For our Cooley colleagues in the US, defending class actions against technology platforms has been a part of their day-to-day for many years. However, the need for class action defence lawyers is spreading rapidly to the UK and beyond. For many countries this is a relatively new but very significant trend. It’s one we could dedicate pages to, but we set out below the TLDR summary of what’s happening.
Hammon v. UCL: Group Litigation Order Denied in Favour of English Court’s Case Management Powers
In David Hammon and Others v. University College London[1], the High Court of Justice found that the threshold requirements for making a group litigation order (GLO) had been met but decided that the court’s general case management powers would be more appropriate to manage the claims, rather than a GLO.
The case emphasises important questions about the future of GLOs as a mechanism for group litigation in a landscape where class actions are on the rise.
The EU’s General Product Safety Regulation: What’s New?
Our colleagues in the Products team have posted the first in a series of the European Union’s General Product Safety Regulation: The EU’s General Product Safety Regulation: What’s New? – Productwise (cooley.com). This is a substantial update of the current regime and brings increased enforcement and class action risks.
UK Competition and Markets Authority Receives Enhanced Merger Control and Enforcement Powers
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCC), which became law on 24 May 2024, represents a major shift in UK digital, competition and consumer protection regulation. In particular, the DMCC:
Court of Appeal Decides Principles Permitting Group Litigation by Allowing Multiple Claimants to Make Individual Claims on Single Claim Form
England has no direct equivalent to US class actions. However, there are various claim models under English procedural rules (CPR) that have similarities. They are summarised in our October 2022 blog post – Data Disputes: How the English Class Action Landscape is Shaping Up.
Law Commission Consultation “Digital Assets and Electronic Trade Documents in Private International Law: Which Court, Which Law?
The Law Commission of England and Wales has, for the last four years, been heavily focussed on addressing the legal issues that arise in the context of emerging technologies.[1] It has now started work on a new project to examine and clarify how existing private international law does and should apply to emerging technologies – specifically, digital assets and electronic trade documents. It has issued a call for evidence from stakeholders, with responses to be submitted by 16 May 2024.
Litigation Funding Agreements: Developments Since PACCAR
Litigation funding agreements have been very much in the spotlight since the decision in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v. Competition Appeal Tribunal and others,[1] in which the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom found that a funding agreement that provided for the funder’s remuneration to be calculated as a percentage of any damages recovered was an unenforceable damages-based agreement (DBA). Given the prevalence of such funding agreements, the judgment was a significant cause for concern.
Marketing of Cryptoassets – UK’s Financial Conduct Authority Issues ‘Final Warning’
Regardless of whether you are in the UK, or the type of technology you use, companies marketing ‘qualifying cryptoassets’ to customers in the UK will need to comply with the financial promotions regime of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the UK’s financial regulator.
EU Puts Red Light on Greenwashing: Agreement Reached on New Laws Targeting Greenwashing
This week, the European Council and Parliament reached provisional agreement on a new European Union (EU) directive to ’empower consumers for the green transition’.
UK Supreme Court: Litigation Funding Agreements Are Damages-Based Agreements
On 26 July 2023, the UK Supreme Court handed down a judgment that will cause serious disruption (at least in the short term) to the litigation funding market. In R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v. Competition Appeal Tribunal and others, the Supreme Court held by a majority that litigation funding agreements which entitled the funders to recover a percentage of the damages recovered were damages-based agreements and, as such, were unenforceable, as they did not meet the strict statutory conditions for such agreements.