Global Class Actions

Compare countries

Drag to reorder countries, click the checkbox to add/remove from view:

France

Germany

Indonesia

Italy

Mexico

Netherlands

Spain

United Kingdom

United States of America

France

Class actions in France are based on explicit adhesion, i.e. an opt-in system. Membership to the group is subject to the deadlines and conditions set by the judgment ruling on the defendant’s liability. Joining the group requires filing a request for compensation, which must notably contain the full name and address of the person concerned. It is necessary to prove that the criteria for inclusion in the group have been met.

By joining the group, the consumer mandated the qualified organization to act on their behalf to seek enforcement of the judgment on liability against the defendant company. Thus, the organization can then carry out all procedural acts on all members’ behalf in order to obtain compensation and falling within the scope of the class action, as well as exercise appeal rights.

If an individual fails to join the group within the time limits and in the form specified, his/her claim for compensation will be inadmissible, but only in the context of the class action. In other words, individual plaintiffs keep the right of initiating individual claims against the same defendant and for the same cause of action.

For defendants residing in France, the class action must be brought before the judicial court where the defendant has its domicile. For defendants residing outside France or having no known residence, exclusive jurisdiction is conferred to the Paris judicial court.

Once the court has ruled on liability, the procedure leading to a decision on compensation for damages can be of two types:

Global agreement concerning all members can be authorized by the Court at the request of the claimant when the evidence produced and the nature of the losses allow it. This procedure is designed to deal with the simplest cases, i.e. those where the amount of damages is known at the time of the liability judgment or can be quantified. It implies a negotiation between the qualified organization and the defendant to determine the amount of the compensation for the members of the group. The agreement must then be referred to the Court for approval. The Court may refuse to do so if it considers that the interests of the parties and the members of the group are not sufficiently protected in the light of the judgment on liability. In such case, the Court will refer the matter back to negotiation.
Compensation may also follow an individual procedure. Members of the group who meet the criteria and have joined the proceedings submit a claim for compensation, and the defendant pays individual compensation for the losses suffered.

Under the current legal regime for class actions, it is the qualified entity that bears the costs of the proceedings.

French law does not yet regulate third-party funding, so that it is neither organized nor forbidden as a matter of principle.

Note: Article 20 of Directive (EU) 2020/1828 provides that Member States must facilitate access to justice for entities (legal aid) and ensure that the costs of proceedings are not dissuasive by limiting the applicable fees or providing for public funding. The bill tabled by the French Government on 31 October 2024 does not appear to include such provisions.

However, Article 10 of the Government Bill does provide for a stricter framework for the funding of qualified entities and class actions, in order to prevent conflicts of interest. The Bill thus intends to regulate third-party funding in order to guarantee greater transparency and the absence of conflicts of interest. The absence of conflicts of interest will also be one of the criteria for cross-border approval as an authorized organization (as mentioned in question 3).

The judgment on liability may be subject to appeal under a fast-track procedure.

French national law provides for a class action procedure when “several persons placed in a similar situation suffer damage caused by the same person, having as its common cause a breach of the same nature of its legal or contractual obligations.”

The victims must be in a similar legal situation with regard to the infringement allegedly committed by the defendant. This does not mean that their individual situations must be identical, particularly with regard to the value of the loss suffered.

In France, class actions can only be brought by:

authorized organizations (in consumer law matters, only authorized organizations may bring class action); and/or
organizations that have been duly registered for at least five years, and whose statutory purpose includes the defense of interests that have been affected; and/or
representative trade union organizations at company, branch or national level when related to a discrimination or data breach claim.

The above-mentioned qualified organizations can take legal action to require compensation for individual losses suffered by several victims. The losses must be caused by the same professional and have a common origin³.

The qualified organization must be mandated by at least two of the consumers concerned. These individual cases of these consumers are presented as the basis for the class action. This means that procedurally speaking the claimant is an organization meeting certain criteria, and not plaintiffs themselves even though a few individual plaintiffs have to be named in the claimant brief.

³ The Government Bill tabled on October 31st, 2024, which transposes Directive 2020/1828, will open up legal standing to qualified entities from other Member States, by means of a cross-border approval procedure set up in each Member State in accordance with the principle of mutual recognition. A list published in the Official Journal of the European Union will identify the organizations that have such authorization

Germany

When the VDuG was drafted, no use was made of the option of an opt-out procedure under Article 9 (2) of the Directive (EU) 2020/1828; instead, a late opt-in solution was adopted. Section 46 VDuG is the central provision governing registration in the Register of Representative Action. Consumers can register themselves for the claims register without the assistance of a lawyer and must comply with the deadline (para. 1) and the content (para. 2) of the registration. If the cases do not settle during the pretrial phase, they often proceed to so-called bellwether trials. In these trials, both sides select specific cases that will serve as “test” cases to predict how the remaining cases might be resolved. The outcomes of these bellwether trials often play a significant role in shaping settlement negotiations for the rest of the cases in the MDL. However, not all MDLs involve bellwether trials – they are part of the broad case management discretion accorded to MDL judges.

Deadline according to section 46 (1) VDuG

Registration in the claims register must be made within three weeks of the end of the oral proceedings, which means that an opt-in solution as late as possible has been chosen.

The end of the oral proceedings arises from the fact that the court sets a date for the pronouncement of judgment in accordance with section 310 (1) ZPO. If no judgment is actually pronounced on this date, the deadline does not apply

Effectiveness requirements for opt-in

The substantive requirements for opt-in of consumers are listed in section 46 (2) VDuG and are based on section 253 (2) ZPO. This provision specifies the minimum information that a statement of claim must contain. According to Section 46 (2) no. 1 VDuG, which requires the name and address of the consumer, the aim is to ensure that the defendant is informed of the identity of the registered consumers. According to no. 2, an applicant that is a small business must indicate this separately. More important in practice is the precise description of the potential subject matter of the dispute according to no. 5. The information on the subject matter of the dispute must make it possible to individualize the claim/legal relationship to determine whether the judgment in the class action has a binding effect in subsequent proceedings. The individualization of the claim is also important for the question of the suspension of the statute of limitations according to § 204a para. 1, no. 3, 4 German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB)). In addition, according to no. 6, the correctness and completeness of the information must be assured to prevent abuse. Furthermore, in the case of claims for monetary benefits according to section 46 para. 2 sentence 2 VDuG, the amount of the claim must be stated. The Federal Office of Justice does not check the content of the information provided in the application, but only for formal requirements to ensure it is complete.

Consequences of the registration

The law attaches a number of legal consequences to the application. For example, consumers have a right to information concerning their registration. Section 11 (2) of the Act precludes individual actions by consumers who have registered, and a court-approved settlement also applies to consumers who have registered in accordance with Section 9 (1) VDuG.

The regulation of funding is intended to protect against abuse in two ways: on the one hand, it is about protecting the company from the influence of competitors, and on the other hand, it is about protecting consumers from funding-related disadvantages. When considering financing before taking legal action, the primary concern is the assumption of the financial risk of partial or complete failure, as well as advances on legal fees and court costs at the beginning of the proceedings and, if necessary, on appeal. In Germany, external financing will often be taken into consideration because the limit on the amount in dispute is set at EUR 250,000 or EUR 300,000 in accordance with section 48 (1) sentence 2 court fees act (Gerichtskostengesetz (GKG)), thereby limiting the statutory fees for lawyers.

No financing by competitors

Pursuant to Section 4 (2) no. 1 VDuG, a representative action is inadmissible if it is financed by a third party that is a competitor of the defendant company. The rationale for this is the consideration that companies may have an interest in damaging the image of a competitor by bringing an unfounded action or threatening to do so, or in harming it financially by means of “compensation payments”.

Identity of the financier

According to Section 4 (2), no. 3 VDuG, a representative action is inadmissible if it is financed by a third party that is dependent on the defendant’s business. The exclusion of this constellation serves to protect consumers, as it prevents the defendant from steering the action against him toward failure. Structural conflicts of interest should be voided, which is also why the suing association must disclose the identity of the financier in accordance with section 4 (3) sentence 1 VDuG.

Cap on the success fee (Section 4 (2) no. 3 VDuG)

According to Section 4 (2), no. 3 VDuG, a representative action is inadmissible if it is funded by a third party who is promised an economic share of more than 10 percent of the performance to be rendered by the defendant. In the context of traditional litigation funding, the financier assumes the legal costs rise in return for a share of the potential proceeds of the action (participation rate). This figure of 10 percent is well below the usual margins of 25-35 percent and will make third-party financing relatively unattractive.

Expected influence on the financing process

According to Section 4 (2) no. 4 VDuG, a representative action is inadmissible if it is financed by a third party who can be expected to influence the conduct of the action by the entity entitled to bring an action, including decisions on settlements, to the detriment of consumers. Section 4 (2) no. 4 is intended to take into account the risk that the litigation financier will influence the conduct of the proceeding to the detriment of the consumers concerned in order to maximize their own profits. Fears that the financier will prioritize its interests, therefore are regularly raised when a settlement is reached, if the financier insists on an early settlement contrary to the consumers’ interest in order to save further costs.

Disclosure in the statement of claim

Disclosure of the financing must always be made when the action is brought. The content of the duty to provide information initially relates to the origin of the funds and the content of the agreements made with the financier. If third-party financing is only provided after the action has been brought, the duty to provide information applies accordingly.

Both judgments, i.e., redress action and preliminary judgment on the merits of the case, are subject to appeal on points of law. The possibility to appeal is given by law, and the appeal is heard by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH). This means that there is only one instance of fact in the German class action proceedings. Unlike in general civil proceedings, the appeal is not dependent on the fulfillment of admission requirements.

An appeal on points of law is provided for in the case of preliminary judgment on the merits, judgments granting performance, combined judgments, judgments dismissing the claim, as well as final judgments granting relief in accordance.

Pursuant to Sec. 15 (1) sent. 1 VDuG, the action for redress is only admissible if the claims of the consumers concerned by the action are essentially the same. This is the case if 1) the claims are based on the same facts or on a series of essentially comparable facts and 2) the essentially identical factual and legal issues are relevant to the decision for the claims.

Introduction and system

Sec. 15 (1) sent. 1 VDuG contains requirements regarding the homogeneity of the claims to be asserted in the context of a representative action. In this regard, the provision navigates the difficult balance between the effectiveness and attractiveness of the representative action instrument on the one hand and the practicability of the enforcement procedure on the other. Thus, the provision establishes a special admissibility requirement for the action for redress by regulating the similarity of consumer claims and the information provided when applying for a collective total amount.

Similarity as a condition for admissibility/criteria for similarity

In the case of similarity, a distinction is made in accordance with whether the claims arise from the same facts (“single event”), as for example in the case of an aircraft crash, or from a series of similar facts (“single cause harm”), as for example in the case of product damage. Section 15 (1) no. 2 VDuG requires that the decision on all asserted claims must also be based on the same factual and legal issues, which means that an identical basis for the claim is regularly required. Whether this similarity exists is determined on the basis of whether the court would need to conduct an individual examination of the specific case. Therefore, the claims must be sufficiently similar to enable the court to conduct a template-based, abstract, and typified examination of the factual and legal requirements for the claims. The similarity must be presented by the plaintiff in the statement of claim. The trial court does not examine whether the claims subsequently filed are actually of the same kind. Ultimately, this is the task of the administrator in the implementation proceedings, based on the criteria specified by the trial court. The effectiveness of the administrator procedure depends to a large extent on the administrator being able to make the distribution decision on the basis of provable characteristics.

Indonesia

SC Reg 1/2002 adopts an opt-out system for class actions. Under Article 7, once the court has certified the use of the class action mechanism, the class representative must promptly notify all class members. This notice, which requires prior approval from the judge, must include at least, among others:

the definition of the class;
the consequences of being included as a class member; and
the right of individuals within the class definition to opt out.

After the notice is issued, class members are granted a period determined by the judge to declare their withdrawal. Such declarations must be made using the prescribed form. Any individual who formally opts out will not be legally bound by the judgment rendered in the class action.

SC Reg 1/2002 does not, however, provide for an opt-in system, nor does it specify a cut-off date for individuals to register as class members. In practice, this leaves class membership defined primarily by the court-approved class definition and the opt-out declarations made within the prescribed timeframe.

SC Reg 1/2002 does not specifically regulate litigation funding. Under Indonesian civil procedure, the initial costs of litigation must be borne by the party filing the lawsuit. Only after a final judgment is issued may the judge order the losing party to reimburse litigation expenses.

Given the absence of regulation under SC Reg 1/2002, litigation funding by a third party to initiate a class action is, in principle, permissible. The regulation does not provide any criteria regarding the propriety of third-party funding — for example, restrictions that would prevent a competitor of the defendant from acting as a funder. However, any third-party involvement must not compromise the class representative’s obligation under Art. 2 of SC Reg 1/2002 to demonstrate honesty and commitment to protecting the interests of the class members, rather than the interests of an external funder. Ultimately, the assessment of whether third-party involvement undermines this requirement is left to the judge’s discretion on a case-by-case basis.

A judgment on the merits in a class action case may be appealed to the relevant High Court at the provincial level. Although SC Reg 1/2002 does not specifically regulate appeals, Art. 9 provides that the Indonesian Civil Procedural Code applies to issues not expressly addressed in the regulation. Accordingly, ordinary appellate remedies are available.

A decision rejecting a class action at the certification stage may also be subject to further legal remedy. While SC Reg 1/2002 is silent on this point, Supreme Court practice indicates otherwise. In several cases, the Supreme Court has granted cassation applications filed by class representatives challenging District Court and High Court rulings that declared class actions inadmissible for failing to meet the requirements under Articles 2 and 3 of SC Reg 1/2002.

By contrast, certification orders that grant class action status are treated differently. Such orders are considered interlocutory decisions—that is, procedural rulings issued before a final judgment on the merits. Under Indonesian procedural law, interlocutory decisions are generally not subject to immediate appeal in order to prevent unnecessary delays in the proceedings. Therefore, any challenge to a certification order that approves class action status may only be raised together with an appeal or cassation against the final judgment once it has been rendered.

Art. 2 of SC Reg 1/2002 sets out the requirements for bringing a class action. One key requirement is the commonality of claims of the class representative and the class members. Beyond commonality of claims, the regulation also requires: (i) commonality facts or events; and (ii) commonality of legal basis — both of which must be substantially the same.

SC Reg 1/2002 does not define what counts as “substantial” commonality when assessing commonality of facts and legal grounds. Legal doctrine suggests that substantial differences may exist, and thus bar a class action, if there is a conflict of interest between the class representative and the class members. In another example, Banjarmasin District Court Decision No. 55/Pdt.G/2022/PN Bjm ruled that disputes over land ownership inherently require individual proof by each plaintiff, thereby rendering the class action lawsuit incapable of being carried out. Without such commonality, the case will fail to meet the formal requirements for a class action.

Class Certification

Under Art. 5(1) of SC Reg 1/2002, every class action must undergo an initial judicial review, or a “certification.” This process determines whether the claim satisfies the requirements under Art. 2. In addition to commonality of claims, facts, and legal grounds, Art. 2 requires that:

the class is so numerous that individual or joint lawsuits would be neither effective nor efficient;
the class representative demonstrates honesty and commitment to protecting the interests of the class members; and
the judge may recommend replacing counsel if the attorney acts against the duty to defend and protect the interests of the class members.

