International Class Action Update – March 2025
Client Alert | March 6, 2025
Class and collective actions are expanding globally. Our “International Class Action Update” highlights recent developments in the EU and UK.
In this edition we discuss new developments on the EU level which will incentivize future class actions. The new EU Product Liability Directive expands strict liability to software and AI products and will lend itself to private enforcement through class actions. A recent trend to allow lump-sum damages for data privacy violations will also attract class action plaintiffs.
Additionally, we update you on the status of collective redress in the UK and selected EU jurisdictions (Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Spain).
I. New Class Action Incentives in EU Law
The EU’s Directive (EU) 2020/1828 on Representative Actions mandates collective redress in all member states. Even though not all states have implemented compliant regimes yet, the EU continues to expand the substantive basis for class actions. We also note a trend towards using lump-sum damages, facilitating class actions for plaintiffs.
A. New EU Product Liability Directive
The new Product Liability Directive (EU 2024/2853) incentivizes class actions by easing the burden of proof, reducing liability limits, and including software and AI under the strict liability regime. The Directive also introduces a discovery mechanism, allowing both parties to demand evidence from each other that is relevant to their case. Member States must implement the Directive by December 9, 2026.
B. Non-material Damages in Data Privacy Litigation
On January 8, 2025, the General Court of the European Union ruled that the EU Commission must compensate an individual EUR 400 for non-material damage after personal data was transferred to the US upon visiting an EU webpage (Case T-354/22). The court assessed the compensation solely based on equity.
This decision, which can still be appealed, will further encourage class actions in the data privacy sector. If plaintiffs do not need to demonstrate individual material damages, class actions for widespread breaches become more attractive to qualified entities and litigation funders. In Germany, the Federal Court of Justice recently issued a similar decision, setting the amount for non-material damages after a data breach at EUR 100 (see below).
II. Germany
A. New “Leading Case Procedure”
In late 2024, Germany introduced a “Leading Case Procedure” at the Federal Court of Justice to clarify legal issues in mass proceedings. The court can designate a case as a “Leading Case” and decide it even if parties settle or withdraw their appeal. This non-binding decision guides lower courts on similar legal questions.
Immediately after the new procedure was in effect, the Federal Court of Justice selected its first “Leading Case” out of a swath of consumer claims alleging illegal data scraping from a social media website. On November 18, 2024, the Federal Court of Justice ruled that the consumer was entitled to a lump sum of EUR 100 without having to show actual harm (the decision is published under docket number VI ZR 10/24).
Shortly after the Federal Court of Justice’s decision, Germany’s best known consumer protection agency filed a Representative Action against the social media website, inviting all potentially affected consumers to join. This showcases the future interplay between representative actions and the new “Leading Case Procedure”: When the Federal Court of Justice issues a Leading Case Decision in favor of consumers, qualified entities will be quick to file new Representative Actions, compelling companies to defend against both individual mass claims and the Representative Action simultaneously.
B. Status of Representative Actions
Implemented in 2023, the German Representative Action allows Qualified Entities to seek damages for consumers or small businesses (for an in-depth discussion see our previous alert). Since 2023, seven new Representative Actions have been filed, adding to the approximately 30 collective actions already pending under the previous procedural regime introduced in 2018. Almost all cases under the new regime concern unilateral customer price increases in video streaming, telecommunications, energy, and insurance contracts.
III. France
France is currently broadening its class action regime. On December 15, 2022, a bill (“Proposition de loi relative au régime juridique des actions de groupe”, no. 639) was submitted and subsequently amended several times. It was debated in public session on February 6, 2024. The latest version (Text no.°154, transmitted to the Assemblée Nationale on July 23, 2024) is currently undergoing its second reading in the Assemblée Nationale.
The bill, while complying with European law, aims to encourage class actions and unify applicable legal procedures:
- Class actions may seek the cessation of a failure or compensation for damages in any matter, with exceptions for health and work.
- While the current legislation provides for compensation for specific damages, the bill would allow for all damages to be compensated.
- The bill introduces the possibility of cross-border class actions.
Meanwhile, several class actions are pending under the existing regime. Google, involved in a class action launched by UFC-Que-Choisir in June 2019, ultimately avoided a potential EUR 27 billion penalty due to the inadmissibility of the class action.
IV. Italy
Italy transposed the EU Collective Redress Directive through Decree No. 28 on March 23, 2023. This Decree complements Italy’s pre-existing class action system, resulting in a dual-track approach to collective redress.
The first mechanism, the “Azione di Classe”––which is governed by Law 31/2019––has been in force since 2021 and applies to claims based on homogeneous individual rights. The second, the Representative Action, was introduced by Decree as a direct transposition of the EU Directive. Notably, the new framework expands consumer protection beyond homogeneous individual rights, allowing for a broader range of claims. It also enables qualified entities from other Member States to initiate proceedings in Italy, strengthening cross-border collective redress.
The impact of this reform is already evident in recent legal actions. Consumer associations, such as Movimento Consumatori, have used the Representative Action to challenge abusive clauses in rental agreements. Cases against Goldcar, Sicily by Car, and Sixt targeted excessive penalties and unfair fees imposed on consumers. Italian courts ruled in favor of the claimants, ordering the removal of unlawful clauses and requiring companies to notify affected customers and publicize the rulings.
