Four professional organizations—the SP2C, the AFRC, the FVD, and the SNPI—filed on September 23, 2026, a request for the annulment of decree No. 2026-662 of July 23, 2026, before the Council of State, according to the professional magazine En-Contact. This information has not been officially confirmed by the court as of the date of writing. The content of the request is not public, as memoranda filed before the Council of State are typically not disclosed, and only the parties involved and the court are aware of the arguments raised. Any commentary that claims to present "the arguments of the appeal" is a reconstruction based on speculation. Decree No. 2026-662, published in the JORF No. 0172 of July 25, 2026, and entered into force on August 11, 2026, outlines specific rules for consumer consent in various contexts. It sets out mandatory content for consent requests, limits the period for consent to one year without automatic renewal, establishes digital storage and archiving systems for three years, ensures free access to proof of consent on a durable medium, defines how consumers can withdraw their consent, and requires a recall regime within five business days after an information request. These rules are based on Article L223-1 of the Consumer Code, which defines consent as a "free, specific, informed, unambiguous, and revocable" act and prohibits unsolicited calls to consumers who have not previously given their consent. It also bans prospecting in energy renovation and housing adaptation for aging or disability, except when fulfilling an ongoing contract. An annulment appeal does not stop the decree from being enforced. The rule becomes effective from its publication and remains in force until it is annulled, repealed, or suspended. Filing a request, even if well-founded, does not change its binding nature. The two-month deadline for contesting the decree expired at the end of September 2026, as the publication date was July 25, 2026. However, a request for repeal addressed to the Prime Minister under Article L243-2 of the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration remains an option. A preliminary injunction can temporarily halt the application of a decree, but suspension requires a separate procedure outlined in Article L521-1 of the Administrative Justice Code. A judge of preliminary injunctions may suspend a decision if there is an urgent need and if there is a serious doubt about its legality based on the current evidence. According to the available source, what has been filed is an annulment request, not a preliminary injunction. Therefore, it would be incorrect to expect a suspension in the near future. Violations of articles L223-1 to L223-5 of the Consumer Code can result in administrative fines of up to 75,000 € for individuals and 375,000 € for legal entities, as decided by the DGCCRF following an adversarial procedure. The decision is published at the expense of the sanctioned person, and the administration cannot delay or anonymize it, except in cases where it could cause serious, disproportionate harm or disrupt an ongoing investigation. Any contract resulting from an irregular solicitation is null, with mutual restitution of services. This liability can emerge unexpectedly during disputes, group actions, or audits. Annuling the decree would not affect the underlying law, and Article L223-1 would continue to apply fully. During the legal proceedings, it is useful to separate the system into two categories: provisions derived from the law, which will remain in effect regardless of the outcome, and those dependent on the decree, which are currently mandatory but can be adjusted. The first category takes precedence and should be handled immediately, while the second remains in place but allows for potential modifications.