EU Takes Steps Toward Legalising Class Actions
The legislation, known as the Representative Actions Directive, would allow consumers in the EU's 28 member nations to launch common claims for compensation for faulty or illegal consumer goods.
December 02, 2019 at 12:13 PM
3 minute read
The European Union has taken a step toward giving consumers the right to file U.S.-style class-action suits.
Four years after the 'Dieselgate' scandal in which Volkswagen and other European carmakers installed software to hide vehicle tailpipe emissions and get around strict pollution laws, some EU member countries still do not offer consumers the right to launch class-action lawsuits.
Last week, the EU's Council, made up of ministers from the 28 national governments, agreed to start talks with lawmakers on legislation that would allow pan-European class actions.
But even with last week's decision, consumers may have to wait another three and a half years before they can exercise these rights.
The legislation, known as the Representative Actions Directive, would allow consumers in all or several of the EU's 28 member nations to launch common claims for compensation for faulty or illegal consumer goods.
At the moment, nine of the EU's 28 countries do not allow consumers to launch class actions, while in 11 countries the restrictive rules for class actions deter consumers from launching collective claims.
The proposed legislation is highly controversial. Business groups have expressed concern that the directive could lead to a spate of litigation and 'forum shopping', as groups and their lawyers bring cases in different EU countries to maximise their chances of winning their cases and getting compensation.
Andrew Austin, a London-based partner with Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in the firm's disputes, litigation and arbitration practice, wrote in a blog published last week that the EU's national ministers had improved the original draft legislation by addressing a number of problems. These included strengthening the criteria for "qualified entities" that are allowed to bring collective actions on behalf of consumers, he wrote in the blog.
Austin said the legal text still posed a number of areas for concern for businesses. These include the possibility for national governments to propose their own systems for collective redress, which he said would increase the chances of cases being launched under different legal regimes. He also highlighted a decision by the Council to extend the scope of the legislation to medical devices.
European consumer groups welcomed last week's progress. Monique Goyens, director general of the European Consumer Organisation, said in a statement that the Council's decision was "solid ground on which negotiations towards a final text can now begin".
In a statement, the association expressed concern that governments wanted to limit the possibilities for associations representing consumers to get financing for collective redress actions. "Litigation costs are one of the biggest impediments to launching a group action for non-profit organisations like consumer groups. Quite a number of consumer organisations in the EU would struggle to finance litigation costs by themselves," the statement said.
Goyens welcomed the decision to extend the legislation to cover medical devices.
Following last week's decision, the EU's national governments will begin talks with members of the European Parliament to reach an agreement on a final version of the text. This could be completed in the first half of 2020, although it might take until the second half of the year.
In either case, consumers would not be able to use the new law until three and a half years after it has been finalised because national governments want time to introduce the new provisions.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTribunal Dismisses AML Case Against Kennedys’ Chief Risk Officer, But Ex-Partner Fined
2 minute readLatham, Skadden Among Firms Acting on Mubadala's $3.4 B Acquisition of CI Financial
2 minute readDLA Piper Takes Greenberg Traurig’s Corporate Partner for Seoul
Cuatrecasas Elevates Seven to Partner in Spain and Latin America
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250