Jun 11, 2025
The Netherlands has positioned itself as a leading European jurisdiction for collective redress. Over the past few years, many (often international) ‘mass damage claims’ have found their way to Dutch courtrooms. Notable examples include massive privacy litigation cases and several other collective actions in the ‘tech’ sector. The Dutch collective regime also attracts landmark competition follow-on cases. This development may not come as a surprise. Many international corporations or their subsidiaries have a seat in the Netherlands and litigation in the Netherlands is considered relatively inexpensive. From a legal perspective, Dutch courts tend to be quite liberal in accepting international jurisdiction, while Dutch civil law offers ample possibilities for collective redress in mass damage cases. Also, Dutch law offers several routes to collective redress. Apart from ‘classic’ routes via power of attorney, assignment of claims or mandate, it has been accepted for decades, first by the Dutch Supreme Court in its case law, later confirmed by the legislator in the Dutch Civil Code, that a foundation or association may bring collective claims for the benefit of a ‘class’ of claimants or environmental or other general interests. Such collective claims used to be limited to obtaining collective injunctions, prohibitions or declaratory judgments. A collective claim for damages was excluded, because it was believed that collective proceedings do not allow for a proper assessment of the individual circumstances of the case needed for a damages award. Individual follow-up proceedings therefore remained warranted to obtain compensation. Over time, this belief has changed. In 2005, the Dutch legislator introduced the possibility to petition the Amsterdam Court of Appeal to declare a – voluntarily reached – collective settlement generally binding to the entire class of persons the collective settlement pertains to, with an opt out-possibility. In 2020, to enhance possibilities to settle ‘mass damage claims’, the Dutch legislator took a next, sweeping step, introducing the Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie (WAMCA), enabling a foundation or association to claim collective damages for an entire class of persons, also on an opt-out basis. This article will discuss the possibilities for collective redress offered by Dutch civil law in more detail, focusing on the WAMCA. It will briefly discuss its background and then focus on the admissibility requirements for a foundation or association acting for the benefit of a group of stakeholders (to which we will also refer as ‘representative’). Five years after its introduction, the admissibility requirements have proven to be quite challenging for claimants. To date, only one WAMCA case has successfully met these standing requirements and proceeded to a judgment on the merits. This Vattenfall case was about alleged wrongful invoicing by an energy company. The District Court decided that the invoicing was not wrongful and dismissed the collective claim for damages in its entirety. The first court judgment actually awarding collective damages under the WAMCA is yet to come. We expect the more ‘classic’ routes to collective redress – such as those currently utilised in cartel damages litigation, which remains a flourishing practice – to continue to remain important. The future may bring even more mass damage cases, for instance following new European legislation in the field of ESG such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.
