Global Class Actions

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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). 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.