A class action must also satisfy the formal requirements set out under Art. 3 of SC Reg 1/2002, namely that the statement of claim shall at a minimum contain:

the complete and clear identity of the class representative;
a detailed and specific definition of the class, without the necessity of listing the names of each class member;
information concerning class members as necessary in relation to the obligation to provide notification;
the statement of facts of the entire class, including both identified and unidentified class members, presented clearly and in detail;
a division of the class or subclasses, if the claims are not identical due to differing nature or types of damages;
a prayer for relief for damages, set out clearly and in detail, including proposals on the mechanism or procedures for distribution of compensation to all class members, as well as proposals for the establishment of a team or panel to facilitate such distribution

After certification, the judge issues a determination (penetapan) on whether the requirements in Art. 2 and the lawsuit formalities in Art. 3 have been met. If the court finds that the class action mechanism is invalid, the claim will be declared inadmissible and the proceedings will be terminated.

Italy

The law provides for an opt-in mechanism (which only applies to traditional class actions and representative actions for compensatory measures). Class members may opt-in either (i) once the order declaring the admissibility of the action is issued or (ii) after the judgment establishing class members’ right to compensation/restitution or compensatory measures.

Class members who did not opt-in are entitled to bring individual claims.

The use of third-party litigation funding is still limited in Italy. The rules governing representative actions empower judges to declare an action inadmissible or require to them reject or modify funding arrangements in cases of conflicts of interest.

The rules for appeals are as follows:

For class actions and representative actions seeking compensatory relief:

The order deciding over admissibility is challenged within 30 days before the Court of Appeal
The judgment deciding over the merits of the action is challenged within six months before the Court of Appeal
The decree deciding claims of class members opting-in is challenged within 30 days before the same Court

For collective injunctions, the decree deciding over the merits of the action is challenged within 10 days before the Court of Appeal.

For representative actions seeking injunctions:

The ruling on admissibility is challenged within 30 days before the Court of Appeal
The judgment deciding over the merits of the action is challenged within 30 days or six months,

depending on the case, before the Court of Appeal

Class actions are admissible if (inter alia) the disputed individual rights are homogeneous, but the law fails to provide a definition of homogeneity. Case law suggests that homogeneity exists when the judge can conduct a single evidentiary process covering all the individual positions involved, through standardized assessments and a joint procedural management of the claims, with no need for specific inquiries over each position. Ultimately, the assessment is made on a case-by-case basis.

Mexico

Mexico has an “opt-in” model, requiring the express consent of collective members to participate. For Strict Sense and Homogeneous Individual actions, at least 30 members must join to initiate the process. This active membership requirement, which obligates plaintiffs to identify and document class members, poses a significant logistical challenge. Unlike the “opt-out” model, which automatically includes all potential claimants, the opt-in approach restricts the size of mass claims and may deter large-scale litigation.

Third-party litigation funding is gaining traction in Mexico as a means to offset high litigation costs. The absence of specific regulations governing this practice offers significant flexibility.

A judgment in a class action is appealable, and its enforcement is suspended until the Court of Appeals issues a decision. This can substantially extend the duration of the judicial process. Additionally, aggrieved parties may challenge the appellate judgment by filing a constitutional claim (“amparo”).

In Mexico, class actions require "common elements of fact and law," meaning the cause of the damages must be uniform across the entire class, with any differences among members being secondary. In product liability cases, proving a "design defect" is generally easier than a "manufacturing defect," as the latter pertains to individual products and complicates the commonality argument. A strict interpretation of this requirement can undermine procedural efficiency and potentially render litigation unfeasible.

After the complaint is filed, the judge orders service of process on the defendant, granting them five days to present arguments opposing class action certification. The judge then evaluates several key requirements, including whether the acts impact consumers or the environment, the presence of commonality, the existence of at least 30 class members (depending on the type of class action), adherence to the statute of limitations, and whether the matter is free from res judicata, among other factors.

Netherlands

Under Dutch law, whether the opt-in or opt-out mechanism applies in relation to the participation by the individual claimants is determined by the class member's domicile. After all, article 1018f of the Dutch Civil Code of Procedure (“DCCP”) outlining the specific rules for individual claimants involved in a collective action, distinguishes between Dutch residents, for whom an 'opt-out' system applies, and non-residents, who generally have to 'opt-in'.

For Dutch residents, there are two moments during the collective action proceedings to exercise the right to opt out. In principle, once a collective action is declared admissible by the court, all individual claimants who are Dutch residents will be bound by the outcome of the legal proceedings. However, to avoid being bound, these individual claimants must take a proactive step to opt out of the collective action. They must do this by sending a written notification to the court registry. This must be done within a court-determined period of at least one month after the announcement of the judgment of the court appointing an exclusive representative.²⁵This will be the first moment for Dutch residents to opt out. The court has the power to decide to halt the collective action if the number of people who opt out is so large that continuing the procedure is no longer justified.²⁶Article 1018h paragraph 5 DCCP gives individual claimants also the option of withdrawing from a collective settlement. For individual claimants who have their place of residence or domicile in the Netherlands, this is the second opt-out option.²⁷

Individual claimants who have opted out cannot file a new (or separate) claim based on similar facts and legal questions for the same event or events.

For individual claimants who are not residents of the Netherlands, the opt-in mechanism is applicable. This means that foreign claimants are not automatically included in the collective action. To be part of the class and be bound by the outcome, they must take an affirmative, explicit step to opt in to the Dutch collective action proceedings. After the appointment of the exclusive representative, they could indicate by means of an opt-in statement that they agree to the representation of their interest in the collective action.²⁸

²⁵ Article 1018f paragraph 1 DCCP.

²⁶ Article 1018f paragraph 1 DCCP.

²⁷Article 1018f paragraph 1 DCCP.

²⁸ Article 1018f paragraph 5 DCCP.

Article 3:305a paragraph 2(c) DCC requires that the claim vehicle has sufficient resources to bear the costs of bringing the claim, with sufficient control over the legal action remaining with the claim vehicle. In relation to this, the court may, where necessary, request access to the claim vehicle’s books, without being obliged to also disclose this information to the counterparty (i.e., the defendant(s)).³³ If a structure involving third-party litigation funding is chosen, the court may request the disclosure of the financing agreement in order to examine how the financier’s influence on the legal proceedings is regulated therein and whether that regulation does not prevent the interests of the injured parties from being properly represented.³⁴

Article 3:305a(2) DCC, in conjunction with the general guarantee requirement referred to in article 3:305a(1) of the DCC, provides the court with a tool for 'excluding cases in which third-party litigation funding could adversely affect the interests of the individual claimants, such as financing arrangements that stand in the way of careful representation of interests, for example because the financier is given full decision-making power over whether to agree to a possible settlement proposal'.³⁵ In addition to the WAMCA, under Dutch law there are also other ways litigation financing and excessive claims behaviour can be assessed, for example, abuse of the law (article 3:13 DCC).

³³ Mr. J.W. Leedekerken en mr. E.A.J. Schoenmakers, ‘Het veranderende speelveld voor procesfinanciering’, MvV 2023/6, p. 228.

³⁴ Mr. J.W. Leedekerken en mr. E.A.J. Schoenmakers, ‘Het veranderende speelveld voor procesfinanciering’, MvV 2023/6, p. 228. See also, Rb. 7 juni 2023, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:8485, paragraph 2.9.

³⁵ Kamerstukken II 2016/17, 34608, nr. 3, p. 11 and p. 12.

In the Dutch collective action system, the authorised representative and/or each claim vehicle are both a formal and substantive party to the collective proceedings.²⁹The individual claimants whose interests are represented by the claim vehicle are not parties to the legal proceedings and therefore cannot lodge an appeal. If there are more claim vehicles, every claim vehicle can lodge an appeal independently, based on its own grievances.³⁰ Appeals and cassation appeals of an interim judgment are in the Dutch legal system (also in the context of WAMCA proceedings) only possible with the permission of the court, unless it concerns a provisional measure.³¹Given the significant impact that an interim decision (for instance, on jurisdiction or applicable law) in WAMCA proceedings often has and the considerable financial interests that may be involved, the parties may indeed wish to lodge an interim appeal against an interim ruling that is unfavourable to them before continuing with the proceedings. If liability is completely rejected or the claim vehicle(s) are declared inadmissible, this constitutes a final judgment, against which an appeal is possible.³²

The WAMCA makes two exceptions to the general rule that a judicial decision is subject to appeal: i) the appointment of the exclusive representative and ii) the approval of a collective settlement.

²⁹ HR 3 April 2020, ECLI:NL:HR:2020:587.

³⁰ E. Hoogervorst, C. Klaassen & A. Knigge, ‘Hoger beroep en cassatie in een collectieve actie op grond van de WAMCA: een blik vooruit’, TCR 2021/4, p.113.

³¹Article 337 DCCP and article 401a DCCP.

³² E. Hoogervorst, C. Klaassen & A. Knigge, ‘Hoger beroep en cassatie in een collectieve actie op grond van de WAMCA: een blik vooruit’, TCR 2021/4, p. 116.

The court's decision on admissibility is a crucial step at the beginning of the collective action proceedings. In the Dutch collective action system, part of the admissibility test focuses on the representativeness of the claim vehicle.¹⁷This test is designed to ensure that the collective action is appropriate and that the organisation is fit to represent the interests of the individual claimants.¹⁸ In relation to the representativeness of the organisation, the organisation must - inter alia – meet the following set of criteria:

The statutory objective of the organisation must include the protection of the interests of the individual claimants;¹⁹
The organisation must have a robust internal governance structure, which includes a supervisory organ to oversee the respective directors;²⁰
The organisation must have sufficient financial resources to pursue the claim;²¹ and
The interests that the organisation aims to protect must be sufficiently uniform across all class members.²²

The second part of the admissibility test focuses on the claims themselves and is often referred to as "commonality". The court will determine whether a collective action is the most efficient and effective way to handle the dispute.²³ This requires the claim vehicle to show that the individual claims of the class members have a high degree of commonality in terms of their legal and factual basis. For example, if all claims arise from the same event, such as a defective product or a single instance of misleading information, they are likely to be considered sufficiently common.²⁴

¹⁷ Kamerstukken II 2016/17, 34608, 3, p. 7.

¹⁸ Kamerstukken II 2016/17, 34608, 3, p. 8.

¹⁹Article 3:305a paragraph 1 DCC.

²⁰ Article 3:305a paragraph 2 (a) DCC.

²¹ Article 3:305a paragraph 2 (c) DCC.

²² Article 3:305a paragraph 1 DCC.

²³Kamerstukken II 2016/17, 34608, 3, p. 14. Vgl. HR 26 februari 2010, ECLI:NL:HR:2010:BK5756 (Stichting Baas in Eigen Huis/Plazacasa), paragraph 4.2. See also, Kamerstukken II 2016/17, 34608, nr. 3, p. 39.

²⁴ Kamerstukken II 2016/17, 34608, nr. 3, p. 39 en 41.

Spain

Consumers domiciled in Spain: opt-out system, so the process will bind all those affected, unless they expressly request to be excluded. Consumers will have to expressly state their wish to withdraw from the action within two to six months.
Exception: if advisable for the good administration of justice, provided that the amount claimed for each beneficiary exceeds EUR 3,000, the Court can (but is not obliged to) process the collective action by means of an opt-in system.
Consumers domiciled outside Spain: an opt-in system shall apply. The court shall establish the manner and time limit for consumers to join the action.

The claim must fully state the sources of funding including the existence of financing by a third party, which shall be duly identified. Two discussions could take place:

The judge may request the financing contract to verify if its terms affect consumers rights, for discussion at a meeting with all parties and the funder.
In the certification hearing, the defendant shall be entitled to allege about the financing of the proceedings by the claimant. The court shall refuse third party funding if it considers that:

- There is a conflict of interest which shall be deemed to exist if the defendant is a competitor, or a person subordinated to the funder; the decisions of the claimant are influenced by a funder in a way that may be detrimental to the collective interests of the consumers.
- The funder has an economic interest in the exercise or outcome of such an action that would remove the class action from the protection and defense of the rights and interests of consumers.

Both appeal (i.e., 2nd instance) and extraordinary appeal before the Supreme Court, preferentially processed, are foreseen.

The statement of claim should state, among others, (i) consumers to be affected by the collective action or, if individual identification is impossible, the characteristics and requirements of the eventual beneficiaries; and (ii) the existence of homogeneity between the claims.

The defendant may object to (i) and (ii) and the parties will be summoned to a certification hearing.

The court shall individually determine the consumers to be affected by the action, or if not possible, declare the characteristics and requirements that must be met to be considered as beneficiaries.

The court shall only certify the collective action if homogeneity is sufficiently proven. Homogeneity shall be deemed to exist if it is not necessary to consider factual or legal aspects that are particular to each of the consumers.

The decision on the certification of the collective action can be preferentially appealed.

United Kingdom

Member participation varies depending on the procedure.

GLOs. GLOs operate strictly on an opt-in basis, meaning claimants must actively decide to participate by issuing a claim and being added to the group register. This can limit the size of the claimant group to a smaller proportion of those that could join, as individuals must take proactive steps to participate.

Representative actions. Representative actions function on an opt-out basis, with all individuals who share the “same interest” automatically included unless they expressly choose to withdraw.

CPO class action. Class member participation can be either opt-in or opt-out basis, depending on the application made and the certification decision by the CAT (which is free to order an opt-in class even where an application is made on an opt-out basis). The decision as to which is most appropriate is made on a case by case basis depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

‘Joint’ claims. Joint claims are opt-in on the basis that claimants file their claims together in a single claim form. There is no formal process for deciding participation.

Test cases. Test cases are opt-in on the basis that the claimants bringing both the test cases and the wider cases for which the test cases are representative need to have issued their own proceedings.

Litigation funding is widely available in the UK and very commonly used by claimants to fund many of the collective action mechanisms described above, including GLOs, representative actions and CPO class actions. The market has grown significantly in recent years, both in terms of the amount of capital available and the number of active funders. Funders are increasingly backing a broader range of claims and this expansion is contributing to an increase in the number of collective actions being brought.

In all cases, the decision to proceed under one of the collective action mechanisms described above is a case management decision. Case management decisions are appealable, however, only in limited circumstances given the wide discretion the court has.

Generally, the appeal court will not interfere with case management decisions where the correct principles have been applied and only the appropriate matters have been taken into account, unless the decision is so plainly wrong that it must be regarded as outside the “generous ambit” of the court’s case management discretion.

The requirement of commonality varies depending on the procedure pursued.

GLOs. Under a GLO the claims must share common or related issues of fact or law. These issues must be sufficiently specific and material to justify collective management. For instance, claimants may allege all claimants have similar claims arising from a shared set of circumstances, such as the use of defective products or exposure to harmful practices. The court ensures that only genuinely common issues are addressed collectively, while individual aspects of the claims are dealt with separately if necessary. However, the common issues do not act as a substitute for detailed pleadings.

Representative actions. Representative actions require the claimants to demonstrate the “same interest,” which historically has been interpreted strictly. The “same interest” means that all members of the group must be affected in a sufficiently similar way by the issue at hand, which is inevitably a higher bar than the need for issues to be ‘common’ in a GLO. This requirement has limited the use of representative actions in practice, as differences in damages, defenses, or other case-specific factors often prevent claims progressing under this mechanism. However, courts are increasingly exploring a more flexible interpretation, which may allow broader use of this mechanism in future.

CPO class action. For CPOs before the CAT, commonality is assessed during the certification process. The tribunal considers whether the issues raised by the claims are suitable for collective resolution, as they raise the same, similar or related issues of fact or law. Common issues must be present, but they do not necessarily need to be more prevalent than non-common issues. A key factor is the courts assessment of the balance between the efficiency of group resolution against the individual rights of claimants.

