccan Code des assurances, arts. 297, 298 and 302.)
The Moroccan company's activity and remuneration arrangements also require review. Article 301 restricts unrelated activities in the intermediary's premises; article 309 provides for commission remuneration of intermediaries. A technology-services agreement should describe genuine technical work and distinguish it from insurance placement. Before activating cross-border fees, the parties should obtain the bank's classification of the payment and settle the applicable exchange-control documentation with Moroccan advisers or the Office des Changes. Calling a placement commission a software fee cannot determine either classification. (Moroccan Code des assurances, arts. 301 and 309.)
The Moroccan operator should ask ACAPS to classify the proposed online functions and confirm the steps required before activation. That request should distinguish the referral page, technical support and any retained Moroccan insurance sales. Article 162 requires an authorised Moroccan insurer for the risks within its scope, subject to its treaty and authorisation exceptions. The parties must separately establish whether the proposed cover engages that rule; French risk location cannot decide Moroccan admission. (Moroccan Code des assurances, arts. 162 and 289–291.)
An insurer or authorised distributor using an online sales system within Instruction P.IN.02/2022 must submit the required file to ACAPS before launch. For a system limited to advertising or indicative quotations, the insurer or distributor must instead submit a presentation within fifteen days after launch. The instruction also governs the electronic-signature or handwritten-signature process. ACAPS's letter of 23 September 2026 reiterates that insurers must secure the parties' signatures on contracts and endorsements, with a copy supplied to the policyholder. These requirements concern the covered insurance operator; they do not confer distribution authority on a technical supplier. (ACAPS Instruction P.IN.02/2022, arts. 1 and 14–19; ACAPS Letter no. 163197, 23 September 2026, p. 1.)
Product control and cross-border data
The carrier and distributor should approve a product designed for the proposed target market. They need to test the coverage, establish a distribution strategy and exchange the product information required for distribution review. A group intermediary that determines essential product features can become a co-manufacturer, with responsibilities beyond marketing. The label “marketplace” does not decide that question. A written allocation should address product design, amendments, review and information exchange. (Directive (EU) 2016/97, art. 25; Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2358, arts. 3–12.)
Moroccan access to French customer information requires a separate data design. The parties must classify their actual data roles. The French controller needs security measures and a lawful basis for processing, plus an appropriate processor contract where the Moroccan supplier acts on its behalf. A supplier that determines its own processing purposes and means acts as a controller. Health information requires an additional Article 9 condition. Access by a separate Moroccan recipient to data made available by an EEA exporter also requires a valid international-transfer mechanism. The recommended structure uses only necessary data and, where applicable, the appropriate standard contractual clauses with an assessment of transfer risks and necessary supplementary safeguards. The 2021 clauses do not supply that mechanism where the importer's processing is already subject to the GDPR under Article 3. (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, arts. 3, 4(7)–(8), 5, 6, 9, 28, 32 and 44–46; Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/914, art. 1(1) and Annex, clauses 14–15.)
Moroccan Law no. 09-08 separately governs relevant processing in Morocco. The parties must select the proper CNDP declaration or authorisation route, including the particular conditions for health data. Transfers out of Morocco require their own assessment under articles 43–44. European contractual clauses cannot substitute for Moroccan formalities, and an ACAPS approval does not establish either country's data compliance. Initial technical testing should use synthetic records, with no live medical data available to the Moroccan supplier. (Law no. 09-08, arts. 2, 12, 21–23 and 43–44.)
The launch choice and actions to defer
The recommended first model is a French-regulated distributor operating the sale, backed by a carrier entitled to write the identified French risk. The Moroccan company supplies a narrowly drafted introduction service and controlled technical support. The distributor's environment should host the needs questionnaire, comparisons, disclosures and acceptance, with premium payment routed directly to the insurer. This allocation limits the Moroccan company's role without pretending that an outsourced regulated sale becomes unregulated. (Code des assurances, arts. L.511-1, L.512-1, L.521-4 and L.310-2.)
A registered French group intermediary is the second model when the group needs control over product comparison and distribution income. It requires an operating entity with the relevant registration, personnel, insurance and contractual authority before sales begin. It also leaves carrier admission and Moroccan-service restrictions intact. Deferral is the third model when no eligible insurer will underwrite the product or when the proposed allocation leaves regulated sales in Morocco. Registration alone cannot repair either defect. (Code des assurances, arts. L.512-1, L.512-4–L.512-7 and L.310-2; ACPR, “Démarchage téléphonique hors espace économique européen”, 15 September 2025.)
The first contract package should contain the carrier-distributor agreement, a restricted referral and technology-services agreement, and the necessary data-processing and transfer instruments. It should allocate the binding authority, policy issuer, premium recipient, complaints owner and claims decision-maker. Before activation, the parties should match the insurer's class permissions and French market access to the product, check the distributor's ORIAS entry and review the Moroccan entity's ACAPS entry and actual mandates. Prototype approval should cover every screen and staff instruction, rather than the homepage alone. (Code des assurances, arts. L.310-2, L.512-1 and L.521-4; Moroccan Code des assurances, arts. 297–298; Regulation (EU) 2016/679, arts. 28 and 44–46.)
Until those conditions are met, the Moroccan company should not launch customer-specific rankings, recommendations, premium collection, cover confirmation or claims decisions for this product. It should not describe itself as French-authorised, use another entity's registration as its own, or promise insurance benefits on its own account. Any initial public page should remain a genuine introduction to an eligible distributor, without a disguised application or purchase process. A carrier unable to insure the identified risk means the proposed insurance sale must remain inactive. (Code des assurances, arts. L.511-1, L.512-1 and L.310-2; Moroccan Code des assurances, art. 302.)