Clifford Chance

Explore the landscape of class actions in England and Wales, highlighting key trends in Big Tech, securities, product liability and ESG, alongside potential challenges for claimants in the year ahead.

Big Tech

Since its introduction under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the UK collective proceedings regime has never failed to make legal headlines. The regime, which is limited to claims arising from alleged breaches of competition law, has seen claimant lawyers testing the boundaries of competition law with an increasing number of cases coming through the CAT on an opt-out basis.

Recent cases appear to have a particular focus on allegedly abusive practices of Big Tech companies, bringing with them claims of excessive pricing – an allegation historically associated with pharmaceutical businesses. For example, December 2024 saw the launch of two such claims - one against Motorola claiming excessive and unfair prices of its Airwave Services, and another against Microsoft alleging excessive pricing of its licensing fees for Windows Server. A range of other claims against Big Tech companies include several against Apple and Google in relation to their app stores, and against Meta for its pricing conditions – which might historically have been said to be more obvious data or consumer claims, rather than competition claims.   

As the start of the Big Tech cases kicked off last week with the trial of Apple v Kent, it remains to be seen whether 2025 offers further encouragement to claimants and litigation funders looking to use the CAT as a forum for large scale competition claims.

Securities

Securities class actions are likely to remain front-of-mind for listed companies in 2025. Whether the rise can be tied to the growth in litigation funding, development of shareholder activism or investors’ growing appetite to proactively use the legal system, it is clear that public companies should be prepared for close scrutiny of their published information, especially if they are already in the spotlight in relation to alleged wrongdoing.

To date, many securities claims have been settled, making them an attractive investment for litigation funders, and with the availability of funding in the market, we expect this area to continue to grow. 

ESG

ESG continues to be a significant sector of growth across the broad spectrum of group litigation claims. In particular, group actions in the English courts are increasingly being used to pursue claims seeking to hold UK-based parent companies accountable for alleged environmental or human rights harms perpetrated abroad, either by foreign subsidiaries or overseas partners within their supply chains.

Recent decisions of the Court of Appeal are encouraging for such claims. Two judgments, which overturned High Court decisions on various issues including jurisdiction, causation and disclosure, cited the "inequality of arms" as a significant factor when finding in favour of the claimants. This willingness to accommodate the specific procedural challenges faced by claimant groups positions the English courts as an attractive forum for these claims. The upcoming decision relating to the Fundão Dam collapse,^[1] the largest High Court group litigation, will also provide a key indication of the viability of such actions for potential claimants, defendants and litigation funders going forward.

Additionally, the increasingly ESG-focused reporting standards for large, listed companies, in addition to stakeholder pressure for ambitious sustainability targets, create potential risk of group shareholder actions against companies for "greenwashing" on the basis of inaccurate or misleading statements regarding ESG.

Product liability

Product liability claims continue to evolve in the courts. The development of group litigation in this area, which allows large groups of consumers to pursue claims regarding defective products, will be of particular interest to companies within manufacturing sectors, including technology and pharmaceuticals.

Such actions are increasingly being brought under the opt-out CAT regime with the procedure being well-suited to accommodate the large classes often bringing product liability claims. However, product liability will also be front-and-centre in the High Court with the technical trial for the 'Pan-NOx' emissions group litigation due to commence in October 2025. The trial will see the complexities of these large, multi-party group litigation claims play out in the English courts, ultimately testing if the proactive case management strategies adopted to date have been successful.

Potential road bumps

While collective and group actions continue to move through the courts in 2025, they may encounter some “road bumps” along the way.

Data privacy

In December 2024, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision in Prismall v Google, striking out the representative claim involving the misuse of private information.^[2] The case concerned the transfer of medical records of 1.6 million individuals to Google and DeepMind without consent. The Court emphasised the stringent requirements for representative actions, particularly the need for all class members to have the "same interest" in the claim. This judgment, in line with the Lloyd v Google decision,^[3] highlighted the challenges in bringing opt-out representative actions in data privacy cases, potentially slowing down such class actions.

First unsuccessful collection action

Also in December 2024, the CAT dismissed the first competition class action to proceed to trial, Le Patourel v BT Group.^[4] The claim alleged BT charged unfairly high prices, seeking over £1.1 billion in damages for 3.7m customers. The CAT found that while BT's prices were excessive, they were not unfair, and that there was no abuse of dominance. This decision underscored the high bar for proving "unfairness" and indicated that potentially unhelpful regulatory findings (in this case by Ofcom) may not carry sufficient weight at trial. The dismissal may dampen hopes for similar claims relying on an excessive pricing theory of harm, though some claimants may see it as an opportunity to refine their cases.

First outright refusal of certification for unsuitable representative

In another notable decision, last week the CAT denied an application for certification, marking the first outright refusal of certification and the first rejection based on the unsuitability of the proposed class representative.^[5] Professor Riefa, a consumer law academic, sought to bring a representative claim against Apple and Amazon for allegedly restricting third-party reselling of Apple products on Amazon. However, after cross-examination of Professor Riefa, the CAT determined she lacked the necessary independence and robustness to represent the class fairly. Emphasizing that a class representative cannot be a "mere figurehead," the CAT concluded that Professor Riefa did not meet the authorisation criteria and refused to grant the collective proceedings order. The high standard imposed by the CAT will be an important consideration for appointment of representatives going forward.

Litigation funding review

The CJC report on litigation funding, expected in summer 2025, will assess the current framework governing third-party funding in the UK. Litigation funding has been crucial for enabling class actions, especially in complex or high-value cases. If the CJC recommends regulation, it could impact the availability of funding options, which would make it more challenging for claimants to secure financial backing to pursue collective actions.

Conclusion

While it may not all be smooth sailing, we expect class action litigation to continue to grow in 2025, particularly in Big Tech, securities, ESG and product liability. Given the far-reaching scope of such trends, corporates should keep informed as to how the latest developments may impact their industry.

Footnotes

[1] Municipio de Mariana & Ors v BHP Group (read more about the trial here).

[2] Prismall v Google UK Ltd and DeepMind Technologies Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1516.

[3] Lloyd v Google [2021] UKSC 50.

[4] Le Patourel v BT Group PLC [2024] CAT 76.

[5] Christine Riefa Class Representative Limited v Apple Inc. & Others [2025] CAT 5.