‘Joint’ claims. In cases involving joint claims, they must have a sufficiently related legal and/or factual elements for informal collective management to be the most efficient approach. The court has a wide case management discretion and there is no formal test for commonality.

Test cases. Similar to ‘joint’ claims, the decision to use test cases is made by the court using its wide case management discretion. The court must be persuaded that the selected cases raise issues that are sufficiently representative of those in the remaining claims. This approach is particularly effective where an issue is clearly defined and widely shared, but the remaining vary in scope or complexity.

United States of America

U.S. class actions can be pursued on an opt-in or opt- out basis, meaning once a class is certified, members can either choose to join (opt in) or are part of the class by default and need to actively choose not to participate (opt out). Opt-out classes make up the bulk of U.S. class action litigation. The relevant rules and precedents provide that absent class members must be accorded adequate notice of the action and, in class suits that seek predominately money damages, an opportunity to opt-out of the litigation. This notice and opportunity to opt-out is provided at least once, shortly after the action is certified for class treatment under Rule 23(a) and (b) and, if the parties reach a post-certification settlement, may also be required before the Court approves the settlement agreement and enters judgment. Actual notice is not required; rather, reasonable steps must be taken to contact putative class members, subject to court approval. If absent class members do not opt out, they will be bound by the outcome of the litigation.

Class action plaintiffs in the United States may receive outside funding or financial assistance to file and maintain their lawsuits. Such assistance might come from financing provided by a third-party litigation finance company, which is typically a private firm that obtains funds from investors and then receives a portion of the court’s award or settlement if the plaintiffs win. If the plaintiffs are not successful, then the third-party funder typically receives nothing. Whether plaintiffs have received outside funding or financial assistance does not by default need to be disclosed throughout the course of litigation. Some courts have taken steps to require disclosure, and in some circumstances, defendants can obtain this information through discovery. Concerns have been raised that litigation funding may improperly influence plaintiff decisions and strategy in litigation.

In other circumstances — or in conjunction with outside litigation funding support — a plaintiffs’ lawsuit might be funded by their own attorneys on a contingency basis. The United States has a notably large and sophisticated plaintiffs’ class action bar that pursues and funds its own class action lawsuits, based on its own assessment of the expected risks and rewards of any given case. Class action plaintiffs’ counsel recoup their “investment” of time and expenses if and when a case settles or proceeds to judgment. In the former circumstances, the fee award is subject to court supervision and approval, based on a number of factors. In the latter, the fee award is usually a portion of the plaintiffs’ recovery, as determined by their retainer agreement and subject to other considerations (such as whether the substantive legal claims at issue provide for fee-shifting, different than the normal “American Rule,” a legal principle that states that each party to a lawsuit pays their own attorney fees).

A party’s options to appeal in the United States will vary between the federal and state systems.

In the U.S. federal system, parties are subject to the final judgment rule, meaning that they typically must wait until a case is complete before they can appeal the trial court’s decisions. A court’s decision to grant or deny class certification is generally considered a non-final judgment that may not be appealed as of right. However, a party aggrieved by a court’s class certification decision may seek discretionary interlocutory review pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). A party seeking such review must seek permission from the appellate court to have their appeal heard, and in doing so must explain why their appeal should be successful. Federal appellate courts have broad discretion to grant or deny a petition seeking interlocutory appeal of a class certification decision, and may consider factors such as whether the appeal implicates new or unsettled questions of law, whether the district court’s decision was erroneous, and/or whether the denial of class certification would effectively terminate the litigation. There is no as-of-right stay of litigation while interlocutory appellate review is pursued; a stay of proceedings must be requested and granted by either the trial or appellate court. In lieu of or in addition to seeking interlocutory review, a party may also move for decertification of a class or for reconsideration, both of which would be reviewed by the original trial court.

In the state court system, the appellate rules vary widely by state. Some states have similar appellate processes as the federal system and do not provide appeals of class certification decisions as of right. In other states, decisions on class certification may be appealed as of right under certain circumstances. One example is California, where an order denying class certification would be appealable as of right but an order granting class certification could only be challenged via interlocutory appeal

Because class actions are an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only, class treatment is not awarded as of right. Rather, a putative class representative must affirmatively demonstrate that the class action complies with the relevant portions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (or its state- law analogues), with those requirements varying depending on what type of relief (damages, injunctive measures, or otherwise) is sought.

Broadly, Rule 23(a) requires plaintiffs to show that (1) the proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims and defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. These prerequisites are often referred to as numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy.

Numerosity requires examination of the size of the class; in some U.S. jurisdictions, a class of around at least 40 individuals is presumed to be sufficiently numerous. Commonality requires the plaintiff to show that the putative class has at least one question of law or fact in common. This is a low bar. Typicality requires a showing that the class representative’s claims are sufficiently similar to those of other class members. Adequacy addresses, among other things, potential conflicts of interest between the class representative and the absent class members.

If a plaintiff can satisfy all these requirements they must also comply with at least one subsection of Rule 23(b)(1), (2) or (3). Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) are the two most used. Rule 23(b)(2) applies when a defendant has taken action or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class as a whole and the plaintiff is seeking final injunctive or declaratory relief that would affect the entire class of individuals (e.g., actions vindicating civil rights).

Rule 23(b)(3) applies to suits seeking money damages. In such cases, plaintiff must show that (1) common questions of law or fact predominate over any individualized inquiries, and (2) that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Predominance requires the court to examine whether the class can use common evidence to make a prima facia showing of the essential elements of its claims. If the evidence to make such a showing will vary from class member to class member, predominance will not be met. Superiority involves consideration of four factors: (1) whether class members have an interest in controlling their own litigation; (2) whether litigation already exists concerning the controversy; (3) the desirability of concentrating claims in one judicial forum; and (4) potential problems that could arise in managing the case as a class action.

Judges have considerable discretion in balancing and applying these tests, and litigation on these factors (and their various sub-elements) is hotly contested, involving expert testimony and standalone briefing.

France

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding automotive class actions in 2025?

In France, large-scale collective actions (i.e., an accumulation of individual claims in the same court proceedings) have expanded in the automotive sector in recent years, contrary to class actions (defined as representative actions brought by an authorized association on behalf of at least two individuals). Class actions are not widespread due to the hurdles of the procedural route they imply. This being said, class actions are a growing risk for automotive manufacturers in France. In this respect, 2025 was marked by the new legal reform on class action transposing Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of 25 November 2020, which entered into force on 3 May 2025. It introduced a simplified and unified legal regime for all class actions in civil matters. It is within this new legal framework that a French representative consumer association recently lodged a class action against automotive car manufacturers before the Paris Judicial Court. The plaintiff association seeks compensation for damages caused to motorists whose vehicles have been subject to recalls, including moral damages due to the anxiety allegedly caused by the exposure of defective car equipment considered dangerous. This new automotive class action will very likely help in assessing the effectiveness of the new shaped class action regime. In parallel, collective actions related to product safety and liability claims against car manufacturers with respect to defective car equipment are still on the rise.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

In 2026, the litigation landscape in the automotive industry is expected to be affected by new EU legal reforms that have been or will be transposed into French law.

First, Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of 25 November 2020 was transposed into French law by the new legislation reforming class actions, which entered into force on 3 May 2025. On the one hand, the new reform broadens the scale by introducing EU cross-border class actions. On the other hand, legal standing is extended to a broader range of claimants from non-approved associations under certain conditions to legal entities creating new B2B class actions. In addition, with respect to sanctions, the request to cease a breach is simplified, and a civil fine can be ordered in specific cases. While there is no certainty on whether the class action procedural route would become more attractive in practice - only one automotive class action has been lodged since the entry into force of the legal reform at this stage – it represents a potential litigation and reputational risk that should be contemplated by companies even more closely than before.

Second, the product liability rules were amended in a pro-consumer direction through the EU Directive (EU) 2024/2853 of 23 October 2024 on liability for defective products (PLD) that must be transposed into French law before 2026 in order to apply to products placed on the market or put into service from 9 December 2026. The liability action has been simplified for the claimant, particularly with regard to access to evidence and proof of defect and the causal link. The scope of the product concerned and damage has been extended, as well as the circle of persons potentially responsible for the defect. This trend emphasizes the importance for economic operators to proactively assess and address potential product-related issues in order to mitigate legal risks.

This jurisdiction does not currently have any relevant content in this category.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding life sciences and health class actions in 2025?

Since their introduction into the French legislative landscape in 2016, health-related class actions have remained relatively rare, largely due to the stringent conditions required to bring such claims.

The reform introduced by the Act of 30 April 2025 (DDADUE 5), which transposes Directive (EU) 2020/1828 on representative actions and reforms the French class action regime, may gradually make this procedural mechanism more frequent within the life sciences and healthcare sectors. In short, this reform consolidates the various existing class action regimes into a single framework and introduces significant novel features. In particular, it expands the scope of breaches that may give rise to a class action to include any violation of legal or contractual obligations by a professional, and broadens the range of compensable damages to encompass any type of harm, regardless of its nature. This marks a clear departure from the previous framework, under which health-related class actions were limited to bodily injury.

The reform also generalizes the dual purpose of class actions, allowing them to pursue both compensation and/or the cessation of unlawful practices. In addition, it widens the circle of potential claimants to include non-approved associations meeting specific criteria, representative trade unions, and public prosecutors. Courts are also empowered to impose civil fines of an amount up to five times the illicit gain resulting from the wrongdoing.

As of 2025, health-related collective litigation in France continues to arise primarily from product safety issues, particularly those involving medical devices, digital health technologies, and failures to comply with market surveillance obligations by manufacturers. While claimants seeking faster relief still tend to favor aggregated individual claims over class actions, the recent reforms – combined with heightened regulatory scrutiny in the life sciences sector – could encourage consumer and patients associations and other authorized entities to test the reformed mechanism in cases involving significant public health concerns.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

Although health-related class actions have remained rare since their introduction in 2016, a series of legal and procedural developments could reshape the landscape from 2026 onwards.

The Act of 30 April 2025 (DDADUE 5) established a unified framework for all civil class actions, streamlining and harmonizing France’s previously fragmented regimes. The reform is intended to enhance both the efficiency and accessibility of class actions by broadening the scope of eligible claims and expanding the categories of potential claimants. In the life sciences and healthcare sectors, these changes could be particularly significant in large-scale health disputes, where collective redress mechanisms may provide a more effective means of addressing systemic product safety concerns. The new framework is expected to lower procedural barriers for plaintiffs, making it easier to initiate such claims and potentially leading to an increase in their use in the years ahead.

At the EU level, the revised Product Liability Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/2853), which must be transposed into French law before 2026 and will apply to products placed on the market or put into service from 9 December 2026, expands the range of potentially liable parties and introduces presumptions to facilitate proof of alleged defects. These changes are expected to simplify the pursuit of product liability claims and make them more amenable to class action proceedings and collective actions.

In parallel, the combined use of litigation funding, targeted online communications, notably on social media, and dedicated class action platforms is likely to further drive the development of class actions and collective actions. These tools enable the swift mobilization of large groups of claimants and amplify both the visibility and the pressure surrounding high-profile health-related disputes.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding technology class actions in 2025?

So far, tech businesses have been relatively safe from representative class actions, while they could be targeted in the scope of different types of class actions (consumer, data, and environmental class actions). Out of the nearly 40 class actions that were launched in France, only three were initiated against tech companies: two data class actions against an internet service provider and a social media company, and a consumer class action against an online marketplace. The data class action initiated against the internet service provider was declared inadmissible in late 2024 by the Paris Judicial Court, which held that the association did not represent a class of data subjects in a similar situation. Whether more class actions will be brought against tech companies as a result of the recent transposition of EU Directive 2020/1828 into French law and, hence, the extension of the scope of class actions to many areas of law remains to be seen. Rather than class actions, which are a very long route to compensation, the Plaintiffs' bar is currently targeting tech businesses in the scope of collective actions (i.e., an accumulation of individual claims in the same court proceedings) and one should expect to see more of that type of action than class actions, notably as they represent a more flexible procedural mechanism available whatever the issue at stake.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

Because they operate globally, in both a very regulated and harmonized legal environment, tech businesses face a genuine litigation contagion risk. To best prepare, companies should monitor politics, consumer associations, and existing litigation at both domestic and EU levels to identify emerging regulatory challenges and be able, when the time comes, to define a litigation strategy that can be easily declined in various jurisdictions, if not one strategy worldwide. Online minor protection clearly is one of those topics in France. Discussed for several years, it truly exploded in 2025: the French government (as well as many French politicians) has been vocal about it, clearly advocating for stricter regulation; the French Parliament has also taken up on the issue; and some French authorities (judicial and regulators) have been investigating and/or litigating cases touching upon this question. Depending on where current political and parliamentary initiatives land, this might nourish the growing appetite of the Plaintiffs’ Bar for these questions. More generally, with the DSA now in force, content regulation and intermediary liability issues should become increasingly prominent in future litigation.

Germany

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding automotive class actions in 2025?

In 2025, the legal landscape for automotive class actions in Germany and across the European Union will continue to evolve, reflecting both regulatory shifts and changing consumer expectations. European regulations continue to play an increasingly influential role in shaping the automotive litigation landscape. In 2025, European regulations will have become more stringent and more proactive in addressing consumer protection, product safety, and environmental compliance. This regulatory momentum is directly reflected in the nature and volume of class actions across Germany.

The diesel issue continues to play an important role. A particularly important development in the diesel context is the renewed tightening of judicial standards. Courts across Germany and the EU have issued increasingly strict rulings, with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) playing a decisive role. Recent ECJ judgments have significantly narrowed the scope for defense strategies, especially in cases involving emissions control systems and defeat devices. The burden of proof has shifted further toward manufacturers, and procedural leeway has diminished. As a result, defending diesel claims has become more challenging, with courts showing less tolerance for technical justifications that previously held weight.

While diesel-related litigation remains active, there has been a noticeable rise in lawsuits targeting electric vehicles. These cases often center on issues such as battery performance and real-world range discrepancies. Plaintiffs increasingly argue that manufacturers failed to adequately disclose technical limitations. A growing number of claims also focus on misleading advertising and unsubstantiated environmental promises. Plaintiffs argue that manufacturers have overstated the ecological benefits of EVs or made sustainability claims that cannot be substantiated under current EU greenwashing standards.

Another significant development is the rise of investor lawsuits. As regulatory scrutiny intensifies and ESG compliance becomes a central concern, shareholders are increasingly pursuing legal action against automotive companies for alleged misstatements, omissions, or failures to disclose material risks, particularly in relation to emissions compliance, sustainability practices, and the transition to electric mobility. These claims often hinge on capital market law and are driven by reputational damage or stock price volatility following regulatory investigations or public controversies.

Despite these shifts, one key takeaway remains unchanged: individualized legal strategies continue to be the most effective approach for manufacturers. Courts are increasingly focused on the specific technical and legal details of each case, and generic defenses are proving less persuasive. OEMs that tailor their arguments to the unique circumstances of each claim, integrating regulatory knowledge with technical expertise, are better positioned to achieve favorable outcomes.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

Looking ahead, several trends are expected to shape the litigation and regulatory environment in 2026: One of the most significant is the growing emphasis on ESG compliance, particularly in relation to battery sourcing and supply chain transparency. As the EU tightens its sustainability standards, manufacturers face increasing scrutiny over environmental and social practices, with potential legal exposure tied to violations of ethical sourcing or recycling obligations.

