News 2025

EJF contributed to the consultation shaping the priorities and policy programme for Ireland’s Presidency of the Council of the EU in 2026.

Ireland will hold the EU Presidency for the eighth time from July–December 2026, at a pivotal moment for Europe’s competitiveness, economic security and trust in democratic institutions.

On 18 June, EJF held its Members Meeting in Dublin, kindly hosted by one of its members, Experian, bringing together in-person and online participants for a special milestone event marking EJF's 20th anniversary. It was also formally announced that Simon Neill (Johnson & Johnson) would replace Moya Stevenson (SwissRe) as EJF Chair from 1 July. The Members thanked Moya for her leadership and dedication over the past five years.

The agenda addressed key legal and regulatory developments impacting the future of civil justice in Europe. It included an update on the transposition of the Representative Actions Directive (RAD), with a focus on recent developments in Spain and France, followed by a presentation by Prof. Stefaan Voet (KU Leuven) on the broader collective redress landscape in Europe, including developments around the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Directive and jurisdictional reform under the Brussels I bis Regulation. Moreover, Professor Christopher Hodges (Oxford University) shared insights from the UK Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) report on Third-Party Litigation Funding in the UK, highlighting broad recommendations to improve oversight and access to justice.

During the second part of the meeting, the participants discussed different perspectives and policy solutions to address the risks and opportunities posed by TPLF. Prof. Voet provided an overview of the findings from the recent European Commission’s Mapping Study on TPLF, which highlighted fragmented national approaches and explored three different regulatory options, noting the Commission is adopting a “wait-and-see” approach. From a policy perspective, Herbert Woopen (EJF's Legal Expert) presented concrete solutions to improve competition, transparency and fairness in litigation funding. Justice Maurice Collins and Justice Eileen Roberts, from the Irish Law Reform Commission, offered a national perspective on Ireland’s evolving legal context, including the prohibition on litigation funding, and outlined the Commission’s ongoing reflections on the appropriate policy and regulatory frameworks to address the gap.

The meeting concluded with a presentation by Elizabeth-Anne Larsen and Leonard Böhmer (CMS) on recent updates concerning the implementation of the revised Product Liability Directive (PLD) and the evolving framework around artificial intelligence (AI) regulation in Europe.

The day ended with a dinner, giving participants an opportunity to continue exchanging views and reflections in a more informal setting.

The EJF team thanks all attendees for their active engagement and contributions, which made the event a meaningful celebration of EJF’s 20th anniversary!

As third-party litigation funding (TPLF) rapidly expands across Europe, the European Justice Forum has released a new policy brief outlining a clear way forward: a harmonised EU regulatory framework to safeguard judicial systems, protect consumers and businesses, and support the EU’s economic resilience and competitiveness.

Building on international best practices and independent research, the paper presents a balanced, four-pillar approach to contribute to the policy debate on how to best regulate TPLF:

1. Transparency: Mandatory disclosure of funders, funding sources, and redacted agreements to all parties, with unredacted versions to courts. Funders should be subject to authorisation, registration, and supervision.
2. Protection of claimants’ rights: joint liability for adverse costs, minimum capital requirements, no funder control over case strategy or outcomes, and minimum payouts to claimants with caps on funder and intermediary fees.
3. Ethical standards: Prohibition of funding arrangements with conflicts of interest, and fiduciary duties requiring funders to act in the best interests of claimants/beneficiaries.
4. Harmonized regulatory framework: Consistent application of these rules across all mass litigation and arbitration to prevent circumvention and ensure legal certainty in the EU.

These recommendations reflect growing political momentum, supported by the European Parliament’s 2022 resolution and calls from European industry groups, and are grounded in recent research by ECIPE, the European Law Institute , and EJF itself.

Ultimately, EJF’s brief underscores that responsible regulation can both protect consumers and judicial integrity and preserve Europe’s legal and economic systems. By acting now, the EU can set a global standard for litigation funding that strengthens, rather than compromises, access to justice.

Read the full policy brief below.

