Global Class Actions

Reflecting on the 2025 antitrust and competition litigation landscape in Germany, several significant developments have emerged, particularly regarding digital markets and procedural aspects of bringing cartel damages and mass claims.

• In 2024, a key regulatory milestone was the further designations of major technology companies as dominant cross-market players under German competition law provisions (Section 19a Act Against Restraint of Competition) that subject such firms to stricter oversight, in 2025 the German Federal Cartel Office continues to enforce this regulation, e.g. by sending a major AI-powered online marketplace its preliminary legal assessment of the company's influence on the prices charged by sellers, which is likely to be prohibited.
• This development is mirrored in the private enforcement space: companies in the digital space are drawing more and more attention for often mass damage claims.
• In private enforcement of competition law, courts overall have been showing an even greater willingness to support damages claims arising from cartel behavior and abuse of dominance. A crucial ruling of the ECJ from January 2025 is now empowering this development in Germany by clarifying the legal framework for bundling claims in competition litigation.
• The major challenge for plaintiffs, proving damages, is becoming increasingly smaller. After the Federal Court of Justice ruled in 2024 that it is not necessary for plaintiffs to submit an economic expert opinion in order to substantiate their claim, more and more lower courts are making use of the possibility of conducting their own assessment in accordance with Section 287 German Code of Civil Procedure.

Looking ahead, several trends are likely to shape the antitrust and competition mass litigation landscape in 2026 and beyond: Competition enforcement in Germany is expected to focus heavily on digital markets and artificial intelligence. Companies should take proactive measures to mitigate risks and ensure compliance.

Regulators have signaled – and partly already put into practice – increasing scrutiny of AI-driven competition concerns, particularly regarding how AI-powered platforms might reinforce dominant market positions or facilitate collusive behavior through algorithmic pricing. The growing use of AI in business practices could lead to new enforcement actions against perceived anti-competitive practices, and will then, in equal measure, attract civil claims, often in a mass claims scenario.

At the same time, private enforcement of competition law is becoming more accessible, following key court rulings clarifying statutes of limitations and damages assessment in cartel damages cases. These developments are likely to encourage more businesses and consumers to pursue claims for damages resulting from anti-competitive conduct.

Companies dealing with charges of anti-competitive behavior should therefore follow an extensive defense strategy encompassing both the engagement with authorities and defense against private claims.

We have seen a continued increase in collective actions being initiated under the new Act on collective damages claims (referred to as the WAMCA), since this entered into force on 1 January 2020, and which allows claims for monetary damages relating to events that took place on or after 15 November 2016. In 2025, major antitrust and/or competition class actions have been initiated against Sony, Visa, and Mastercard for alleged infringements of EU and national competition law.

We don’t expect particular new trends for 2026 and beyond. As far as cartel matters are concerned, we expect claimants to continue using the assignment model (as opposed to initiating legal proceedings based on the WAMCA). The assignment model (where claimants assign their respective claims to a claim vehicle) is the most used mechanism for bundling claims in cartel damages litigation in the Netherlands. Multiple claims vehicles have been established since the publication of the 2014 EU cartel damages directive and its implementation in the Netherlands in 2017, and we don’t expect that to change. 

As well as marking 10 years since the UK’s collective proceedings regime came into force, 2025 has marked an inflection point for the regime.  The regime finds itself at a crossroads, with reform of some sort looking likely in 2026. 