Another major development is the evolving regulatory framework for autonomous driving and artificial intelligence. Manufacturers will need to prepare for litigation that challenges the safety and accountability of AI-driven systems.

Digitalization is also creating new legal risks. As vehicles become more connected, issues related to data protection, cybersecurity, and digital services are coming to the forefront. The GDPR remains a cornerstone of data governance, but the upcoming EU Data Act will further expand obligations around data sharing and user control, potentially triggering new forms of consumer litigation.

How companies can best prepare:

To navigate these challenges, companies should take a proactive and multidisciplinary approach. Regulatory monitoring should be intensified to anticipate legal risks early, particularly in areas like product safety, AI, and ESG. Legal teams should work closely with technical experts to develop robust, case-specific defense strategies. Investing in legal technology and risk analytics can help identify vulnerabilities before they escalate into litigation. Finally, internal education and alignment across departments, especially legal, compliance, and engineering, will be essential to ensure that companies are prepared to respond effectively to the evolving legal landscape.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding consumer class actions in 2025?

The landscape of consumer class actions in Germany has continued to flourish in 2025, particularly under the Consumer Rights Enforcement Act (VDuG). The number of class actions has increased, with four new actions published in the register of representative actions (Verbandsklagenregister) in the first half of this year alone. These actions include the new possibility of bringing motions for redress rulings as well as the continued use of motions for declaratory rulings on liability. The increasing use of redress motions confirms a growing willingness among consumer associations to utilize these legal mechanisms and address consumer redress topics.

Consumer associations remain committed to investigating new issues. Currently, the emphasis appears to be placed on enforcing compliance with data protection regulations among the providers of social media platforms. Nevertheless, they have not yet initiated actions for all prospective matters. This proactive approach suggests that consumer associations are actively seeking to expand the scope of consumer protection and are likely to bring forward even more new cases in the future.

These developments highlight a dynamic shift towards more representative consumer advocacy, with associations leveraging the VDuG to hold companies accountable for consumer rights infringements. The increase in class actions reflects a broader trend of empowering consumers and enhancing their ability to seek collective redress by declaring their opt-in to these actions.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

Looking ahead to 2026 and beyond, several trends are poised to shape the consumer class action landscape in Germany. While the VDuG has facilitated several actions in the past two years, there is still limited experience with certain features of the new procedure for redress (Abhilfeklage) in court, due to the lengthy nature of civil proceedings. Key aspects to monitor remain the effect of the extended consumer opt-in period beyond the hearing date, the potential for court-approved settlements after the ruling on the merits, and the enforcement procedure (Sachwalterverfahren).

Consumer associations' willingness to sue has still not yet fully expanded their actions to encompass the entire scope of Annex I of Directive (EU) 2020/1828. As the scope of potential actions in Germany is broader than the Directive, we may witness the emergence of new topics and subject matters. Additionally, the absence of cross-border interventions in VDuG matters thus far leaves open potential future developments in this area.

To prepare, companies should closely monitor pending class actions and assess whether similar claims could be asserted against them. Historically, many class actions have revisited topics previously addressed against other defendants. Companies should also pay attention to announcements by qualified plaintiffs regarding topics they are investigating or seeking concerned consumers for. Requests for cease-and-desist letters from consumer associations could serve as early warning signs of potential collective redress actions.

Furthermore, companies should be ready to manage the cumulative impact of various legal actions, including injunctive actions, individual consumer redress (potentially as mass litigation), and opt-in class actions. By staying vigilant and proactive, companies can better navigate the evolving legal landscape and mitigate potential risks associated with consumer class actions.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding financial institutions class actions in 2024?

The 2024 legal landscape in Germany marks a shift with the introduction of actions for investor claims related to crypto assets under the MiCA Regulation. This expansion allows for claims concerning misleading or omitted information in crypto whitepapers, broadening the scope of financial market litigation.

Efforts to streamline legal procedures are evident, with measures such as shortened deadlines and an enhanced role for the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) in Capital Markets Model Case Proceedings. This court now has greater autonomy in determining the objectives of class action proceedings, potentially leading to more efficient case management.

A notable procedural change is the shift to an opt-in mechanism for suspending related proceedings, replacing the previous automatic suspension. This will enable a large number of parallel individual actions with double evidentiary hearings in all instances, which will massively increase the requirements for the orderly handling of mass proceedings and require robust legal strategies and possibly increased legal resources. In addition, the disclosure obligations will be tightened in line with “pre-trial discovery” in such matters.

Finally, the relationship between class actions by consumer associations and in Capital Markets Model Case Proceedings has been clarified. These types of actions do not exclude each other when relating to the same subject matter.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

Looking ahead, the digital transformation of legal processes will require companies to adapt to electronic documentation and communication. The use of electronic process tools and sharing with clients will be required to handle the complex proceedings. Investing in digital infrastructure and training for document disclosure will be essential for compliance and efficiency. Revisiting data management and confidentiality protocols will be vital to protect sensitive information.

At some point in 2025 or beyond we may see cases with an aggregate of Capital Market Model Case proceedings and consumer class action.

Since financial institutions have been in the focus of consumer class actions in Germany since their first implementation in 2018, we expect that consumer associations will continue to make use of the existing option to bring motions for declaratory judgments on consumer law infringements but will also make use of the now available option to bring motions for redress on behalf of consumers. Various cases were brought against banks regarding terms and conditions concerning interest rates, before the direct motion for redress was available to the plaintiffs.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding life sciences and health class actions in 2024?

Although the framework for collective redress has been gradually evolving, Germany has not yet seen widespread class actions for product liability in the healthcare sector. The key legal basis for class actions in Germany is the new consumer rights enforcement act (Verbraucherstreitbeilegungsgesetz (VDuG)), which implements EU Directive 2020/1828. This legislation facilitates representative actions for civil disputes involving large numbers of consumers against a company, including product liability claims. Art. 2 of EU Directive 2020/1828 specifically refers to class actions in lawsuits regarding EU Directive 85/374 (now EU Directive 2024/2853, Product Liability Directive (PLD)) and the Medical Device Regulation 2017/754 (MDR).

In practice, the VDuG’s legal instruments have mainly been used in cases related to the energy and banking sectors since their implementation. Product liability claims involving claims for personal injury are, in our opinion, often not suitable for class action proceedings since they require detailed individual assessments when it comes to causality or individual damage. Also, the Action for Redress (Sec. 15 (1) sent. 1 VDuG) is only admissible if the claims of the consumers concerned by the action are essentially the same, which often does not apply to cases under the PLD. Further issues must be taken into account with respect to the interaction between the Action for Redress and the new PLD: For instance, the applicability of the presumption of causality (Art. 10 (3, 4) PLD) in class actions is questionable. Also, the defendant’s ability to refute the presumption (Art. 10 (5) PLD) cannot be determined without an evaluation of the individual case. This ambiguity raises questions about the suitability of class actions in such cases.

As we navigate the evolving landscape of class actions in the life sciences and healthcare sector, the year 2024 has brought significant developments in Germany. Here are the key takeaways and trends that companies should be aware of as we look toward 2025 and beyond: In 2024, Germany’s approach to class actions in the life sciences and healthcare sector remains distinct from other EU countries. Unlike jurisdictions where class actions for product liability claims, particularly for personal injury, are more common, Germany still relies on individual or mass proceedings to handle such cases.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

Looking ahead to 2025 and beyond, with the growing prevalence of mass litigation, we are on the threshold of a wave of class actions that will require not only legal precision but also strategic risk management.

For companies, this means not only identifying mass-action risks in a timely manner but also proactively hedging them through compliance and precise contract drafting in order to minimize economic and reputational damage. Preventive strategies and close alignment between compliance and legal advice will be crucial not only to minimize risks but also to strengthen stakeholder trust in an increasingly demanding legal environment.

To prepare for these developments, companies in the life sciences and healthcare sectors should focus on strengthening their internal processes for handling consumer claims, complaints, and potential litigation. This also includes ensuring transparency in product information and improving the management of customer relationships. Companies should also closely monitor legal developments, particularly related to EU directives and evolving case law on product liability and causality, to ensure they remain compliant and can respond proactively to future legal challenges. In this context, it is particularly vital to monitor the impact of the new PLD on class actions, especially with regard to the issues outlined above. Since the PLD must be implemented by December 2026, it remains to be seen how national law will change in this regard, in particular German Product Liability Law (Produkthaftungsgesetz), and what impact this will have on mass litigation in product liability cases in Germany.

This jurisdiction does not currently have any relevant content in this category.

Indonesia

This jurisdiction does not currently have any relevant content in this category.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding technology class actions in 2025?

The most significant development for class actions in Indonesia’s technology sector during 2025 has been the growing awareness of consumer rights in relation to data protection. Unlike finance, automotive, or consumer goods – which have occasionally faced class actions – the technology sector has historically seen very limited activity. Awareness, however, has begun to grow. Following the data breach at the Temporary National Data Center 2 in Surabaya, for example, the National Consumer Protection Agency (Badan Perlindungan Konsumen Nasional) encouraged affected individuals to consider pursuing a class action. While this did not immediately result in large-scale litigation, it reflects a gradual shift in perception: data security incidents are starting to be viewed as a possible basis for collective claims. This suggests that data protection, rather than traditional product or service disputes, may increasingly be seen as a potential driver of class actions in the technology space, though the practice remains at an early stage of development.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

The expiry of the sunset period under Law No. 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection (“Indonesian PDP Law”) may give rise to new class action lawsuits in the technology sector, particularly in relation to data protection. Although the Indonesian PDP Law does not specifically regulate the procedure for class actions, it clearly sets out the rights and obligations of data controllers, processors, and data subjects, thereby opening the possibility for data subjects to enforce their rights against controllers or processors through class actions in accordance with the procedures under SC Reg 1/2002. This makes a collective claim realistic, although the actual practice is still developing and is still in its infancy.

Companies, however, would be well advised to prepare. Practical steps include:

Strengthening compliance frameworks: ensuring that data governance policies and security practices align with PDP Law requirements.
Enhancing incident response: developing clear protocols for detecting, reporting, and mitigating data breaches.
Raising organizational awareness: educating management and employees on the potential exposure to class actions and the reputational risks of non-compliance.

By taking these measures, companies can reduce the likelihood of being targeted in early test cases and demonstrate good faith compliance as the regulatory framework matures.

Italy

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding automotive class actions in 2024?

The automotive industry in Italy has been among the major targets of consumer associations. Class actions against car manufacturers/distributors in Italy have primarily focused on issues related to emissions, safety recalls and defects, consumer rights and misleading advertising and antitrust and competition issues.

In 2024, perhaps the most prominent class action involving a car manufacturer in Italy is the one brought by six consumer associations against a multinational corporation for damages allegedly caused by a delayed recall campaign of defective airbags. This will likely be a landmark case because of the quite complex procedural issues arising following the interconnection of different proceedings seeking both injunctive and redress measures under the two different sets of rules under the civil procedure code and the consumer code.

The above case has shown that the increased scrutiny over the regulatory obligations of the economic operators regarding product safety and compliance may likely generate litigation by consumers and consumer associations, notably through the recourse to class action/representative actions mechanisms. The damage more often sought is not the one suffered for personal injuries caused by unsafe/defective vehicles or components, but rather the one related to the delayed or incomplete recall campaign. This makes it easier to have the class certified as meeting the requirement of homogenous rights and exposes economic operators in the automotive industry to higher litigation risks. To mitigate those risks, economic operators should enhance traceability of the corrective measures implemented, including recall campaigns, to substantiate and document the risk assessment carried out and the decision process followed so as to show full compliance with all regulatory obligations.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

We may expect that the challenges that the automotive industry is facing may generate increased litigation risks in 2025 and beyond, which are related not only to consumer protection/product liability matters but also to a variety of legal issues including cases involving allegations of anti-competitive practices, such as cartels, market manipulation, or abuse of dominant market positions. On 1 April 2025, the European Commission announced that it issued fines totaling €458 million against 15 car manufacturers and the European Automobiles Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) for their involvement in a cartel concerning end-of-life vehicle recycling. We may expect a new wave of private enforcement litigation will follow, likely pursued by consumers and consumer associations through the recourse to class action mechanisms that contain several pro-plaintiff provisions, including those easing the claimant’s burden of proof (i.e. use of statistical data and presumptions, as well as the disclosure order).

Some of those provisions overlap with the ones set by the Italian law implementing the EU directive on antitrust damages. We may also expect consumer associations will continue pursuing the safety recalls and product defects-related litigation. A consumer association has recently announced that, following initiatives taken by other consumer associations in Spain and France, a new class action will be launched to seek injunctive and redress measures for damage allegedly suffered as a result of defects of the ignition system. Moreover, the implementation in Italy of the new product liability directive containing several pro-plaintiff provisions will further boost the litigation in this space. The best way to prepare for this evolving landscape is to set up an effective risk mitigation strategy through a continued analysis of the litigation risks at every phase of the product cycle to be carried out in coordination by the several business functions of the company (i.e. R&D, quality, marketing, regulatory, communication and legal).

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding consumer class actions in 2025?

Following a record year in 2024, Italy's consumer class action landscape has experienced a slight deceleration in 2025.

While comprehensive data remains pending as the year concludes, preliminary statistics indicate a reduction in new filings.

Proceedings encompass both domestic class actions (introduced in 2019) and European-inspired representative actions, with the latter predominating, and Consumer associations continue to serve as the primary catalysts for most cases.

Sectoral Focus Areas

Representative Actions Address:

Regulatory Breaches: Three actions filed, including two against professional football clubs for failing to provide mandatory free tickets to minors, and one against a cigarette retailer for unlawful e-cigarette advertising
Unfair Contractual Terms: Three actions targeting car rental companies and financial institutions over allegedly unconscionable standard agreement clauses
Deceptive Commercial Practices: Consumer association litigation against an airline for allegedly unlawful check-in fees, seeking both injunctive and monetary relief

Traditional Class Actions Focus On:

Breach of Contract: Users pursuing a travel agency for fraudulent vacation package sales
Regulatory Non-Compliance: Municipal action for unlawful traffic fine imposition

Current Case Status: Two of the reported representative actions – against a car rental company and a football club – have been declared admissible and are pending on the merits, while all other cases, both class and representative actions, are still waiting for a decision on the admissibility of the claim.

Notable 2025 developments in prior-year cases include one representative action dismissal for inadmissibility, termination of the "greenwashing" case (likely through settlement), and appellate rejection of the malfunction claim against a fintech platform.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

Current indicators suggest continued expansion of consumer class actions, representative actions in particular, despite year-to-year variations. Consumer association activism increasingly targets:

Financial Services: Consumer credit companies are facing challenges over unfair terms and misleading practices
Utilities Sector: Telecommunications, energy providers confronting regulatory compliance actions
Automotive Industry: Manufacturers, distributors, and rental companies addressing product defect and contractual practice claims

Emerging Legal Frontiers

ESG Integration: Current indicators suggest continued expansion of consumer class actions, representative actions in particular, despite year-to-year variations. Consumer association activism increasingly targets the Financial Services, Utilities, and Automotive sectors.

