Germany

German civil procedure has traditionally been oriented towards the enforcement of individual rights. Therefore, for many years, collective actions were not a meaningful feature of the German system. In a mass claim scenario, large numbers of parallel individual proceedings (“mass individual actions”, MIA) have been pursued, at times creating significant capacity pressures for the courts.

Germany’s first steps towards any form of collective action were decidedly incremental. The regime began with the introduction of a collective injunctive relief in 1965. Today, the injunctive relief is primarily governed by the Injunctions Act (UKlaG) which took effect in 2002. The Capital Markets Model Proceedings Act (KapMuG) was introduced in 2005 and the model declaratory action (Musterfeststellungsklage, MDA) in 2018. Both the KapMuG and the MDA were legislative responses to specific waves of mass litigation:

• the KapMuG to the flood of investor claims arising from Deutsche Telekom’s third IPO in the early 2000s; and
• the MDA against the backdrop of the Volkswagen diesel‑emissions litigation.

Each instrument was introduced cautiously. The UKlaG is confined to injunctive relief and both KapMuG and the MDA are, by design, limited mechanisms that do not deliver direct compensation but instead establish certain binding findings for subsequent individual claims.

Alongside these mechanisms, the assignment model (pooling assigned claims in a special‑purpose vehicle) has become an established enforcement tool in several areas, including cartel damages claims.

In response to the growing practical pressures of mass consumer litigation across Europe, the European legislator adopted the EU Representative Actions Directive (RAD, Directive (EU) 2020/1828) aiming to strengthen procedural mechanisms for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and to ensure that every EU Member State at least provides for collective injunctive and redress measures. Germany transposed the RAD in the Consumer Rights Enforcement Act (Verbraucherrechtedurchsetzungsgesetz, VDuG) which entered into force on 13 October 2023 and — crucially — introduced for the first time a genuine class‑action mechanism permitting direct performance via the redress action (“Redress Action”, Abhilfeklage).

The number of Redress Actions remains modest. Since their introduction in October 2023, only ten Redress Actions have been published in the official claims register (as of 2 February 2026). So far, these proceedings have focused on consumer-related areas such as price increases for energy, telecommunications and streaming, as well as data-protection-related disputes. Interestingly, more recent Redress Actions against big tech companies challenge the use of data (i.e. their business model) whereas earlier cases focused on data breaches.

The current legal framework comprises the following class action mechanisms:

• The Redress Action is a genuine class action mechanism for consumers and “small enterprises” (i.e. employing fewer than 10 persons and with annual turnover or annual balance sheet total not exceeding EUR 2 million).
• The MDA and proceedings under the KapMuG are not “genuine” class actions. Neither instrument provides for direct redress. Instead, they can establish binding findings for a large number of individual proceedings. Consumers must therefore (continue to) pursue performance in follow‑on individual actions once the declaratory decision has been issued. The MDA is available across all civil disputes, whereas the KapMuG is confined to claims related to the capital market, particularly damages claims based on false, misleading or omitted public capital‑market information.
• Injunctive actions brought by qualified consumer organisations under the Injunctions Act (UKlaG) are confined to seeking injunctive relief for violations of general terms and conditions or consumer-protection legislation.
• The assignment model is largely used in several areas, including cartel damages claims. Although recognised in principle, its admissibility and limits for cartel damages claims are yet to be confirmed by the German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ).
• Introduced in 2024, the leading‑decision procedure (Leitentscheidungsverfahren) vests the FCJ with discretion — in a MIA scenario — to designate a single case pending before it as the “frontrunner” for a leading decision (Leitentscheidung). The resulting judgment is intended to provide non‑binding guidance to the lower courts, thereby fostering uniformity and procedural efficiency.

While the RAD is limited to a closed list of EU consumer-protection instruments, the German Redress Action encompasses civil disputes at large, including contractual, tortious and competition-law claims, section 1(1) VDuG. In terms of personal scope, it also goes beyond the minimum requirements of the RAD and covers small enterprises in addition to consumers (together, “Consumers”), cf. section 1(2) VDuG.