• Whilst there is a pipeline of almost 50 cases currently live before the Tribunal, 2025 has seen a notable slowdown in fresh class action filings. As at mid-November 2025, only four new class actions (Kaye, Or Brook, Wolfson and ACSO) have been filed this year (compared to 16 claims filed in 2023 and 11 filed in 2024).  This slowdown can be attributed to a tightening of available litigation funding in the market, with many funders privately saying they have committed as much capital to the regime as they are willing to commit before they receive a return on their investment.
• In summer 2025, the Civil Justice Council (CJC) published its review of the litigation funding industry and recommended sweeping reforms which, if enacted by the government, could have a significant impact on the collective actions regime. Of particular note is a recommendation to introduce a requirement that the funder and the funded party’s lawyer certify to the court that they did not approach, either directly or indirectly, the funded party to seek their agreement to pursue proceedings. In practice, it is relatively common for funders or lawyers to seek out parties willing to start a claim, and there have been several cases in the CAT where the class representative has confirmed that the claim originated with them being approached by the funder and/or law firm.  Restricting this method of claims being brought is likely to materially reduce the number of new collective actions being issued.
• In addition to the CJC’s review, the Department for Business and Trade launched a call for evidence, reviewing the effectiveness and scope of the opt-out collective actions regime. That call for evidence closed in October 2025.  Claimant law firms and litigation funders are pushing for the regime to be broadened out to cover other areas of law (such as consumer law claims), whilst business leaders have called for a narrowing of the regime, to exclude creative and speculative claims through a higher standard being applied to the certification of claims.
• With a new President at the helm, 2025 has been characterised by a marked tightening of procedural standards in the CAT, and we have also seen the first three cases post-Merricks (which significantly lowered the certification standard) to be denied certification (Riefa, Roberts and Rowntree).
• Following the failure of the first collective action brought under the regime, in December 2024, the CAT has handed down two further merits judgments in collective actions in 2025:
  • A collective action concerning train ticket boundary fares was defeated on liability grounds at the first stage of a split trial; and
  • Dr Rachael Kent was successful in securing what her lawyers estimate is a £1.5 billion payout for consumers.

• With many more trials and judgments to come (as well as settlements), the next 2 to 3 years will be crucial for the maturation of the collective actions regime. With more judgments, and the likelihood of some sort of legislative reform, we expect there to be more legal certainty for both claimants and defendants, particularly in relation to the scope of the regime and in particular what the limits are to claims alleging an abuse of dominance.  With the failure of the boundary fares collective action, on the grounds that the conduct did not constitute an abuse, and the CAT’s confirmation in that judgment that competition law is not the same as general consumer protection law, we might expect to see fewer creative claims which seek to stretch the boundaries of competition law being shoehorned into the CAT (absent reform to expand the scope of the regime).
• Until recently, only a small number of relatively low-value settlements had resulted from the regime, followed by a very small take up from the class (less than 1% of the settlement pot in Gutmann Trains) in the only claim to have yet distributed compensation to consumers. Following the 2025 settlement in Merricks and judgment in Kent - and more judgments to come - 2026 is poised to be a significant year for distribution and answering the question of whether the regime can effectively deliver compensation into the hands of consumers.  There will also be considerable focus on how the CAT approaches the distribution of unclaimed damages between interested stakeholders.
• Another major trend we expect for 2026 and beyond is litigation following infringements of the newly introduced Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC), which gave the CMA new direct enforcement powers, including issuing fines if businesses have breached key consumer protection laws. Consistent with the ‘shoehorning’ of claims that would perhaps not naturally fit within competition law into collective actions in the CAT, we anticipate class representatives creatively framing breaches of the DMCC as abuses of dominance in order to bring cases under the CAT’s opt-out regime. We therefore recommend that businesses invest in ensuring their compliance with the DMCC to avoid this emerging class action risk.
• Litigation trends generally follow public enforcement priorities, with a short lag, whilst the private damages claims catch up with the various dawn raids and investigations carried out by the competition authorities. A further trend is that the authorities are once again turning their attention to the industrial manufacturing sector, which could indicate that there are follow-on competition litigation cases to come. We recommend that clients keep an active eye on developments in this sphere, with a view to both considering whether they could benefit from investigations into and potential claims against companies in their supply chain, and to take proactive steps to prepare for any claims which may impact their industry.

If you are interested in these developments or think that they may have an impact on your business, our Competition Litigation team is available to provide more information.