Technology-Driven Litigation: Accelerating technological advancement will likely generate increased claims concerning:

Data breach damages and platform outages
"AI-washing" or "tech-washing" misrepresentation of artificial intelligence and technology capabilities

Strategic Corporate Preparation Framework:

Comprehensive Compliance Monitoring: Implement robust systems ensuring adherence to consumer protection, data privacy, product safety, and sector-specific regulations across all operational areas with collective litigation exposure.
Market Intelligence and Early Warning Systems: Recent experience demonstrates systematic targeting patterns among representative bodies, who methodically identify market vulnerabilities and pursue sequential company actions. Maintaining sophisticated monitoring capabilities – preferably through external legal counsel engagement – enables proactive litigation management.
Pre-Litigation Resolution Strategies: Pre-filing dialogue requirements (particularly for representative actions) present strategic settlement opportunities. Comprehensive cost-benefit analysis often facilitates dispute prevention or amicable resolution, avoiding substantial collective proceeding expenses, including claims exposure, legal fees, court costs, mandatory judgment publication in national media, and customer communication campaigns.
Enhanced Document Management and Disclosure Preparation: While Italian procedure excludes discovery mechanisms, collective redress frameworks permit expanded document disclosure requirements. Companies should establish comprehensive document retention and production protocols in advance of potential litigation.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding financial institutions class actions in 2025?

Following a record year in 2024, Italy's financial sector class action activity has experienced a decline in 2025. While comprehensive year-end data remains pending, initial statistics reveal a substantial reduction in new proceedings. Financial sector matters, however, comprise 50% of all 2025 filings.

In 2025, only European framework representative actions were filed, with no domestic class actions.

Consumer associations continue as the predominant initiators of collective litigation.

Primary Areas of Focus

Representative Actions Target:

Consumer Credit Practices: Multiple actions addressing financial institutions' failure to reimburse/reduce upfront costs upon early loan repayment, seeking both injunctive relief and monetary compensation
Unfair Commercial Practices: Consumer association brought claims against banking institutions, challenging specific contractual clauses (ABI clauses) and seeking clause annulment

Notable Filing Gap: No domestic class actions (seeking damages or injunctive relief) were initiated against financial sector entities in 2025.

Current Case Disposition: One case has achieved settlement, another has been terminated (likely through settlement per Ministry of Justice records), while the remaining 2025 cases await merit determinations. Significant developments in pre-2025 cases include: one representative action on upfront costs declared inadmissible, an inadmissibility ruling against a digital payment institution for alleged false advertising, and an appellate rejection of the malfunction case against a Fintech platform.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

Projected Industry Trajectories:

Consumer association activism increasingly concentrates on financial institutions regarding unfair contractual terms and deceptive commercial practices, with specific emphasis on surety guarantees and consumer credit-associated costs.

Expanding Liability Landscape:

While collective redress campaigns currently target traditional banking and payment services, broader financial and insurance sectors face emerging exposure risks:

Securities Class Actions: Representing the next litigation frontier, potentially including corporate director involvement as evidenced by pending actions.

Technology-Driven Claims:

Cybersecurity Incidents: Anticipated increase in data breach and platform outage damage claims (existing precedent in the financial sector)
AI/Tech-Washing: Potential litigation concerning misrepresentation of artificial intelligence and technology capabilities in financial services

Emerging Risk Categories:

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG): Despite current limited Italian adoption, ESG-related class actions have emerged across other sectors and may extend to financial services, particularly following significant market disruptions.

Employment-Related Actions: While labor litigation traditionally lacks the homogeneity required for collective mechanisms, evolving precedent suggests potential financial sector exposure.

Strategic Corporate Preparation Framework:

Comprehensive Regulatory Compliance Monitoring: Implement robust oversight systems ensuring adherence to investor protection, data privacy, and sector-specific regulations across all operational areas with collective litigation potential.
Systematic Market Intelligence: Recent experience demonstrates methodical targeting patterns among representative bodies, who systematically identify market vulnerabilities and pursue sequential institutional actions. Maintaining sophisticated monitoring capabilities – preferably through specialized external counsel – enables proactive litigation management and early intervention strategies.
Pre-Litigation Resolution Optimization: Mandatory or customary pre-filing dialogue requirements (particularly for representative actions) create strategic settlement opportunities. Comprehensive cost-benefit analysis frequently facilitates dispute prevention or amicable resolution, avoiding substantial collective proceeding expenses, including claims exposure, legal fees, court costs, mandatory national newspaper judgment publication, and costly customer communication campaigns.
Enhanced Document Management and Disclosure Readiness: While Italian procedure excludes traditional discovery mechanisms, collective redress frameworks permit expanded document disclosure requirements. Financial institutions should establish comprehensive document retention, privilege protocols, and production procedures in advance of potential litigation exposure.

Sector-Specific Considerations: Given the financial sector's regulatory complexity and heightened consumer protection focus, institutions should prioritize compliance monitoring in consumer credit practices, contractual terms transparency, and digital service reliability to mitigate collective action vulnerability.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding life sciences and health class actions in 2024?

Despite Italy being among the EU jurisdictions having implemented a quite complex class actions legal framework (with two different, although interconnected sets of rules), the number of class actions brought in Italy, notably against life sciences companies, is very limited. Only two class actions, both brought against medical device companies, have been certified since the first law on class actions entered into force in 2008. Consumer associations have rather chosen mass tort litigation (i.e., grouped actions) to bring claims against life sciences companies. One of the above-mentioned two class actions was brought in 2024 by two consumer associations to seek compensation for damages suffered as a result of the delayed implementation of a recall campaign of an allegedly defective medical device.

This is a leading case not only due to the cause of action introduced (i.e. compensation for damage allegedly caused by a delayed recall campaign), but also and most importantly because of the type of procedure pursued, i.e. the interim injunctive relief with the application of penalties set forth by the Italian civil procedure rules as a way to obtain monetary redress without substantiating any damage possibly suffered by the members of the class. Indeed, through the interim injunctive relief proceedings, consumer associations may seek a Court’s order imposing upon the defendant a deadline to complete the recall campaign. Violation of such a deadline may trigger the application of penalties to be paid to the consumer associations. The above case has paved the way for consumer associations to use the class actions mechanism more effectively, notably seeking injunctive relief, which may trigger the application of penalties. Already in 2024, we have seen consumer associations following the same path in litigation involving other industries.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

We may expect that in 2025 and beyond life science businesses will be involved not only in consumer protection/product liability litigation but also in relation to a variety of legal issues including cases involving allegations of anti-competitive practices, such as price-fixing, market manipulation, or abuse of dominant market positions, as well as breaches of patient data privacy or inadequate data security measures. All those cases will likely be pursued through the recourse to class action mechanisms.

Indeed, both the class action regime under the civil procedure code and the representative actions rules under the consumer code recently adopted contain several pro-plaintiff provisions including those easing the claimant’s burden of proof (i.e. use of statistic data and presumptions, as well as the disclosure order), which could encourage the recourse to class actions. Moreover, consumers and consumer associations will increasingly look at the way in which economic operations (e.g., manufacturers, importers, distributors) implement recall campaigns in case of product defects or non-compliance to seek redress through class actions and/or representative actions, both injunctive and on the merits.

Recent cases have shown that this will be a major battleground. Indeed, both regulators and judges increasingly scrutinize how economic operators assess the safety risk, identify and implement the necessary corrective measures. In this respect, the new product liability directive, once implemented in Italy, will allow judges to infer the defect of a product also from the fact that the product was subject to recall campaigns, even voluntary. An effective risk mitigation strategy should be based on a thorough analysis of the litigation risks at every phase of the product cycle. To this purpose, the different business functions (i.e., R&D, quality, marketing, regulatory, communication, and legal) should constantly collaborate.

This jurisdiction does not currently have any relevant content in this category.

Mexico

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding automotive class actions in 2025?

Mexico’s class action system faced significant challenges: strict commonality requirements, the opt-in model, and protracted appeals processes often delay justice. For automotive manufacturers and suppliers, these developments mean that litigation risk tied to recalls, product liability, and consumer warranty claims can linger for years. The complexity of defending cross-border claims demands a carefully coordinated strategy to safeguard market share and reputation.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

For the auto sector, Mexico’s recent judicial reform could result in a more politicized climate around safety, emissions, and consumer protection issues, as courts may be swayed by public opinion. Companies should invest in early risk assessments, strengthen compliance programs, and align litigation strategies across jurisdictions to stay ahead of emerging enforcement and liability challenges.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding consumer class actions in 2025?

In 2025, Mexico's judicial reform replaced career judicial appointments with judges elected by popular vote, significantly reshaping the structure and functioning of the judicial system. Additionally, Mexico’s class action system faced significant challenges: strict commonality requirements, the opt-in model, and protracted appeals processes often delay justice. For consumer companies, these dynamics mean that defending against class actions in Mexico requires both long-term litigation planning and close monitoring of evolving judicial priorities, as uncertainty in the courts can directly impact brand reputation and financial exposure.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

In the wake of this judicial reform, consumer companies should prepare for increased unpredictability in how consumer rights are interpreted and enforced, as popular pressures may shape judicial decision-making in ways that directly affect product liability, advertising, and contractual disputes. Proactive compliance and robust defense strategies will be essential for companies navigating this environment.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding financial institutions class actions in 2025?

In 2025, Mexico implemented a sweeping judicial reform, ushering in a profound transformation of its judiciary. The reform replaced career judicial appointments with judges elected by popular vote, significantly reshaping the structure and functioning of the judicial system. Additionally, Mexico’s class action system faced significant challenges: strict commonality requirements, the opt-in model, and protracted appeals processes often delay justice. For financial institutions, these hurdles translate into prolonged uncertainty around consumer lending, investment products, and data privacy disputes, making proactive risk management and coordinated defense strategies essential to protecting client trust and regulatory standing.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

Mexico has enacted and implemented a judicial reform, transitioning to a system where judges are elected by popular vote. This shift introduces significant uncertainty. Banks and financial services companies should anticipate heightened scrutiny of consumer contracts, lending practices, and digital services, as judicial decisions may increasingly respond to populist concerns. Building resilient compliance frameworks and preparing for uneven enforcement will be critical to navigating this environment.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding life sciences and health class actions in 2025?

In 2025, Mexico implemented a sweeping judicial reform, ushering in a profound transformation of its judiciary. The reform replaced career judicial appointments with judges elected by popular vote, significantly reshaping the structure and functioning of the judicial system. Additionally, Mexico’s class action system faced significant challenges: strict commonality requirements, the opt-in model, and protracted appeals processes often delay justice. For pharmaceutical and medical device companies, this means product liability and consumer safety claims may be tied up in prolonged appeals, creating ongoing reputational risks and delaying finality in litigation outcomes.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

Mexico is transitioning to a system where judges are elected by popular vote. This shift introduces significant uncertainty. Life sciences companies should prepare for more unpredictable treatment of clinical trial disputes, consumer protection claims, and access-to-medicine litigation, where judicial decisions may be influenced by political or public health pressures. Coordinating global litigation strategies and maintaining robust compliance systems will be essential.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding technology class actions in 2025?

In 2025, Mexico replaced career judicial appointments with judges elected by popular vote, significantly reshaping the structure and functioning of the judicial system. Additionally, Mexico’s class action system faced significant challenges: strict commonality requirements, the opt-in model, and protracted appeals processes often delay justice. For technology companies, this creates prolonged exposure in disputes over data privacy, digital services, and consumer contracts, which can disrupt growth and innovation strategies in key markets.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

For the tech sector, Mexico’s shift means greater volatility around the enforcement of consumer protection, AI regulation, and platform liability, where judges may be influenced by societal concerns about digital harms. Companies should anticipate uneven interpretations of regulatory frameworks and invest in adaptive, cross-border compliance planning.

Netherlands

This jurisdiction does not currently have any relevant content in this category.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding life sciences and health class actions in 2025?

We haven’t seen a particular increase in collective actions being initiated (or announced to be initiated) in the Life Sciences and Health Care industry either. Although the class action mechanism under the WAMCA remains an important tool to handle these kinds of mass claims, no major increase in the use of the collective actions mechanism for the handling of these claims in 2025.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

Although we have seen some collective actions in the Life Sciences and Health Care industry, we don’t expect particular upward trends in 2026 that will affect the Life Sciences and Health Care industry. It remains important, though, for clients in this industry sector to closely watch the activities of some of the most active claim organizations that are active in this area.

This jurisdiction does not currently have any relevant content in this category.

Spain

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding automotive class actions in 2025?

The current class action system, regulated in the Civil Procedure Act, for the protection of an identifiable group of consumers (i.e., collective interests) or a group of consumers that cannot be individually identified (i.e., diffuse interests), is complex from a procedural standpoint and takes a very long time to process, so entities with legal standing are not making significant use of this mechanism so far. However, the main Association of Consumers and Users (OCU) has filed 7 class actions against OEMs deriving from the so-called Vehicle Manufacturers Cartel, exercising follow-on damage claims. As an example of the impracticalities of the current system, 6 of the class actions filed articulate claims for the defense of diffuse interests (for the benefit of an indeterminate group of consumers), whereas 1 action has been formulated for the defense of collective interests (to the benefit of determined consumers).

Being the same case (i.e., follow-on claims for damages arising from an anti-competitive infringement), this duality should not be possible: either the interests protected are diffuse (indetermined) or they are collective interests (determined). Hence, an immediate implementation of the Directive would be desirable. The draft bill, republished on 14 March 2025, is exactly the same proposal that was withdrawn in 2024 due to a lack of consensus in parliament. It remains to be seen whether this time (even though the text has not changed), there is a parliamentary majority to approve the proposed text. Currently, the draft bill is undergoing amendments by the Justice Commission until 3 September 2025.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

The draft bill provides for an opt-out system (as a general rule) and foresees the possibility of litigation funding. In our view, considering the limited use of the previous class action mechanism due to the aforementioned inconveniences, the new system, after the Directive is implemented (through the draft bill or otherwise), should lead to a notable increase in class actions in Spain.

The most relevant areas in which class actions could be brought are financial litigation (claims for lack of transparency, abusive practices and/or usury in the financing of vehicles), antitrust litigation (claims for cartels and other infringements such as abuses of dominant position), product liability litigation and data security breaches.

The best way to prepare is to anticipate by analyzing and, where appropriate, correcting possible contracts, actions, products, etc. that could end up giving rise to class actions. Subsequently, it will be important to implement measures to preserve evidence and, of course, to obtain appropriate legal advice from experts in class actions.

Our Madrid office is representing clients in class actions in financial litigation and antitrust litigation matters, and are prepared to advise on any pre-litigation or litigation situation.

This jurisdiction does not currently have any relevant content in this category.

United Kingdom

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding automotive class actions in 2024?

Automotive class actions gained even more prominence in 2024.

The ongoing Pan-NOx Emissions Group Litigation, where the court is collectively managing 13 separate group actions, brought by over 1.5 million claimants against thousands of defendants in the automotive industry, was among the highest-profile litigation in the UK in 2024. And it wasn't just in relation to diesel emissions that automotive manufacturers faced collective actions in this jurisdiction. Class actions have been brought or threatened across a range of other issues, from safety defects to vehicle finance, often with closely-linked claims brought in other jurisdictions.

The automotive industry has been a key target for claimant lawyers over the last few years and businesses continue to be at risk.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

Looking ahead, we see no let-up for the automotive industry. We anticipate considerable collective action litigation arising in relation to energy transition and electric vehicles, the incorporation of complex AI into vehicles (and the developing legal and regulatory framework around this), and further emissions-related and greenwashing claims.

The Supreme Court will soon hand down its key decision on commissions for car finance brokers, which could produce significant class actions litigation in the coming years.

