At a time when large multinationals appear to be accumulating power, it is vital we guard and expand frameworks to protect our freedoms, ensure redress and hold these corporations to account.
For the government, this should start with enabling access to justice through a strengthening and widening of the UK’s opt-out collective action regime. Opt-out actions ensure access to justice by allowing claims to be brought on behalf of millions of consumers against companies accused of breaking the rules. Eligible consumers are automatically included, ensuring those who would otherwise be unable to practically pursue a claim can still seek redress.
By punishing misconduct, the collective action regime also promotes competition, fairer markets and stimulates the growth Labour is so desperately seeking. Protecting the existing regime and expanding it into other areas should be a no-brainer.
Opponents always conveniently ignore the success stories, preferring to portray a skewed, one-dimensional view of the collective action regime. After 10 years, the regime is starting to secure meaningful compensation for consumers and hold rule-breaking companies to account. In Kent v Apple, Dr Rachel Kent, represented by Hausfeld, led a successful claim against Apple for its overcharging of users on the App Store. The CAT’s judgment in favour of all aspects of Dr Kent’s claim was a textbook example of the regime holding a large corporate to account for its anti-competitive behaviour and providing redress – up to £1.5bn – to UK consumers and businesses.
This point is often lost on detractors: the regime exists not just to protect individual consumers, but also small and medium-sized UK businesses and other organisations that have fallen foul of anti-competitive conduct, which would otherwise be unable to access justice. The government itself recently backed a collective action against Motorola seeking compensation for public bodies, NGOs and charities harmed by alleged anti-competitive conduct.
In 2026, the opt-out regime continues to hold Big Tech to account, with millions of consumers due to be represented in court against Sony, Google and Amazon in claims worth billions of pounds.
The future of opt-out actions is, however, being undermined by the very same business interests that would stand to gain from a dilution of the regime, led by organisations ostensibly presenting themselves as ‘consumer advocates’ but which are in reality backed by big business.
Last August, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) launched a review of the regime. The review’s timing and framing – which appeared to some a response to such lobbying – was met with criticism from several influential legal and consumer groups, including Which? and the Society of Labour Lawyers, a group directly affiliated with the Labour party and with a long history of promoting access to justice.
Following an initial consultation last autumn – which was met with a strong response from a wide range of consumer groups, class representatives, experts, plaintiff and defendant law firms, all offering a holistic view – we are now due a set of proposals from the DBT. Despite strong argumentation highlighting the benefits of the regime, we remain concerned that the outcome will represent a marked dilution.
Despite the DBT review, this government has previously shown a willingness to protect, and even expand, access to justice.
In April, the Law Commission announced a project to consider introducing consumer collective actions. Crucially, the project is being sponsored by the DBT – perhaps an indication of the feedback it received during its initial consultation on the current opt-out regime. We have long advocated for such a practical measure, which would see claims not otherwise covered by competition law, such as data breaches, consumer law or environmental claims, provided with an opt-out framework.
It was disappointing to see the terms of reference mention the familiar spectres of ‘exploitation’ and the creation of a ‘litigation culture’, but we trust the commission to consider both benefits and risks.
In December, meanwhile, courts minister Sarah Sackman announced the government’s intention to legislate to reverse the effects of PACCAR, which in effect said that funders could not charge for a percentage of damages and rendered most funding agreements in their present state void. This was widely welcomed as it would allow claims to receive crucial third-party funding and remove what has been a notable impediment to access to justice.
It was thus deeply disappointing that the government chose to omit the reversal of PACCAR from last week’s King’s speech.
Not only had the government committed to the reversal, it had also been recommended by the Civil Justice Council in June of last year. The Conservative government had already drafted the legislation in 2024, but it was lost to the pre-election wash-up.
Until such legislation is introduced, funding, particularly for smaller but still significant claims, will remain more difficult to obtain, resulting in an impairment to access to justice. And even with such legislation, uncertainty will persist should it not be made retrospective, something which the previous government’s legislation had provided for, but to which the Ministry of Justice remains opposed.
Amid recent pressures, the King’s speech provided a crucial opportunity for this Labour government to demonstrate that it remains an advocate for the many and not the few. It was at least reassuring to see the government acknowledge the importance of robust competition enforcement in the background notes to its new Competition Reform Bill, which will hopefully produce a reinvigorated Competition and Markets Authority.
One hopes this also paves the way for stronger private enforcement, but this requires urgent action on PACCAR and a commitment to opt-out actions. A Labour government needs to ensure that, in justice, power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few.
Anthony Maton is senior partner at Hausfeld
No comments yet