Group litigation in the United Kingdom is undergoing increased scrutiny and facing significant challenges, more than a decade after the collective proceedings regime was introduced for competition cases. Established under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, these provisions enable consumer groups to bring collective actions, often modeled on the US class action system, particularly for competition-related grievances.
Recent developments in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) suggest a tightening of the regime, especially concerning mass opt-out claims where affected consumers are automatically included unless they opt out. The judiciary, led by CAT President Mrs Justice Bacon, has emphasized the need to ensure that collective actions primarily benefit claimants rather than lawyers or third-party funders.
This shift is evident in several recent rulings. In April, the CAT refused certification of a claim alleging a cartel among salmon producers, noting the average estimated loss per household was under £20, raising doubts about the proportionality of such cases. Another example is the Gutmann case involving unfair train ticketing practices, which resulted in a £25 million settlement but saw only around 1 percent of the eligible consumers claiming damages.
Further illustrating this judicial caution, the CAT has scrutinized the suitability of representative claimants more rigorously. In a high-profile decision, the tribunal rejected professor Christine Riefa, a proposed class representative in a £494 million claim against Amazon and Apple over alleged anti-competitive agreements. After cross-examination, the CAT determined she lacked the necessary independence and robustness to represent the claimant class adequately. While a new claim led by Justin Le Patourel, a former consumer policy expert, was launched subsequently, legal professionals view the Riefa ruling as a pivotal change heralding heightened judicial gatekeeping.
Similarly, in August 2025, Macfarlanes law firm secured a rare dismissal of a claim against the Performing Right Society for Music (PRS), involving ex-Blur drummer Dave Rowntree, underscoring the courts’ willingness to block cases that do not meet rigorous standards at the certification stage.
Despite these procedural challenges, large-scale litigation against major technology companies remains active. Most recently, on September 15, the CAT approved a £250 million settlement with Google on behalf of UK app developers over alleged dominance on the Play Store. Another significant claim against Google worth £5 billion, brought by advertisers, received certification earlier in August.
Outside the CAT framework, group litigation faces its own hurdles. Notably, the High Court rejected the majority of the “Dieselgate” claims in July, involving approximately 1.6 million UK vehicle owners alleging emissions-related misconduct by manufacturers including Peugeot, Renault, Mercedes, Nissan, Ford, and Citroën. This remains the largest group action in English legal history but is seen by claimant lawyers as a disappointing outcome.
In response to these mixed results, the government is consulting on proposals to introduce more stringent certification requirements and enhanced scrutiny of funding arrangements for collective claims. Concurrently, the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority (SRA) is considering tighter regulations for solicitors engaging third-party funders.
Amid the evolving legal landscape, there are indications of positive momentum for group litigation. The Law Commission is exploring a new framework intended to broaden the scope for large opt-out collective actions, potentially addressing some existing limitations. Additionally, specialist firms like Capital Law have launched litigation funds targeting smaller group claims often underfunded by traditional investors.
Proponents argue that collective proceedings provide essential access to justice for consumers and small businesses confronting powerful corporations. Polly Blenkin, partner at Milberg and lead solicitor in a current action against Jaguar Land Rover over allegedly defective car components, highlighted that these cases involve significant legal principles and major international companies. However, she acknowledged that the current regime remains too restrictive, sometimes preventing legitimate claims from advancing. “It can be small harms committed on a big scale,” she said. “There are plenty of examples where people have suffered real loss and hardship, and they have got no ability to do anything about it. Where I always get to is, what’s the alternative?”