Collective actions inevitably follow any regulatory interventions, and we expect that trend to continue in 2025. Claimant firms pay close attention to the automotive industry, and UK regulators are becoming increasingly active in this area. This will translate into more proceedings in this jurisdiction. Close monitoring of regulatory and political developments will be essential. Companies must ensure compliance programs are robust and can adapt quickly as laws, regulatory risks, and market conditions change.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding consumer class actions in 2024?

The English consumer class action landscape has experienced continued growth during 2024. This can partly be attributed to the growing availability and sophistication of litigation funding, enabling more consumers and claimant firms to pursue collective redress. Activism by consumer advocacy groups in a range of areas, sometimes on a pan-European basis, has also contributed to the expansion of consumer class action claims. Many groups in England and Europe collaborate in relation to the enforcement of consumer protection law. The English landscape is also — and inevitably — influenced by developments in the US.

The English courts have a range of innovative and flexible mechanisms for the management of such claims. The goal includes trying to manage the burden that consumer claims create for the judicial system and the overall legal costs involved in bringing and defending such claims. Throughout 2024, we have seen developments in a broad range of consumer claims managed under Group Litigation Orders (GLOs), 'same interest' representative actions, as well as Collective Proceedings Order (CPOs) before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) (usually on an 'opt-out' basis).

The use of the CAT is increasingly popular for consumer claims that allege an abuse of market dominance by the defendants. 2024 was not without its setbacks for claimants. Defendants defeated the first opt-out consumer class action to reach judgment; a litigation funder tried unsuccessfully to block a £200m settlement of a consumer class action whose headline value was £10bn. The English courts also provided some welcome guidance on the operation of representative actions.

The use of group proceedings — the relatively recently introduced procedural regime — took off in Scotland in 2024, with a series of consumer greenwashing claims against diesel manufacturers proceeding.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

Collective actions will continue to rise, as will third-party funding of consumer claims. England's legal and procedural framework increasingly supports different mechanisms that enable collective redress and the number of such cases will continue to increase.

We anticipate significant group litigation under the recent Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, which significantly expands consumer protection law in this jurisdiction, which could be in the CAT under CPOs, or added to claims managed under GLOs. The English government is reviewing our domestic product safety regulation framework in the context of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. More rights may soon accrue to consumers, and with them, more angles to bring collective actions.

Litigation funders' assets are increasing, with market participation from a wider pool of participants. The English courts are a center for environmental claims against businesses.

As AI functions become increasingly integrated with consumer products and services, and the UK begins to establish and clarify the regulatory framework, we expect a new category of consumer collective action to emerge.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding financial institutions class actions in 2025?

2025 has to date seen a number of key developments in the UK class action landscape for financial institutions, which continue to shape this evolving risk area for the industry.

The Civil Justice Council (CJC) published recommendations for comprehensive reform of litigation funding in the UK. This statutory advisory body made a number of wide-ranging recommendations, including notably a proposed requirement in collective, group, or representative proceedings that the funder and the funded party’s lawyer certify to the court that they did not approach the funded party to seek their agreement to pursue proceedings. That would, if implemented, represent a significant shift in how such proceedings could be conceived of and instituted. This and the CJC’s various other proposals are currently under review by the UK Government.

The UK Department for Business and Trade has launched a call for evidence to support a review of the operation and impact of the opt-out collective actions regime that has operated in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) for the last decade (and the CAT is the only forum where that regime is available in the UK). The stated purpose of the review is to consider whether the regime is delivering access to justice for consumers in a way that brings value without being disproportionately burdensome on business, observing that the value (and cost) of such claims has been far higher than originally anticipated by the Government. In due course, financial institutions will want to consider the proposals for change once formulated and published.

In May 2025, the CAT handed down judgment to approve the opt-out settlement agreed in Merricks v Mastercard, a high-profile and long-running opt-out claim seeking damages of over £14 billion from a major credit card provider. The parties agreed to settle for £200m, and the settlement was challenged by the claimant’s funder on the basis that it was too low and did not represent a “just and reasonable” outcome. While expressing a view that the sum was ‘disappointing’, the CAT approved the settlement despite the funder’s objections. The CAT acknowledged the need for class representatives to have access to well-funded legal representation, but observed that, in its view, the collective actions regime should operate for the benefit of class members and not primarily for the benefit of lawyers and funders. This case may further develop the jurisprudence in this important area, because the funder has announced that it has applied for judicial review of the CAT’s decision regarding how the settlement sum would be apportioned and distributed as between the class members, the funder, and an access to justice charity.

Outside the CAT, the large-scale diesel emissions group actions are heading to a substantive trial in October 2025, although the financing aspects of the claims will not be considered until a later date. All of those proceedings involve Group Litigation Orders (GLOs), but the courts are demonstrating increasing flexibility in the way mass claims are managed. An application for a GLO was rejected in respect of claims against a number of financial institutions relating to Payment Protection Insurance policies that were sold on a commission basis. The Court was not persuaded that the procedural ‘super-structure’ of a GLO would deliver any cost savings and was unattracted by the claimants’ argument that consumers with low-value claims would otherwise lose access to justice. The Court also considered that the fact-specific enquiry called for under the unfair debtor/creditor relationship regime could not be satisfactorily dealt with compendiously under an ‘omnibus’ claim form and ordered each claimant to file their own claim form.

This ‘omnibus claim’ approach was, however, recently considered and endorsed in the context of eight claims brought by (in aggregate) several thousand borrowers against motor finance lenders. Whilst such claims can be viable, they cannot operate on an ‘opt in’/‘opt out’ basis and contain no mechanism to deal with ‘tag along’ claims where claimants have no obligation to contribute to a funder’s costs. The case management decision endorsing the omnibus approach in that case is under appeal to be heard in the Court of Appeal in April 2026 and will be watched carefully not only by motor finance lenders, but by all financial institutions who may be exposed to large volumes of claims with superficial factual similarity.

Professional representatives acting in mass consumer claims have seen public criticism from their regulators, including on how consumer motor finance claims have been aggressively marketed. The Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) has highlighted what it describes as significant concerns over poor practice by firms in high-volume consumer claims and has taken the exceptional step of contacting firms active in the high-volume claims sector, requiring them to complete a mandatory declaration confirming they understand and are following the SRA’s rules.

Finally, claims by investors against issuers of listed securities for misleading, false or delayed statements or omissions under ss.90/90A Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 may be impacted by the judgment of the Privy Council in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments, which authoritatively abolished the so-called ‘Shareholder Rule’ and ruled that a company generally could, contrary to long-standing practice, assert legal advice privilege as against its own shareholder. This will likely make the pursuit of such claims more challenging for claimants. For passive investors, bringing such a claim is doubly challenging since a High Court judgment in October 2024 held that the test for reliance on a company statement requires the claimant to prove that they read or heard the representation.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

We expect the shape of the UK class action landscape for financial institutions to continue to evolve through 2026.

Further clarity on the direction of regulatory reform on litigation funding, and on the operation of the opt-out collective redress regime in the CAT, may bring reassurance to claimants, although its impact on funding appetite will depend importantly on the details of the proposals for an industry which has, to date, been largely self-regulating. The CJC has recommended primary legislation to clarify the legality of funding arrangements, which may be welcomed. Funders will, however, be carefully considering the experience in the Merricks v Mastercard litigation and the funders’ return that undershot their expectations and watching the outcome of the funder’s challenge to the CAT’s ruling on the distribution of the agreed settlement in that case.

While a significant number of County Court claims had awaited the outcome of the lenders’ appeal on motor finance commissions to the Supreme Court in Summer 2025, and others may have been expected to follow, the judgment handed down in August 2025 limited the scope for those claims to succeed compared to the earlier Court of Appeal decision. Following the judgment, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) intervened very promptly and publicly to foreshadow its intention to consult on and implement a statutory consumer redress scheme seeking to address consumer harm. The consultation is expected to be launched in October 2025, and the FCA has said that, if the compensation scheme goes ahead, the first payments should be made in 2026. Firms will be watching closely how any such scheme responds proportionately, and how the stated desire of the FCA and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to improve the response to ‘mass redress events’ outside Court proceedings develops in practice.

The FCA has been forthright in its consumer messaging that there is no need to use a professional representative to participate in any redress scheme. However, claimant firms (and their funders) will be considering whether litigation may nonetheless be a relatively more attractive route to enhance the perceived value and for consumers to recover any perceived shortfalls from the scheme. That may give rise to further pursuit of group actions in the consumer finance arena, where low-value individual claims can be uneconomic for representatives. The further appeal on case management of mass claims by way of omnibus claim forms will also be keenly watched.

The risk of ESG-related class actions also looms large for financial institutions, particularly with ever-evolving EU and UK disclosure requirements and the FCA’s recent Anti-Greenwashing Rule. With sustainability and good corporate behaviour remaining high on the political and legal agenda, added to consumer and investor expectations, the greenwashing risk is real and one that remains ripe for multi-claimant actions against firms.

Given that financial services firms are increasingly deploying AI in their operations and product offerings, the spectre of group action for AI-washing, where misleading statements are made in relation to a firm’s AI capabilities, looms large. The FCA has confirmed that it will not be introducing AI-specific rules, but the use of AI by firms will be subject to its existing regulatory regime. Hence, it’s unlikely that FCA will introduce a similar rule to its anti-greenwashing rule to address AI-washing, but in any event, existing FCA rules already require firms to ensure that they communicate information to consumers in a way that is fair, clear, and not misleading. And of course, the use of AI brings risks of other types of group claims, such as for negligent advice or improper use of data.

As the UK class action landscape continues to mature, 2026 is likely to be a year of further change.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding life sciences and health class actions in 2025?

Significant collective actions against life sciences companies have been a main pillar of the UK litigation landscape for decades. These have targeted a broad range of products over the years: from vaccines to blood products to orthopedics to antidepressants. While there has been a rapid expansion of other forms of class action in the UK, facilitated by a growing ecosystem of specialist claimant law firms and litigation funders, the steady stream of claims against life sciences businesses has remained relatively constant, including in 2024.

While many of the new wave of consumer and competition claims are supported by a litigation funder, the life sciences claims tend not to be. They often represent a more significant financial investment, and therefore risk, for the claimant firms willing to take them on. But there are plenty of claimant firms willing to do so. Any widely used product for which there is a suggestion of a new side-effect, or that is subject to a recall, is at risk of becoming the next target of claimant firms.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

Life sciences products will continue to be a natural area of focus for claimant firms in 2026 and beyond, particularly as areas of technological innovation bring new areas of risk. For example, new weight-loss drugs are being widely used and receiving a great deal of publicity, so claimant firms will be watching closely. Also, as AI tools become increasingly integrated into life sciences products and services, and as those products and services become more widely available, we expect claimant firms to identify additional areas of opportunity in which to try and initiate claims.

Importantly for the sector, the Law Commission recently announced that it is reviewing the UK’s product liability regime to ensure it is appropriate to deal with new and emerging technologies. There are early signs that – consistent with recent developments in the EU – the regime may become more consumer-friendly to help claimants in pursuing actions in respect of advanced and complex technologies, such as AI. This could lead to more life sciences collective actions being brought in the future.

We have seen many claims brought using the formal opt-in ‘group litigation’ procedure in the life sciences sector (GLOs). However, it is also an area where the English court has shown willingness to use its wide case management powers to find alternative, informal mechanisms for handling group claims (sometimes called a ‘GLO-lite’ procedure). This is often because claimant numbers, while still significant, do not reach a level where the additional costs added by the full group litigation mechanism are proportionate. These claims still represent material risk and expense for defendants, and the trend towards ‘GLO-lite’ structures seems likely to continue into 2025 and beyond.

This jurisdiction does not currently have any relevant content in this category.

United States of America

This jurisdiction does not currently have any relevant content in this category.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding consumer class actions in 2024?

In 2024, we saw a continued rise in consumer class actions, with contamination cases remaining at the forefront. These lawsuits have hit various consumer industries, including food, household, and personal products. Particular attention continues to focus on PFAS chemicals, a class of synthetic chemicals used in a variety of industrial and consumer products. Although Plaintiffs’ lawyers have been suing over PFAS for years, the earlier litigations were environmental contamination cases. In recent years, as regulations and awareness of PFAS have expanded, so too have the companies and industries targeted and the types of PFAS-related claims asserted. Consumer activists and certain plaintiffs’ law firms have initiated aggressive campaigns to test entire categories of consumer products, apparel, cosmetics, beverages, and food packaging materials for the presence of PFAS and expose the results. Lawsuits have quickly followed. Today, if PFAS are found in a company’s finished product — even in trace amounts and/or as an unintentional consequence of environmental contamination — the company is at risk of litigation.

Typically, plaintiffs allege that a product’s label was false or misleading because the product contains PFAS but was marketed as “all natural,” “safe,” “sustainable,” or “free of toxic chemicals,” among other representations. Many PFAS plaintiffs rely on testing co-opted from third-party sources (e.g., Consumer Reports, bloggers, non-profit organizations), while others conduct independent testing through third-party labs. These testing results may be influenced by contamination during the testing or sampling process or by interference from non-PFAS substances that can mimic a positive PFAS result. The results often suggest that products were subject to inadvertent PFAS contamination during the manufacturing process or afterwards. In fact, many companies faced with this litigation are unaware that their products contain PFAS.

These claims survive motions to dismiss in many cases so far. For example, in a class action alleging that anti-fog spray was marketed as “safe for use” even though it purportedly contained PFAS, the court held that whether a reasonable consumer would interpret those representations as relating to PFAS was a question of fact that could not be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage. Recently, courts are more likely to grant a motion to dismiss for lack of standing if a plaintiffs fail to allege that they tested their own purchases for PFAS, directly.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

Consumer class actions based on alleged product contamination, such as PFAS, lead, and other heavy metals, continue to be a focus of the Plaintiffs’ Bar. In addition, several ingredient class action lawsuits have been filed alleging that companies are misleading consumers by claiming their products are “natural” or “preservative-free” when they are alleged to contain unnatural ingredients such as ascorbic or citric acid. Given the risk of contamination/ingredient litigation, companies should conduct a review of all labelling, marketing, and commercial claims to ensure that they are truthful, not misleading, not deceptive, and have adequate substantiation/support. Be mindful of PFAS-related claims. Consumer companies should also require suppliers to provide certifications that PFAS is not used in the manufacture of their products and consider whether it is appropriate to require suppliers to conduct periodic testing. Finally, consumer companies should consider testing raw materials and/or finished products as part of the quality system, and take steps to remove or warn as appropriate.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding financial institutions class actions in 2024?

There were no significant class action rulings in 2024 for financial institutions in particular, but plenty of action.

In Cantero v. Bank of America, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the question of whether the National Bank Act (NBA) — the statute under which U.S. national banks are chartered, as opposed to their state and non-chartered counterparts — preempts state law was not affected by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, and continues to require a “nuanced, comparative analysis” of how the state law affects the bank’s activities. In declining to broaden the scope of preemption, the Supreme Court effectively maintained the current applicability of state-law claims — often pursued in a putative class action setting — and thus ensured national banks would have to continue to fight those cases.

In a major securities class action involving a financial institution, the Second Circuit reconsidered and reversed its own prior precedent concerning claims involving auditor opinions, holding this year that standardized language in auditor opinions may be material to investors. The decision, while important across sectors, creates additional risk around audit disclosures commonly used for and by financial institutions.