German law does not recognise a single, common-law-style definition of a class action. Instead, it provides distinct procedural mechanisms that pursue analogous aims within a “collective redress” framework. That said, the Redress Action is the mechanism that most closely resembles a common-law class action in Germany. Accordingly, unless stated otherwise, our responses below refer to the Redress Action.

A Redress Action is brought by a qualified entity before the Higher Regional Court (“Court”) in whose district the defendant has its general place of jurisdiction, section 3(1) VDuG. Following commencement, the Redress Action is publicly announced in the official claims register maintained by the Federal Office of Justice (Bundesamt für Justiz), section 43 et seq. VDuG. Afterwards, potentially affected Consumers may join the Redress Action as class member by registering in the claims register (“Opt-in”).

The procedure is, in substance, two‑stage: a merits stage and an implementation stage. In the merits stage, the Court issues a preliminary redress judgment (Abhilfegrundurteil) if it confirms liability, section 16 VDuG. Subsequently, the parties are invited to submit a written settlement proposal for implementing the preliminary redress judgment, section 17 VDuG. If the proceedings are not concluded by settlement, the Court continues to issue a final redress judgment (Abhilfeendurteil) awarding aggregate amounts (if applicable), section 18 VDuG. In the ensuing implementation stage, the Court appoints an administrator (Sachwalter) who verifies which individual class members meet the requirements set out in the final redress judgment and satisfies eligible claims, section 22 et seq. VDuG. All judgments are subject to immediate appeal before the FCJ (Revision), which, however, is confined to a review of legal errors. There is no further fact-finding instance.

To enable qualified entities (whose access to external financing is constrained, see Section 3.4, below) to pre-finance court fees, counsel fees and ancillary costs, third-party funding is in principle permissible. Any such funding is bounded by four safeguards. The funder must not:

• be a competitor of the defendant;
• be dependent on the defendant;
• have the ability to exert adverse influence over the qualified entity’s conduct of the proceedings; and
• be entitled to more than 10% of the relief awarded, section 4(2) VDuG.

With the filing of the Redress Action, the qualified entity must disclose to the Court the source of the funds used to finance the action; where third‑party funding is in place, the qualified entity must also disclose the underlying funding agreement to demonstrate compliance with these criteria. The same duty applies if third-party funding is secured after filing. The statutory cap limiting the funder’s remuneration to 10% of the awarded relief is likely to be commercially unattractive in most cases and falls well below customary market returns for funders. In addition, significant uncertainty surrounds the mechanics of remuneration at the implementation stage, as the awarded relief is, by operation of law, reserved exclusively for the benefit of the represented consumers.

Participation in the Redress Action is free of charge for Consumers, with the proceedings financed by the qualified entity. Irrespective of the amounts actually claimed, the amount of dispute is capped at EUR 300,000 (Gebührenstreitwert) which forms the basis for calculating court fees and recoverable counsel fees, cf. section 48(1) sentence 2 Court Fees Act (Gerichtskostengesetz, GKG). This significantly mitigates the qualified entity’s (adverse) cost risk as costs follow the event. Vice versa, even if the qualified entity prevails in full, it can only recover the statutory counsel fees under the German Lawyers’ Remuneration Act (Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz) based on the (capped) claim value. Higher counsel fees must be borne alone. The costs of the implementation phase — namely the administrator’s expenses and remuneration – are borne exclusively by the defendant found liable.

As the Redress Action regime has been in force only since October 2023 and has yet to yield any judgments, reliable timelines cannot be given. The first Redress Action was filed in November 2023 with the first-ever hearing scheduled in March 2026. In light of the proceeding’s two-stage design (see Section 3.1, above) cases are likely to run for at least three to four years; presumably more should the Redress Action reach the implementation stage.