Consistent with recent years, antitrust enforcement and class action litigation were vigorous in 2024. Plaintiffs continued to file antitrust cases directed at major sectors of the economy, including housing, food, pharmaceuticals, healthcare services, higher education, and labor. Some of these class actions advance fairly novel theories of antitrust liability, including, most notably, claims involving information sharing and so-called algorithmic pricing, whether in the form of price recommendations generated by algorithms fed with the information (RealPage), establishing reimbursement rates based on both public and non-public information (Multiplan), and identifying individual variances from average prices compiled from the shared information (Agri Stats). These cases seek to change the way courts analyze information exchange claims generally and to recognize that price-fixing can occur regardless of whether it is outsourced to a third party or an algorithm. The reaction from courts has been mixed so far, with some cases dismissed entirely at the pleadings stage, some having certain claims trimmed, while many others have moved into the discovery and merits stages.   

In addition to these novel theories, class action plaintiffs continued to press more traditional antitrust claims in 2024, including supply-reduction theories in the frozen potato space, price-fixing theories associated with the use of industry benchmarking services in the PVC pipe and conduit space, and pay-for-delay theories where courts have been focused on class-related issues. 2024 also saw resolutions of important antitrust class actions. A prime example is the October 2023 trial win and subsequent March 2024 settlement of the class action against the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and major brokerage firms. NAR ultimately entered a settlement on March 15, 2024, agreeing to pay $418 million and institute practice changes that shift the way home purchasing has functioned for years. In addition to the NAR settlement, 2024 saw other long-standing antitrust class actions settle, including the largest antitrust class action settlement in the healthcare space, with the Blue Cross Blue Shield Provider settlement totaling $2.8 billion. The NCAA also settled the longstanding class action litigation it was involved in related to name, image, and likeness rights for over $2.7 billion. In summary, it was an eventful year for class action litigation for both developing and already-developed areas of antitrust law.

We expect 2025 to be another active year for antitrust class actions. Beyond the holdover cases from 2024 (or earlier), class action plaintiffs have filed many new cases in the first several months of 2025. Some of those cases also press novel antitrust theories consistent with what we saw in 2024. For example, in February 2025, a putative class of California convenience stores brought Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) claims against PepsiCo, Inc., alleging discriminatory pricing on snack food items. The lawsuit follows a newly revived government interested in enforcing the RPA and may raise challenging questions about class certification because plaintiffs must show individualized harm for each member of the putative class. In early March 2025, classes of resident pharmacists sued the American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists and leading hospital systems that offer pharmacy residencies, alleging that the long-standing system used to match pharmacy school graduates with residencies violates the antitrust laws.

The change in administration will also undoubtedly impact federal antitrust enforcement, which in turn is likely to impact class action litigation trends because the two operate cyclically. Where there is a government-led antitrust enforcement action, there is almost surely an accompanying private case, most often styled as a class action. In recent years, we have seen that trend work in the opposite direction as well, where the class action plaintiffs’ bar is leading the charge in a particular area, and the government enforcers follow on with their own case.  

The second Trump administration has not outlined clear antitrust enforcement goals, and the statements so far from the administration have been generic commitments to continue vigorous enforcement with a focus on tech-related issues. The only new and notable area that the second Trump administration identified for potential enforcement relates to potential “collusion or unlawful coordination on DEI metrics” in labor markets. See FTC Memorandum, Directive Regarding Labor Markets Task Force. Enforcement actions targeted at this type of conduct could lead to a swath of class actions consistent with what happened when the first criminal enforcement actions were brought in relation to the naked no-poach and wage-fixing agreements during the first Trump administration. Should the second Trump administration ultimately prove to be laxer on antitrust enforcement than the Biden administration, companies should not assume their antitrust litigation risk is substantially lessened. During times of less aggressive federal enforcement, we have historically observed an uptick in both private class actions and state-led antitrust enforcement efforts.   

Companies should pay close attention to the resolution of pending antitrust cases, particularly those with claims related to the exchange of information and/or the use of algorithms. Additionally, we expect the antitrust goals of the second Trump administration to be clearer once the relevant nominees are fully confirmed and installed into their respective agencies. That process should be complete by mid-2025 at the latest. Tracking those goals will also identify where companies should be focused in terms of potential antitrust liability, both from federal enforcement actions and class action litigation.