2024 also continued to see a trend of class actions challenging the enforceability of arbitration agreements, largely within the context of employment disputes with employees and claims from retail banking consumers, ranging across products such as mortgage and credit card services. Mandatory arbitration clauses remained a robust defense against class actions, with motions to compel arbitration prevailing at a high rate of success across the federal courts.

With the growing issue of data privacy in an ever-technological world, financial institutions have been targeted in data breach putative class actions stemming from their presence and provision of services online.

Finally, the growing trend of ESG-related and “greenwashing” claims against companies, largely in the class-action space, affected financial institutions, whose profile and disclosures make them a potentially attractive target.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

Amidst this shifting landscape, we can expect to see a continued increase in data privacy class actions, based on the meteoric rise in data-breach suits filed by plaintiffs in 2024. In the absence of a federal statute that would regulate data privacy uniformly across the United States, eight states are poised to enact data privacy laws in 2025, and we expect putative class actions utilizing these laws to be pursued with vigor.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the issue of class certification for Rule 23(b)(3) damages classes that include class members without an injury. The Court’s ruling in Davis will greatly affect the potential exposure to damages faced by financial institutions, depending on the extent to which the Court allows for certified classes to include uninjured class members.

The issue of expert evidence admissibility at the class certification stage is also anticipated to develop further this year. Currently, some circuits require a Daubert analysis of admissibility before involvement within class certification proceedings, whereas others proceed on a limited, or otherwise flexible, analysis.

We also expect applications of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled the longstanding Chevron framework of affording deference to reasonable federal agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory provisions. This is likely to afford defendant financial institutions a broader range of strategies to rebut unfavorable statutory interpretations by regulatory bodies and attempts by plaintiffs to leverage such interpretations.

Finally, in addition to the growth in “greenwashing” claims, we anticipate an increase in “AI washing claims” (that is, claims that a company’s statements regarding its artificial intelligence programs were false or misleading in some way) in 2025, including against financial institutions.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding life sciences and health class actions in 2024?

In 2024, we saw several important shifts regarding life sciences and health care litigation. First, we saw some strong results for the preemption defense in Life Sciences litigation, particularly in the consumer protection class action context. For example, in the In re Oral Phenylephrine Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation MDL, we, on behalf of client RB Health US LLC, and our co-defendants obtained an important win at the motion to dismiss stage on over-the-counter preemption grounds. There, after an FDA advisory committee voted in September 2023 that oral phenylephrine (a common in ingredient in over-the-counter cold and flu medications) is not effective as a nasal decongestant, plaintiffs began filing consumer class action lawsuits across the country bringing claims for fraudulent and deceptive marketing practices under state consumer protection statutes, even though the OTC product monograph mandates or authorizes virtually all of the statements the plaintiffs challenged as false or misleading. The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss in a “test case” involving New York law and federal civil RICO, arguing, among other things, that the plaintiffs’ claims were expressly preempted by the express preemption provision of the FDCA’s OTC regulations. On October 29, 2024, the Court granted the motion, concluding that all of the plaintiffs’ state law claims are expressly preempted by the OTC monograph and federal regulations. While Plaintiffs are now appealing the decision and FDA subsequently announced that it is proposing to remove oral phenylephrine as an active ingredient for relevant products, this nevertheless is a strong OTC preemption decision and is a rare win on an early dispositive motion in the MDL class action setting.

We also experienced similar recent success in the District of Massachusetts for client AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the manufacturer of Makena, a progestin hormone treatment that was indicated to reduce the risk of preterm birth in certain pregnancies. In April 2023, the FDA withdrew Makena’s approval after a confirmatory study failed to confirm the drug’s efficacy. Shortly thereafter, an Ohio-based health and welfare fund filed a class action asserting claims under RICO and several dozen state consumer protection laws on behalf of a nationwide class of insurers and other third-party payors who purchased or paid for Makena prior to the withdrawal, arguing that AMAG should have stopped marketing the drug once the study results were released. We moved to dismiss, and the Court found all of Plaintiffs’ claims preempted by federal law – because the challenged marketing statements were consistent with Makena’s FDA-approved labeling, AMAG could not have used the FDA’s Changes Being Effective (CBE) process to unilaterally change the label to remove Makena’s only approved indication, and AMAG was not required to stop marketing the product prior to the FDA’s withdrawal of that approval. The Court also held that the named plaintiff, as an indirect purchaser, lacked statutory standing under RICO and failed to plead its fraud-based claims with the requisite particularity under Rule 9(b).

Two additional important shifts in class action litigation involve the numerosity and adequacy requirements for class certification under Rule 23. Typically, classes with over 40 class members meet Rule 23’s numerosity requirement. However, in the In re: EpiPen Direct Purchaser Litigation decision in the District of Minnesota, the district court declined to certify an antitrust and RICO class with over 40 members because it found that joinder was not impracticable. This follows recent precedent in the Third Circuit, taking a similar approach. The In re EpiPen decision also demonstrates that courts may be unwilling to certify a class where some putative class members ultimately benefit from the alleged conduct at issue in the lawsuit. In the In re EpiPen case, the Court found that joinder was not impracticable after holding that (1) there is no presumption that numerosity is satisfied just because the putative class exceeds 40 members; and (2) the individual class members had damages large enough to justify non-class treatment, particularly where a staggering 93% of the total damages were attributable to three absent class members. This is a significant development because it demonstrates that class certification may be denied even in classes with more than 40 members. On adequacy, the Court found that there were conflicts between the class representatives and absent members because some absent members benefited from the conduct that was alleged to have caused harm. On this point, the Court rejected Plaintiff’s Hanover Shoe and Illinois Brick arguments that it is irrelevant whether a direct purchaser ultimately benefits from the alleged harm, noting that Hanover Shoe and Illinois Brick do not apply to Rule 23. This is a noteworthy ruling because it means that a defendant may be able to challenge the inclusion of plaintiffs in the class who ultimately benefit from the alleged conduct.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

In January 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to answer a hotly contested question in class action litigation, which will have substantial impact throughout the life sciences U.S. litigation space: “Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.” The answer to that question has been the subject of intense litigation, especially in consumer and other class actions affecting pharmaceutical and life sciences companies, and there is currently a deep circuit split over the issue. The Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case (Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, dba Labcorp v. Luke Davis, et al., Case No. 22-55873) on April 29, 2025. During argument, several Justices expressed concern that the case was moot because defendants had appealed from an earlier class certification order, rather than a subsequent class certification order that governed the action. On 5 June 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the case as improvidently granted, presumably because a majority of Justices believed that the case was moot. Justice Kavanaugh dissented and would have held “that a federal court may not certify a damages class that includes both injured and uninjured members,” and that “when a damages class includes both injured and uninjured members, common questions do not predominate” for purposes of Rule 23. This suggests that in a future case addressing this issue, Justice Kavanaugh—often considered a swing Justice on the Court—may rule that a damages class cannot include uninjured members. Given the circuit split on this important issue, the Supreme Court is likely to take it up again in a different case within the next one or two years.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding technology class actions in 2025?

We continue to see an increase in AI-related lawsuits, with several actions challenging the training of AI models on copyrighted content. There are now over 40 lawsuits (the majority of which are putative class actions) alleging violations of copyright law for training and deploying AI models using copyrighted works. Recently, the first AI copyright class action was certified in the Northern District of California, including up to 7 million putative class members. Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, 2025 WL 1993577 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2025). But before the issue could be considered in what would have been a high-stakes appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the parties announced an agreement in principle on August 26, 2025, the details of which are not yet publicly available.

Website operators also continue to face a wave of litigation based on the use of alleged web “tracking” technologies, including pixels, beacons, cookies, and software development kits (SDKs). Notably, even more suits have been filed alleging that these technologies violate the decades-old laws, such as the pen register and trap and trace device provisions of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) (CIPA § 638.51) by capturing incoming electronic information, such as website users’ IP addresses and other basic device information. Increasingly, courts are skeptical that the collection of such basic information constitutes a concrete privacy injury to establish Article III standing. See, e.g., Kishnani v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 2025 WL 1745726, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2025) (finding “no legally protected privacy interest” in IP addresses or other basic device information); Mitchener v. CuriosityStream Inc., 2025 WL 2272413, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2025) (similar).

Additionally, we are beginning to see other website technology suits – particularly asserting claims under the wiretapping provision of CIPA (CIPA § 631) and/or the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) (18 U.S.C. § 2710) – reach class certification, summary judgment, and even trial, which will be key to monitor as companies assess risk. See, e.g., Griffith v. TikTok, Inc., 2024 WL 5279224 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 24, 2024) (dismissing CIPA wiretapping and other claims at summary judgment); Frasco v. Flo Health, Inc., 2024 WL 4280933 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2024) (denying defendant’s summary judgment motion on CIPA wiretapping claim); Martinez v. D2C, LLC, 2024 WL 4367406 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2024) (denying certification of VPPA class) Torres v. Prudential Fin., Inc., 2024 WL 4894289 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2024) (certifying CIPA wiretapping claim class). For instance, a California federal jury recently found a company liable for CIPA § 632 violations based on the use of web tracking technologies that allegedly collected sensitive health information from users of a popular health tracking app. See Frasco v. Flo Health, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00757 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 1, 2025).

Another continuing trend in 2025 was plaintiffs’ firms leveraging arbitration provisions in consumer-facing online terms to bring mass arbitration demands instead of class action lawsuits. In response, some companies targeted by mass arbitration demands worked to revise their terms and sought judicial intervention, while arbitration providers are revising their rules and fee structures to reduce filing costs.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

Looking ahead, we expect more clarity on the application of copyright law and the fair use doctrine to AI training. Some district courts have rejected the fair use defense, but others have acknowledged that the use of copyrighted works to train generative AI models may constitute fair use. See Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, 2025 WL 1741691, at *7-19 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025) (partially granting motion for summary judgment; finding use of copyrighted books to train LLM model was fair use). More decisions from district courts in California and New York addressing generative AI model training are expected in 2026. Companies developing models should closely monitor these developments as they refine compliance measures and consider whether to obtain licenses for training data to decrease potential exposure.

We expect to continue to see key questions concerning privacy claims premised on website tracking technologies percolating up to the appellate level. See, e.g., Pileggi v. Washington Examiner, 2025 WL 2319550 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 12, 2025) (affirming district court’s dismissal of VPPA claims against the Washington Examiner, concluding that “consumer” under the VPPA does not include anyone who purchases non-video “goods or services”). For example, in August alone, two of the first published appellate decisions addressing web tracking-based wiretapping claims were decided. In Cook v. GameStop, 2025 WL 2250261 (3d Cir. Aug. 7, 2025), the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a wiretapping claim brought under Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (“WESCA”) premised on the use of Session Reply technology on the GameStop website, concluding that the alleged interception of user's non-sensitive browsing activities did not implicate a concrete privacy injury sufficient to establish Article III standing. The Ninth Circuit followed suit in Popa v. Microsoft Corp., 2025 WL 2448824, *5 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2025), similarly concluding that the plaintiff’s WESCA wiretapping claim failed to implicate any “embarrassing, invasive, or otherwise private information” sufficient to establish a concrete privacy injury to establish Article III standing.

As the wave of privacy litigation against website operators continues, states may begin to look for legislative solutions. For instance, in California, the legislature sought to pass a bill, SB 690, that would amend CIPA to include a “commercial purpose” exception. On June 3, 2025, the California Senate unanimously passed SB 690, but the bill stalled before the Assembly’s Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. The bill is likely to be reconsidered in 2026. Until legislatures step in to provide guidance on the scope of these privacy statutes, companies should consider (i) which technologies are necessary for their business operations, (ii) what information the technologies are configured to collect – in particular, any personally identifying information or potentially sensitive browsing information (e.g., regarding medical data), and (iii) whether to implement mitigation measures, including disclosures and consent mechanisms to address risk.

The mass arbitration trend does not seem poised to slow down either. We expect that high arbitration fees will continue to be leveraged in attempts to pressure companies into early settlements. Companies can consider changes to their arbitration agreements designed to address mass arbitration scenarios specifically, while monitoring case law developments as these response mechanisms are tested in courts.

France

This jurisdiction does not currently have any relevant content in this category.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding data breach class actions in 2025?

Data-representative class actions have existed in France for more than nine years now. Initially aimed at obtaining injunctive measures only, their scope was extended in 2018, 18 months after their introduction into French law, when France adopted the Data Protection Act in light of the GDPR, to allow redress measures.

Despite the growing importance of data protection and security concerns in our society, only two data class actions have been brought so far. One of these class actions was declared inadmissible in late 2024 by the Paris Judicial Court, which held that the association did not represent a class of data subjects in a similar situation.

How to explain this? Class actions are a very long route to obtain injunctive relief, while consumer associations may lodge complaints before the French Data Protection Authority, CNIL, on behalf of data subjects to that very end.

Compensation issues may have also hindered the introduction of data class actions. As reflected by the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down in 2023 and 2024 on the right to compensation under the GDPR, the compensation regime and compensable losses were tricky issues. The CJEU has answered some questions, clarifying that any non-material damage may be compensated, whatever its degree of seriousness, provided it is proven, but its case law is still in development.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

As our world has grown more connected and digitalized, smart, data-driven devices – including those that form the Internet of Things (IoT) – have become more prevalent. In parallel, cyber threats have escalated in scale and complexity. To address this, the EU legislator started factoring the cyber and AI-related risks into its product-related pieces of legislation, and late 2024/early 2025 was a very prolific period in that respect. The increased liability risks that the reshape of the applicable legal framework has created are accentuated by the fact that EU Directive 2020/1828 is now transposed into French law, making it possible for consumer associations to initiate a cross-border representative class action on related topics. To mitigate risks, businesses should take proactive and well-documented steps to ensure compliance with data, AI, and cybersecurity-related regulations. This may serve as critical evidence to show that due diligence was exercised throughout the product’s lifecycle and facilitate defense.

This jurisdiction does not currently have any relevant content in this category.

Germany

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding antitrust class actions in 2025?

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.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

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.

This jurisdiction does not currently have any relevant content in this category.

Indonesia

This jurisdiction does not currently have any relevant content in this category.

Italy

This jurisdiction does not currently have any relevant content in this category.

Mexico

This jurisdiction does not currently have any relevant content in this category.

Netherlands

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding antitrust class actions in 2025?

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.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

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.

This jurisdiction does not currently have any relevant content in this category.

Spain

This jurisdiction does not currently have any relevant content in this category.

United Kingdom

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding antitrust class actions in 2025?

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.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

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.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding data breach class actions in 2024?

2024 saw a continuation of the key structural issue going to the heart of Data Security class actions: how can they proceed proportionately when the value of individual claims is low?

English court rules provide two main class action frameworks: an ‘opt out’ structure (the “representative claim”) and an ‘opt-in’ structure (the “group litigation order” or “GLO”). Both have been dealt difficult blows in 2024.

Down and out for opt-out claims

Another potential door for mass opt-out claims was slammed shut in 2024 with the Court of Appeal’s decision in Prismall v Google.

Against the background of the Supreme Court’s seminal Lloyd v Google decision, data-related representative claims faced an uphill battle. An alternative claim for ‘misuse of private information’ seemed to provide a way of sidestepping that decision. In Prismall, however, the Court of Appeal commented that “a representative class claim for misuse of information is always going to be very difficult to bring”. Even in Prismall, involving alleged misuse of medical data — data that most people generally consider private — a key flaw in the claim was that medical data is not necessarily private in all cases. These issues require individual assessment; and such assessment is fundamentally incompatible with an ‘opt-out’ claim.