Standing to bring Redress Actions on behalf of Consumers lies exclusively with qualified entities:

• domestic consumer organisations registered with the German Federal Office of Justice that receive no more than 5% of their funding from corporate contributions; and
• entities from other EU Member States listed in the European Commission’s register of qualified entities under Article 5(1) RAD, section 2(1) VDuG.

Individual Consumers cannot file Redress Actions. They may only opt in by registering their claims in the claims register, without becoming parties to the proceedings or acquiring procedural rights.

With the filing of the Redress Action, the qualified entity must substantiate that claims of at least 50 Consumers may be affected, section 4(1) VDuG.

Class membership is confined to Consumers (see Section 2.2, above). Class‑member status is acquired exclusively by opt‑in, which is possible until three weeks after the close of the oral hearing.

A registration is effective only if it states the registrant’s name and address, the defendant’s name, and the Court before which the Redress Action is pending together with the case number; where a monetary claim is asserted, the registration shall also contain information on the amount of this individual claim. Only registrants that timely satisfy these formalities are bound by the judgment and qualify for relief, section 46 VDuG.

In principle, German courts have vast discretion on how to manage cases. For instance, courts have the authority to decide how many rounds of written submissions are required, adjusting most deadlines as they see fit. It generally lies within the courts’ power to accelerate or delay the progress of the proceedings.

In collective proceedings under the VDuG, certain procedural options are expressly curtailed, section 13(2)–(4) VDuG. Specifically, written proceedings and default judgments without an oral hearing are inadmissible. This is primarily because the oral hearing is of particular importance to the VDuG as the deadline for customers to register commences with the oral hearing. Preliminary redress judgments (Abhilfegrundurteil) and judgments rendered in model declaratory proceedings (Musterfeststellungsverfahren) cannot be issued before the expiry of six weeks following the oral hearing due to the statutory opt-in period, which entitles consumers to register their claims for up to three weeks after the conclusion of the oral hearing. Proceedings under the VDuG cannot be assigned to a single judge; responsibility lies with the full senate.

Beyond these limitations, the Court retains broad case‑management powers at both the merits and implementation stages. It may, among other things, set deadlines for the parties and the administrator, take evidence (including by hearing affected consumers as witnesses even if they have not registered), permit amendments to the claim, structure the subject matter of the dispute on a topic‑by‑topic basis and conduct hearings by video. The Court can and must also issue directions where a party has evidently overlooked matters relevant to the dispute. During the implementation proceedings, the administrator remains subject to the Court’s supervision.

German civil procedure is built on the principle of party presentation (Beibringungsgrundsatz); that is, each party must set out and prove the facts underlying its case. The German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) essentially confines document production to two exceptional and narrowly circumscribed mechanisms (section 422 and section 142 et seq. ZPO), each subject to stringent conditions.

In individual civil proceedings, those thresholds are rarely met, such that disclosure is very uncommon. It will be interesting to see whether courts will adopt a more expansive approach in VDuG proceedings. Under section 6 VDuG, the Court may reinforce disclosure orders — issued pursuant to the mechanisms referred to above — by imposing administrative fines if a party fails to comply with such order. This provision transposes Article 18 RAD, under which a court may, in accordance with national procedural law, order the disclosure of evidence if the qualified entity has provided reasonably available evidence to support a representative action and has indicated that additional evidence lies within the control of the defendant or a third party.

German law provides robust confidentiality, even though it does not recognise a common law style attorney–client privilege. Lawyer–client communications (oral and written) are protected in practice by professional secrecy and counsel may refuse testimony. These principles also apply in Redress Actions save for one carve‑out: qualified entities must disclose any third‑party funding and submit the funding agreement to the Court (see Section 3.2, above).

Relief in a Redress Action may be monetary — including, but not limited to, damages, a price reduction, or a refund of the purchase price — or non-monetary, such as repair, replacement or termination of the contract.

