Short Reads

European Parliament votes in favour of representative actions for consumers

European Parliament votes in favour of representative actions for con

European Parliament votes in favour of representative actions for consumers

28.03.2019 NL law

On 26 March 2019 the European Parliament approved an amended version of the European Commission's proposal for a Directive on representative actions for the protection of collective interests of consumers, following a debate on 25 March 2019. The Directive will become law once the Council and the European Parliament reach an agreement on the European Commission's proposal. The Council has not yet been able to adopt a position on the Directive, meaning that the Directive will most likely be considered again after the ­­­European elections in May 2019 by a different European Parliament

Should the Council and the European Parliament indeed find agreement on the European Commission's proposal, the Directive will require Member States to implement collective redress mechanisms for violations of specifically designated parts of EU consumer protection law. The Directive aims to enable qualified representative entities protecting the interests of consumer groups to initiate legal action to obtain a remedy (including monetary compensation) for an infringement of EU consumer protection laws by traders. The Directive leaves it to the Member States whether to establish collective redress mechanisms before national courts or before national administrative authorities.

The text adopted by the European Parliament includes several changes to the initial proposal of the European Commission. Some amendments resulted from discussions in the European Parliament (including its various subcommittees) and discussions among various stakeholders:

  • Concerns were raised with respect to potential frivolous litigation that could result from the Directive's collective redress mechanism, especially in the context of cross-border claims. Compared to the European Commission's initial proposal, the amended version adopted by the European Parliament imposes stricter funding, transparency and governance (including admissibility) requirements for representative entities that will be authorized to initiate collective redress actions. The Directive provides for enforcement of these requirements by public authorities. In addition, the amended version adopted by the European Parliament makes clear that the Directive does not allow Member States to establish collective redress actions for punitive damages or other types of overcompensation.
  • The amended version also aims to reduce the risk of overlapping claims, specifically by introducing an obligation for Member States to ensure that no other ongoing collective redress action has been initiated regarding the same facts and parties.
  • The European Commission's initial proposal left it to the Member States whether collective redress actions require consumers to opt in, or whether it is sufficient to provide consumers with the possibility to opt out. However, the amended version that was approved by the European Parliament aims to limit the possibility of using an opt-out system. Under this amended version Member States should require an explicit opt-in from consumers living outside the Member State where the collective redress action is initiated.
  • Another topic that sparked discussions was that the Directive explicitly allows Member States to keep existing redress mechanisms, or to establish national collective redress mechanisms. Some Member States had voiced concerns about the impact of adverse effects on existing national collective redress mechanisms. The amended version adopted by the European Parliament states that the "Directive is without prejudice to other forms of redress mechanisms provided for in national law" (Section 3 of Article 2). Furthermore, it states that the Directive "does not prevent Member States from maintaining their existing framework, neither does it oblige Member States to amend it" (Recital 24 of the Directive's preamble). Still, there remains some doubt as to how this European collective redress mechanism will interrelate with collective redress mechanisms that already exist in certain Member States. For example, if such national collective redress mechanisms impose more lenient (admissibility) requirements on qualified representative entities that could initiate collective redress actions, one could wonder whether or not this Directive would change that.

It remains to be seen whether the Council and the European Parliament are able to reach a common position on the European Commission's proposal. If so, this Directive will fundamentally change the landscape of enforcement of European consumer protection law. Whereas several Member States already allow for certain collective redress mechanisms (see for example our earlier Stibbe blog on the recent adoption of a legislative proposal allowing for collective actions for damages in the Netherlands), other Member States do not or only to a limited extent.

Team

Related news

24.09.2021 EU law
Digital Law Up(to)date: (1) the download of a software with a permanent licence can constitute a “sale of goods”; (2) alert of the BEUC regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp and its new term of use

Articles - In this blog, we briefly present two interesting news in the field of digital law: (1) a judgment of the CJEU considering that the download of a software with a permanent licence can constitute a “sale of goods”, and (2) an alert of the BEUC regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp and its new terms of use.

Read more

17.09.2021 NL law
Illusies van een dashboardsamenleving

Articles - Steven Hijink plaatst in zijn column in Ondernemingsrecht kritische kanttekeningen bij enkele aspecten van het voorontwerp voor de Wet toekomst accountancysector, dat op 9 juli 2021 is gepubliceerd.

Read more

03.09.2021 NL law
Don’t get scammed, and don’t let scammers scam: the legal framework for mistaken payments clarified

Short Reads - “Bol.com mistakes scammers for Brabantia and pays €750,000’’ read headlines in The Netherlands in May 2021. After receiving an e-mail written in flawed Dutch (with some English in between), Bol.com paid €750,493.09 to what it thought was a new bank account in Spain of an existing Dutch/Belgian supplier, Brabantia. The court ruled that Bol.com could not rely on the fact that the company had already paid the scammer pretending to be Brabantia and that Bol.com was therefore not discharged by payment (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2021:1528).

Read more

26.08.2021 BE law
Sarah De Wulf and Malik Baba co-authored a book dedicated to the legal aspects of the video-game industry

Articles - The book, entitled 'Legal Aspects of the video-game industry', provides a first answer to the most important legal questions that might arise in the lifecycle of a video-game company. These insights are intended to be applicable irrespective of jurisdictions, illustrated by real-life situations and easy to read for individuals without a legal background.

Read more