On 26 March, BusinessEurope, Cefic and EJF co-hosted a high-level roundtable in Brussels to discuss the growing role of TPLF in Europe’s mass litigation landscape. The event brought together legal experts, EU policymakers, industry leaders, and civil society representatives for an insightful discussion on the risks and opportunities presented by this fast-growing practice.

The discussion was timely. A recent study from the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE) estimates that mass litigation could cost EU businesses up to €84.8 billion in private enforcement expenses. Moreover, the High Level Forum Meeting of the EU Commission’s “Justice for Growth” initiative took place a day later.

While participants acknowledged that TPLF can improve access to justice, especially in cases where individual claims may not be economically viable, they also highlighted significant risks, such as conflicts of interest between funders and claimants or beneficiaries and the general commercialisation of justice.

The discussion revealed a strong consensus that time for action is now. While some stakeholders (particularly Member States and consumer organisations) remain cautious, there was a broad agreement that EU-level regulation is necessary to ensure fair practices and prevent abuse – echoing the findings from the European Commission’s recent mapping study, in which 54% of respondents supported EU-level action.

In particular, the participants of the roundtable called attention to the need for safeguards, such as mandatory transparency on funding arrangements to independent and knowledgeable public bodies for effective control avoiding conflicts of interest, setting a minimum portion of redress awards to be handed to beneficiaries, capital adequacy and oversight mechanisms to ensure funders can fulfil their liabilities.

Overall, the event reaffirmed the need for the EU to take a leading role in this area, aiming at striking a fair balance between enhancing access to justice and protecting Europe’s economic competitiveness.

For further information, access the meeting report below.

Mass litigation is on the rise across Europe and is reshaping the legal and economic landscape, with significant implications for businesses and consumers.

A new study developed by ECIPE and commissioned by EJF, “The Impact of Increased Mass Litigation in Europe”, examines how this trend is evolving, its potential economic consequences and presents policy recommendations to ensure fairness and balance in collective actions. For the first time, the macro-economic implications of mass claims were also reviewed.

The key findings can be summarised as follows:

• Collective action cases have surged across the EU, particularly in 2015 and again in 2020 onwards, with countries like the Netherlands, Portugal, Germany, and Slovenia reporting higher volumes. The rise of Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) is contributing to this trend.
• Mass litigation entails substantial costs for businesses, leading to higher settlement costs, insurance premiums and compliance burdens, which can raise consumer prices and potentially hinder innovation, particularly with the introduction of private rights of action in EU regulations.
• Countries like the Netherlands, Portugal, and Germany have experienced a higher volume of mass litigation, partly due to their efficient judicial systems and institutional frameworks that facilitate collective actions. In contrast, Denmark, Lithuania, and Sweden have implemented safeguards to reduce the risk of unfounded litigation.
• A scenario-based analysis suggests that depending on the level of growth in mass litigation, costs could vary widely, with the high-growth scenario predicting private enforcement costs of up to €84.8 billion, market capitalisation losses for innovative companies up to €46.5 billion, and an increase in litigation costs as a share of claim value to 27.1%.

In light of these challenges, the report provides some recommendations to improve legal fairness and efficiency which, from EJF, we echo:

1. Shifting from an opt-out to an opt-in system, enhancing transparency in third-party litigation funding (TPLF), and reinforcing the loser pays principle to discourage speculative lawsuits.
2. Addressing inconsistencies across national legal systems to reduce forum shopping and ensure more predictable and balanced enforcement mechanisms.
3. Applying stricter criteria for forming a qualified entity to file collective action cases and excluding ad hoc entities or private persons as claimants.
4. Strengthening Ombuds Bodies and other ADR mechanisms to provide a cost-effective and efficient alternative to mass litigation for businesses and consumers.

The report concludes that the combination of the EU's burdensome and strict regulatory framework with increased private enforcement carries significant economic costs for businesses and for society. It is therefore crucial that policymakers carefully consider the long-term implications of an increasing mass-action litigation in Europe. The proposed measures are an important contribution to ensuring a better balance between justice, fair compensation for consumers and adequate protection for companies from opportunistic lawsuits, thus strengthening the EU's competitiveness.

For further information, access the full report and EJF’s cover letter below.