The VDuG expressly permits the conclusion of court-approved settlements (collective settlement), section 9 VDuG. Their defining characteristic lies in their collective effect: although concluded exclusively between the defendant and the qualified entity, such settlements are binding vis-à-vis the registered class members unless they opt out of the settlement within one month after the settlement has been announced in the register. Court-approved settlement can only be concluded after the deadline for registration has ended (i.e. three weeks after the oral hearing). After the preliminary redress judgment, the Court invites the parties to make a written settlement offer (section 17 VDuG).

The content required of a court settlement depends primarily on the procedural stage at which it is concluded:

• when settlement is reached prior to the preliminary redress judgment, it must, in particular, specify the criteria governing the eligibility of the class members and the evidence to be provided by each individual consumer in order to establish entitlement; or
• when settlement is concluded after the preliminary redress judgment its scope is correspondingly narrower and confined to the implementation of that judgment.

Irrespective of the stage at which it is concluded, a court settlement requires court approval in order to bind the class members. The Court will approve the settlement if it is satisfied that the settlement represents an appropriate and fair resolution of the dispute, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the procedural posture and, in particular, the interests of the class members.

The parties may also resolve a Redress Action by way of an out‑of‑court settlement. Such a settlement is not subject to the statutory content requirements or the court‑approval regime applicable to collective settlements. There is legal debate as to whether such a settlement is subject to additional restrictions, such as the consent of all registered consumers, and/or substantive judicial review. Its existence is reflected externally through its procedural consequences in the pending proceedings, most commonly by way of a withdrawal of the claim. Substantively, the settlement may, for example, provide for the payment of a monetary amount.

Moreover, by reference to the general provisions of the ZPO, the VDuG allows recourse to the Güterichter procedure, thereby enabling the parties to seek an amicable resolution of a Redress Action by way of court‑facilitated mediation.

The Court’s final redress judgment (Abhilfeendurteil) is implemented by a court‑appointed administrator (Sachwalter), who acts as the neutral executing authority rather than as an agent of either party. In fulfilment of that mandate, the administrator establishes an “implementation fund” (Umsetzungsfonds), into which the defendant must deposit the total amount of damages together with procedural costs, section 25 VDuG. Once the fund is constituted, the administrator conducts a verification process to determine whether registered Consumers satisfy the eligibility criteria set out in the preliminary redress judgment (Abhilfegrundurteil). Where a Consumer provides the required evidence, payment is made to that Consumer out of the implementation fund. For claims that require non‑monetary relief, the administrator requests that the defendant performs the specific individual obligation — for example, carrying out repairs or supplying a defect‑free product — and sets a reasonable deadline for compliance.

Both Consumers and defendants may object to the administrator’s determinations, section 28 VDuG. An overruled objection can be challenged in court.

If the administrator refuses to (fully) fulfil the individual claim, the Consumer can pursue any remaining claim in an individual action once the implementation proceedings have concluded unless the Consumer could have asserted the claim by way of objection pursuant to section 28 VDuG. Conversely, where a Consumer’s claim was wrongfully satisfied during implementation, the defendant must initiate individual recovery proceedings.

If the total collective sum is not entirely disbursed after the implementation procedure or should the provisionally determined costs exceed the final costs of the implementation procedure, any remaining balance shall be refunded to the defendant, section 37 VDuG.

Please see above at Sections 3.1 and 3.10 (overview and payout mechanisms). A preliminary redress judgment does not contain any enforceable relief. Enforcement of a final redress judgment is governed by the provisions on compulsory enforcement under the ZPO. If the judgment orders the undertaking to pay a collective sum, enforcement may be pursued by the qualified entity. Any payment made in satisfaction of the judgment is to be effected to the administrator.

Since 20 July 2024, the revised KapMuG has been in force on a permanent basis. The reform broadens the statute’s reach to additional information sources — including ratings, auditors’ reports and crypto‑asset disclosures (e.g. MiCA Whitepapers) — and aims to accelerate proceedings. The KapMuG will co‑exist alongside the proceedings under the VDuG. Looking ahead, no further legislative steps are currently on the horizon. The KapMuG and VDuG are to be evaluated by the German legislator after five years and an EU‑level review of the RAD is scheduled for 2028.