These issues pose particular problems for would-be claimants, as representative actions offer the best potential economic returns for claimant-side funders and firms, since individuals do not actively need to sign up to the claim. It is now difficult to see how such claims can continue.

A no-go for GLOs:

The alternative structure — an ‘opt-in’ GLO — has seen its own difficulties too. This structure is built for testing common issues across numerous individual claims. It comes with a procedural framework that can assist claimants, e.g. around selecting a lead law firm, establishing a group register, and publicizing the group action.

However, the track record of cases going through the courts has shown that GLOs are difficult to pursue in the data context, where claims are generally brought for distress and therefore involve very individualized issues and low levels of damages. Group litigation involves significant upfront costs to establish the group structure, the register of individual claims, etc., which raises real proportionality concerns.

Opt-in claims: a way through?

The trend of data class actions going through the English courts over the last year or so has shown a move away from the structured GLO approach, in favor of claims brought simply as a combination of individual claims without any formalized structure, often with a sample of individuals chosen as ‘lead claimants’ whose claims will be tested first to provide guidance for the remaining cohort (the ‘lead claimant model’). That approach has been used in other contexts for many years, and we now see it making headway in the Data Security landscape.

Even in those cases, however, it remains difficult for claimants to apply the necessary elements of a data claim across the group – as the High Court’s February 2024 decision in the Equiniti litigation showed. The High Court struck out the overwhelming majority of the claims on the basis that they had no prospect of establishing the necessary aspects of the claims for GDPR breaches and misuse of private information.

These developments in 2024 show that Data Security class actions in England & Wales continue to be difficult ground for would-be claimants.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

Building on our 2024 takeaways, 2025 is likely to see alternative approaches to get Data Security claims off the ground. It is helpful here to distinguish two broad types of data claims: (1) complaints about business-as-usual processing being in breach of data laws or other private rights; and (2) claims arising out of specific events, such as cyberattacks or other security incidents.

General processing claims

Even the alternative combined claims approach / lead claimant model we have described above requires large numbers of individual users/consumers to sign up for the claim and assert damages they have suffered by the relevant processing (generally: distress). We expect to see claimants approaching these types of claims, in particular, in novel ways, using different legal rights and mechanisms to air these issues.

One such example is the competition law angle. True opt-out class actions are permitted under English law for competition law claims (and, as things stand, for competition law claims alone). Collective claims in the Competition Appeal Tribunal have seen a big uptick in recent years and show no signs of slowing down, not least because the opt-out structure is the most beneficial for claimant firms and funders. There are some early indications of attempts to use this more well-established route for Data Security class actions, and that may well continue into 2025. Such claims would involve abuses of dominant market position, which is more likely to impact larger data controllers where such dominance will be easier to establish, but there could well be similar issues in smaller, more specific markets with major operators. Any organization that might face these types of allegations should prepare by being aware of the competition law context in which it operates and considering data security issues holistically as part of its overall compliance and risk mitigation approach.

Incident claims

In the second type of claims above — arising out of specific security incidents — we expect to see more of a push toward informal combined claims bringing together multiple claimants. The combination increases the overall claim value and allows the claims to be brought to the High Court (whereas individual claims on their own would likely be conducted in the ‘small claims’ track where cost recovery — and incentive for claimant firms — is limited).

In those situations, identifying individuals who might be willing to bring a claim is easier, as they are the individuals affected by the incident itself. Despite the challenges facing mass data claims generally, claims in this space remain common. Moreover, without the formality of a GLO (which requires court approval and significant start-up cost), it is easier to get these claims started and we could see complaints move more quickly into formal legal proceedings. Claims could also proliferate without one specific claimant law firm leading the charge for a representative claim or GLO.

However, issues of proportionality and procedural hurdles remain. Any organization faced with such claims should raise any structural and procedural concerns considered early on as part of any defense strategy.

Funding

No look-ahead to 2025 would be complete without a word on funding. The Supreme Court’s 2023 PACCAR decision looms large over all English class actions; the funding industry continues to face uncertainty, with heralded legislative intervention still awaited.

The Supreme Court held that a commonly used form of litigation funding arrangement was a damages-based agreement, and thereby needed to comply with relevant rules applying to such agreements — contrary to widely held views across the funding industry. Failure to comply with those rules leaves the funding agreement unenforceable.

The true impact of this decision on existing funding agreements remains to be seen, with a further Court of Appeal decision on the issue expected later this year, alongside a wide-ranging regulatory review by the Civil Justice Council scheduled for summer 2025.

What are the biggest takeaways regarding the employment class action landscape in the UK in 2025?

There is no formal mechanism for bringing forward a class action in an employment context in the UK. However, it is common for large numbers of individual employees to bring employment tribunal claims relating to a similar issue, often equal pay challenges or claims that an employer has not calculated holiday pay entitlements properly. Some law firms specialize in bringing such claims, often working on a no-win, no-fee basis. There were 446,000 open claims of this type at the end of March 2025, according to the most recent official statistics.

An employment tribunal will normally treat some of the multiple claims as lead cases and stay other claims raising the same issue while it considers the lead claims. The tribunal’s decision in the lead cases will then normally be binding on the stayed cases.

Although equal pay claims were historically more common in the public sector and resulted in significant liabilities at a local government level, they are increasingly frequent in the private sector, notably in retail. Predominantly female store-based workers have relied on predominantly male distribution center workers as comparators, claiming that they are employed on work of equal value. Equal pay issues are complex, often involve appeals to higher courts, and take years of litigation to resolve.

Claims against most major UK supermarkets involving tens of thousands of employees continued to progress through the tribunal system during 2025. If the claims are successful, it is estimated that the bill for compensation could run to billions of pounds. Tribunals can award employees who win their claim up to six years’ back pay, reflecting the higher rate they should have received. One of the first cases to get to a full hearing went in the employees’ favor, and that decision is now being appealed.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

In 2026, existing equal pay litigation will continue to make its way through the court system. Employers outside the retail sector should monitor the litigation’s progress, especially if they have roles that tend to be performed predominantly by workers of one sex, as that will increase the risk of multiple equal pay claims. It’s anticipated that claimant law firms will work to identify other sectors in which equal pay claims might be viable.

The government is also proposing to extend the current equal pay legislation beyond the protected characteristic of sex to include race and disability, and to allow employees of an outsourcing provider to compare themselves with a client’s employees for equal pay purposes. If those proposals go ahead, they will increase the scope for multiple equal pay claims substantially. As of yet, it’s not clear whether the government intends the client or the outsourcing provider to be liable for compensation in a successful cross-employer equal pay claim. A draft Race and Disability Equality Bill is expected in 2026.

Employers should engage with the government about these proposals to ensure that it understands the business and economic ramifications before it decides how to proceed. That may help minimize the risk of future claims. Any changes are unlikely to take effect until 2027 at the earliest.

United States of America

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding antitrust class actions in 2024?

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.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

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.

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding data breach class actions in 2025?

2025 highlighted that cyberattack victims face an attendant risk of litigating disputes against multiple types of plaintiffs in multiple venues. Suits brought against cyberattack victims’ customers also highlight the importance of indemnification provisions, clear limitations of liability, and confidentiality provisions in B2B contracts.

In 2025, data breach class actions soared and targeted both cyberattack victims and, increasingly, their downstream customers whose data was impacted. Plaintiffs’ counsel frequently file separate suits on behalf of individuals whose information was purportedly impacted – often within days of initial Notice of Data Breach mailings. Increasingly, plaintiffs’ counsel file in a single federal jurisdiction, resulting in fewer multi-district litigations. Certain plaintiffs filed in state court to avoid related federal litigation, forcing litigation on multiple fronts. A different set of plaintiffs also cropped up: corporate entities claiming their businesses were disrupted and they suffered financial loss following a third-party cyberattack. In re: Change Healthcare Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL No. 3108 (D. Minn.) (“Provider Track Plaintiffs” alleging damages when Change Healthcare temporarily paused healthcare transaction services after a cyberattack).

Key decisions. Courts allowed certain common-law claims to survive motions to dismiss, while more readily dismissing state statutory claims. See, e.g., Order, Crowe v. Managed Care of N. Am. Inc., 23-61065-CIV (S.D. Fla. Jan. 21, 2025) (denying motion to dismiss certain negligence and contractual claims based on more particularized allegations that defendants failed to safeguard data, after previously dismissing negligence and all statutory claims); MDL Order No. 23, In re MOVEit Cust. Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL No. 23-md-3083-ADB-PGL (D. Md. July 31, 2025) (denying motion to dismiss negligence, third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment claims).

Two closely-watched class certification decisions were reversed. In Brinker, the Eleventh Circuit had upheld plaintiffs’ damages model and found that dark web posting established both present and substantial risk of future injury sufficient to confer standing, but it remanded the case to clarify the class definition and predominance analysis. Green-Cooper v. Brinker Int' l, Inc., 73 F.4th 883 (11th Cir. 2023). On remand, the district court narrowed the class to only those who “experienced fraudulent charges or had data posted on the dark web in connection with the data breach” – not whose information was merely “accessed.” Theus v. Brinker Int' l, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-6866-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla. June 27, 2025). It then denied class certification, finding individual questions predominated, including whether each class member experienced fraudulent charges, had their data posted on the dark web, or spent time or money mitigating harm. Id. This decision stresses that (i) the existence of damages – not just their valuation – is an individualized question defeating predominance, and (ii) the presence of information on the dark web could become increasingly important.

In In re Marriott, the Fourth Circuit de-certified damages and issues classes, holding that the class action waiver was not prohibited by Rule 23. Maldini v. Marriott Int' l, Inc., 140 F.4th 123 (D. Md. 2025). The decision underscores the impact of class action waivers and provides language about how narrow, “element-by-element” issue classes will likely fail the superiority requirement.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

We expect courts in 2026 will continue to grapple with uncertainty surrounding issues of Article III standing in the data breach context, including at class certification as numerous data breach cases reach that stage. In particular, courts continue to diverge regarding whether data breach plaintiffs can establish standing when they allege only the future risk of identity theft or fraud, but can identify no other harm that might constitute injury in fact. And at the class certification stage in particular, litigants continue to dispute whether a class can be certified that includes uninjured members. Despite this precise question being teed up for resolution in Labcorp v. Davis (a non-data-breach case), in June 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the case as improvidently granted without further explanation. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Davis, 605 U.S. 327 (2025). Only Justice Kavanaugh dissented, noting in a brief opinion that he would have adopted Labcorp’s reasoning that certifying a damages class including both injured and uninjured members would run afoul of Rule 23’s predominance requirement. Id. at 328 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting).

Second, with the rising tide of matters brought by corporate plaintiffs, we expect courts to begin confronting what duties a company owes to its customers or customers’ customers – be it at common law, in tort, under contract, or pursuant to statutes – after they suffer a data breach. How courts confront this threshold duty question could have a significant impact on whether the plaintiffs’ bar will forge ahead with this theory.

Third, we anticipate that privilege disputes will continue to increase as more data breach cases survive the motion to dismiss stage. In particular, the plaintiffs’ bar has shown an increased tendency to seek to discover work undertaken by outside vendors to investigate the breach in the immediate aftermath of a cyberattack, and resultant privilege disputes are pending and anticipated in several privacy and cyber class action matters. Courts have diverged regarding whether forensic analysis work performed by such vendors qualifies for protection under attorney-client privilege and/or work product protection. Some hold that privilege does not apply where such work was otherwise necessary to investigate the breach and was turned over in full to regulators, see In re Lakeview Loan Servicing Data Breach Litig., 2025 WL 928716, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2025); others look to distinguishing factors such as whether multiple, separate forensic investigations were underway (one for breach response, one for assisting counsel in providing legal advice), see Maldondo v. Solara Med. Supplies, LLC, 2021 WL 8323636, at *3-4 (D. Mass. June 2, 2021). Companies responding to cyberattacks should be increasingly mindful of which documents reflect attorney-client communications and/or are prepared primarily or substantially for the purpose of anticipated litigation, and which are not. “

What are the biggest takeaways regarding the employment class action landscape in the U.S. in 2024?

Employment class action activity in the United States remained robust in 2024, with California continuing to set the pace. The most significant development was California’s sweeping reforms to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) on July 1, 2024. The law took immediate effect and is expected to substantially reshape the landscape for representative actions in California.

In response to greater enforcement of arbitration agreements, the plaintiffs’ bar increasingly filed PAGA-only actions in an effort to sidestep arbitration. These filings often rely on dicta from recent appellate decisions to argue that representative-only PAGA claims may proceed without an individual component. However, these decisions interpret pre-reform PAGA and do not definitively resolve the issue. In contrast, Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., 107 Cal. App. 5th 1001 (2024) directly held that every PAGA action necessarily includes an individual claim that must be arbitrated if covered by a valid agreement.

Nationally, employers continue to rely on arbitration agreements to mitigate class and representative exposure. Courts, however, are scrutinizing both the procedural fairness and rollout of these agreements, prompting employers to revisit their arbitration strategies.

Wage-and-hour issues remain the dominant basis for class and representative actions, particularly claims involving meal and rest periods, off-the-clock work, time rounding, and misclassification. Even where defenses are strong, the cost of litigation — combined with uncertainty around how to reduce penalties under New PAGA — reinforces the need for experienced counsel.

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

The implementation of New PAGA presents both opportunity and risk. The law introduces new procedures — including “early evaluation,” “cure,” and “reasonable step” mechanisms — designed to promote compliance and resolve disputes before litigation. However, these provisions are untested, and no case law or court guidance currently exists. Litigation and motion practice in 2025 will be critical in shaping how these mechanisms are applied in practice.

Separately, the California Supreme Court’s upcoming review of Leeper v. Shipt could significantly alter the representative action landscape. If overturned, plaintiffs may be permitted to bring representative-only PAGA claims covering all employees within the one-year statute of limitations — even where arbitration agreements exist — potentially weakening arbitration as a defense tool.

Outside California, class actions tied to pay equity, transparency, and promotion practices are gaining momentum, driven by new disclosure obligations. Multinational employers also face growing exposure from coordinated litigation across jurisdictions, underscoring the need for globally aligned compliance strategies.

To stay ahead, employers should proactively review arbitration agreements, update wage-and-hour policies, and conduct wage-and-hour audits. As enforcement and litigation trends continue to evolve, preparation and adaptability will be key to minimizing exposure and maintaining compliance.

Compare countries

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding automotive class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding life sciences and health class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding technology class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding automotive class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding consumer class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding financial institutions class actions in 2024?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding life sciences and health class actions in 2024?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding technology class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding automotive class actions in 2024?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding consumer class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding financial institutions class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding life sciences and health class actions in 2024?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding automotive class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding consumer class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding financial institutions class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding life sciences and health class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding technology class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding life sciences and health class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding automotive class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding automotive class actions in 2024?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding consumer class actions in 2024?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding financial institutions class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding life sciences and health class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding consumer class actions in 2024?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding financial institutions class actions in 2024?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding life sciences and health class actions in 2024?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding technology class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding data breach class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding antitrust class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding antitrust class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding antitrust class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding data breach class actions in 2024?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways regarding the employment class action landscape in the UK in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding antitrust class actions in 2024?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways you have regarding data breach class actions in 2025?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2026 and beyond, and how can companies prepare?

What are the biggest takeaways regarding the employment class action landscape in the U.S. in 2024?

What are the biggest trends you see affecting 2025 and beyond and how can companies prepare?

Meet our core team