In two decisions dated 18 February 2026, published on 5 March on the Transport Regulatory Authority’s website (Nos. 2026-13 and 2026-14), the Transport Regulatory Authority (ART) ruled on two applications for dispute resolution brought against Île-de-France Mobilités (IDFM), one by RATP Smart System (decision No. 2026-13) and the other by SNCF Connect (decision No. 2026-14).

The key elements of these two highly instructive decisions will be outlined.

Background

In both decisions, the dispute arose from a lack of agreement on the technical and financial terms for accessing IDFM’s digital ticketing service, which offers its range of fares.

IDFM has defined a ‘Pack V0’ setting out the technical and financial terms enabling an FSNM to connect to the digital sales service. This contract allows users to ‘purchase tickets via a mobile app and then load them onto a Navigo card or store them digitally on their smartphone’.

Summary of the key points of the ART’s decision

On the scope of FSNMs’ right to sell fare products offered by service operators

‘The right of issuance held by SNMs in this regard covers all fare products for regular public passenger transport services, including those requiring the verification of supporting documents or those issued on a physical medium. ”

A mobility service operator cannot legitimately invoke – several years after the entry into force of a provision whose application was itself deliberately deferred by the legislator to allow stakeholders to prepare – technical difficulties as a basis for opposing requests from SNM providers to issue the fare products referred to in paragraph I of Article L. 1115-11 of the Transport Code (§ 90 of the RATP SS decision).

On the impossibility of a common payment solution and a common basket

As things stand, Pack V0 would not allow an FSNM to offer its users the option of paying in a single transaction for fare products from IDFM and those from other organising authorities (RATP SS decision). Similarly, it would be impossible to combine fare products from different organising authorities within a single basket.

These clauses are neither fair nor proportionate.

On IDFM’s right to scrutinise FSNMs’ communication activities. The ART explains that it is legitimate for service operators to have a right to scrutinise FSNMs’ communication activities in relation to the fare products they distribute. Nevertheless, this right of oversight must not exceed a certain limit, lest it reveal or even compromise the FSNMs’ commercial strategy.

Consequently, the ART considers that IDFM may not require information relating to:

• The advertising channels envisaged (posters, adverts, etc.),

• The geographical scope of communication (local, regional, etc.),

• The fare products targeted by the communication campaign, and

• The duration of the campaign (paragraph 212 of the RATP SS decision).

Furthermore, IDFM may establish rules to be followed, such as a graphic charter, the breach of which would result in contractual penalties (paragraph 212 of the RATP SS decision).

On the principle of remuneration for FSNMs

The reasonable, fair and proportionate nature of the clauses in the contract between an FSNM and a service operator necessarily implies, in the ‘delivery’ model within the meaning of Article L. 1115-10(I)(1) of the Transport Code, that the operator pays remuneration to the FSNM in respect of its distribution activities.

This remuneration could be determined on the basis of the costs of the integrated structure, namely the structure that combines the organisation of transport services with the distribution of travel tickets. Several methods are put forward: marginal costs, avoidable distribution costs or even long-term average incremental costs.

IDFM is required to provide for remuneration in its contracts with the FSNMs.

Failing agreement on remuneration between the parties within four months of the date of notification of the decision, the Authority, which will be informed of this disagreement at the initiative of either party, shall provisionally set remuneration of between 2.5 per cent and 5 per cent of the price of IDFM’s tariff-based products sold by each of the SNM providers.

This remuneration will be adjusted retrospectively once the final remuneration has been established.

On IDFM’s right of first refusal regarding minor and major developments to the Mobile Channel

The V0 Package provides for IDFM to have priority rights over major and minor updates to the Mobile Channel. IDFM justifies this right on the grounds that technological updates must be tested, stabilised and validated before they are made available to all SNMs.

The ART considers that these grounds are insufficient, given that IDFM carries out a pre-production phase prior to roll-out to the general public and that there is no justification for excluding SNMs from full-scale testing.

The clause in the V0 Pack providing for a right of priority does not constitute a reasonable, fair and proportionate clause.

Similarly, IDFM’s right of priority to publicise new services and offers subject to major changes does not constitute a reasonable, fair and proportionate clause.

IDFM has a period of two months to remove this right of priority.

Regarding IDFM’s access to SCO’s commercial data

SCO explains that IDFM collects, via its SNV, sales data for tickets – including those sold by a third-party SNM – and that IDFM’s SNM application is then the only one capable of engaging customers, whilst SCO itself is unable to access its own customer data.

Consequently, the ART orders IDFM, within two months of the date of notification of the decision, to include, in the contract concluded with SCO and in the Pack V0 standard contract, clauses containing all necessary measures to ensure that the persons responsible for the IDFM website and application, as well as for their commercial policy, cannot access:

• the data transmitted by third-party SNMs in the context of the implementation of the Pack V0 contract

• other distribution-related data held by IdFM in its capacity as an AOM.

These measures may take the form of a confidential information management plan annexed to the contract, identifying the staff concerned, their confidentiality obligations and the procedures for the transmission and storage of the information in question.

On the legal framework governing Apple’s digital wallet (the ‘Apple Wallet’)

The ART explains that the Apple Wallet offers two features:

• Digitisation and storage of IDFM fare products

• Initial purchase and top-up of IdFM travel tickets

For this digitisation service, Apple acts solely as a technical service provider, making technology for which it holds exclusive rights available to IdFM, and not as a provider of multimodal digital services (SNM).

However, with regard to the initial purchase and top-up functionality, insofar as it enables the sale of IdFM’s mobility services, ‘the “native journey” integrated into Apple Wallet does indeed constitute a multimodal digital service (MDS) and, as such, plays the same role for users as a third-party MDS app, such as “SNCF Connect” (paragraph 178 of the decision).

This second functionality results in disintermediation between the user and the distributor that sold the initial product. Indeed, once the user has purchased their ticket from SCO (for example), the ticket appears in the Apple Wallet and SCO’s identity no longer appears. Furthermore, once the product is in the Wallet, the user can top it up directly with Apple, even though Apple did not supply the original product.

IDFM and Apple Distribution are therefore ordered, within six months of the notification of this decision, to ensure that:

• SNMs must not be disintermediated by Apple Wallet; in other words, the SNM application through which the fare product was originally purchased must retain, within Apple Wallet – where the product is necessarily stored – its relationship with the user;

• the ‘native journey’ within the Wallet, should it be maintained in its current state, must be brought into compliance with Articles L. 1115-10 et seq. of the Transport Code, given that this journey, insofar as it enables the purchase and top-up of IDFM fare products, does indeed fulfil the functionality of an SNM;

• the customer journeys for SNMs should be treated fairly within Apple’s Wallet, in terms of both their visibility and their user experience;

The two ART decisions are highly informative and provide useful clarifications on the legal framework governing SNMs. A forthcoming blog post will set out the clarifications provided by the ART on various concepts: SNV, SNM, service manager, fare product and deep interface link.

To be continued!

Glossary:
FSNM: multimodal digital service provider
RATP SS: RATP Smart System
SNCF CO: SNCF Connect