The propaganda war over the collective action regime can be a little hard to follow.
Not so much the arguments, for they are fairly clear. One side sees the opt-out regime as a cash bonanza for lawyers and funders while claimants are asked how they want to receive their 50p windfall. For the other, the regime is the only way to hold rapacious big businesses to account.
So far, so understandable. But the names of the opposing lobby groups are, shall we say, opaque.
Take this week’s unveiling of the Competitive Britain campaign. As we trooped over to the Westminster launch, it was not entirely clear which side we would be hearing from. Our hunch that Competitive Britain might see collective actions as a threat to corporate health proved to be 100% wrong.
Equally, Obiter has always wondered if the group Fair Civil Justice could be a little clearer about the fact that it represents the interests of defendant corporations.
Given the funding which seems to be available to both lobbies, we assume a lot of effort went into picking the brand names. Could the obscurity possibly be deliberate?
No comments yet