These cases highlight how Italy’s dual-track system provides distinct but complementary tools to challenge allegedly unfair business practices. The Class Action allows individuals with similar claims to seek collective redress, while the Representative Action broadens the scope by enabling consumer organizations to act on behalf of a wider range of affected parties.
V. Belgium
Belgium transposed the EU Directive on Representative Actions effective June 10, 2024. It expanded the scope of its pre-existing class action system to include all consumer protection provisions required under the Directive on Representative Actions.
Consumers now have to opt-in to participate in Representative Actions. Before implementing the EU Directive, Belgian judges had to decide between an opt-in or opt-out system on a case-by-case basis.
Eleven class action cases have been filed to date in Belgium, most led by Test-Achat/Test-Aankoop, the main consumer protection organization. These actions were brought in various sectors (e.g., transportation, telecom, culture, energy, electronic goods), usually against large Belgian or globally operating companies.
All these eleven cases were still filed under the pre-existing procedural regime.
VI. Spain
Spain has not yet transposed the EU Collective Redress Directive on representative actions into its national legal framework, despite the deadline expired in December 2022.
This delay has drawn criticism from consumer organizations. For example, in December 2024, the Financial Users Association, supported by European Consumer Organization, filed a complaint against Spain before the European authorities for failing to transpose the directive within the established timeframe. It remains to be seen how and when Spain will fully transpose the Directive.
VIII. United Kingdom
The United Kingdom continues to see a huge growth in collective litigation even though it does not have a fully-fledged US-style class action regime. In particular and most akin to US-style class actions, there is currently a large number of (mostly) opt-out antitrust class actions at various stages before the UK’s specialist competition tribunal (the Competition Appeal Tribunal) across a wide range of sectors (particularly the technology sector) that are increasingly testing the boundaries of competition law. The actions have a combined alleged value of between £100 – £200 billion.
However, two recent developments suggest that these claims may face increased scrutiny going forward:
First, in December 2024, the Competition Appeal Tribunal dismissed the first antitrust class action to proceed to full trial in Le Patourel v BT Group (docket number 1381/7/7/21). The Class Representative had sought damages of over £1.1 billion arguing that BT’s prices for telephony services were excessive and unfair. The Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled that BT’s prices were not unfair and, in doing so, made it clear the difficulties class representatives may face in proving unfairness in these types of cases.
Second, in January 2025 in Christine Riefa Class Representative Limited v Apple Inc. & others (docket number 1602/7/7/23), the Competition Appeal Tribunal refused, for the first time, the certification of a class action, on the basis that the class representative was unsuitable. This was because the Competition Appeal Tribunal found that the class representative did not understand her own funding arrangements and there were questions about her ability to act independently and in the interests of the class members. The decision makes it clear that class representatives “cannot be, merely a figurehead for a set of proceedings being conducted by their legal representatives” and that future class representatives, and their funding arrangements, will face greater scrutiny going forward.
Whilst these two developments are not expected to dampen activity, 2025 will be a key year for the regime given that trials and judgments in a number of class actions are expected to provide further insight into the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s operation of its class action regime.
There is a growing body of examples of class settlements in connection with the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s antitrust class actions regime, most notably the approval by the Competition Appeal Tribunal on February 21, 2025 of a £200 million settlement of the largest class action claim to date, brought in respect of a class of 44 million UK consumers in relation to Mastercard’s interchange fees.
In addition, there are outstanding appeals in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court relating to the certification test and enforceability of litigation funding that will be heard this year that are likely to further shape the regime.
Beyond class actions stricto sensu, the UK remains relatively fertile ground for collective actions generally, with an active slate of cases currently before the High Court under Group Litigation Orders, a case-management device allowing large numbers of similar claims to be heard together, in relation to matters involving financial sector wrongdoing, diesel emissions cases, product liability claims, environmental breaches (in the UK and overseas), industrial and transportation accidents, misfeasance by public officials, etc.
Gibson Dunn attorneys are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work in the firm’s Class Actions, Litigation, or Appellate and Constitutional Law practice groups, or any of the following lawyers:
Frankfurt:
Alexander Horn (+49 69 247 411 537, ahorn@gibsondunn.com)
Munich:
Markus Rieder – Munich (+49 89 189 33-260, mrieder@gibsondunn.com)
Friedrich A. Wagner (+49 89 189 33-262, fwagner@gibsondunn.com)
Paris:
Eric Bouffard (+33 1 56 43 13 00), ebouffard@gibsondunn.com)
Brussels:
Yannis Ioannidis – (+32 2 554 72 08, yioannidis@gibsondunn.com)
London:
Patrick Doris (+44 20 7071 4276, pdoris@gibsondunn.com)
Dan Warner (+44 20 7071 4213, dwarner@gibsondunn.com)
United States:
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7000, tboutrous@gibsondunn.com)
Christopher Chorba – Co-Chair, Class Actions Group, Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7396, cchorba@gibsondunn.com)
Theane Evangelis – Co-Chair, Litigation Group, Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7726, tevangelis@gibsondunn.com)
Lauren R. Goldman – Co-Chair, Technology Litigation Group, New York (+1 212.351.2375, lgoldman@gibsondunn.com)
Kahn A. Scolnick – Co-Chair, Class Actions Group, Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7656, kscolnick@gibsondunn.com)
Bradley J. Hamburger – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7658, bhamburger@gibsondunn.com)
Michael Holecek – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7018, mholecek@gibsondunn.com)
Lauren M. Blas – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7503, lblas@gibsondunn.com)
© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.