Germany - Market Insights

Developments in the field of class actions in Germany to date

In Germany, the field of “class actions” is in flux. The need for more efficient procedural mechanisms to deal with the modern phenomenon of mass damages litigation has been discussed in Germany for some time, which has led to the gradual introduction of various measures to address this need.

The debate was triggered by mass securities litigation following the (third) securities flotation by Deutsche Telekom in 2000 resulting in the introduction of the so-called Kapitalanleger-Musterverfahrens-Gesetz (KapMuG) in 2005, a form of model proceedings in securities-related litigation which was revised in 2024.

It received further attention when new assignment-based bundling models for the assertion of cartel damages claims emerged and were heavily tested in the German courts (e.g. the cartel damage claims (CDC) cases in the Cement and Hydrogen Peroxide matters). The German courts were initially sceptical about whether bundling such claims was appropriate or legally valid, but this scepticism was ultimately dispelled by the Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) (BGH II ZR 84/20).

The diesel emissions (mass) litigation, which began in 2015, with its thousands of individual court actions, led to the introduction of a regime in 2018 where, for the first time, one representative could seek declaratory relief on the merits of (mass damages) claims for the benefit of a group of (opt-in) claimants: the so-called Declaratory Model Action (Musterfeststellungsklage).

Transposing the EU Representative Actions Directive (RAD), in October 2023 Germany then enacted a new law for the assertion of redress claims by a representative of a group of (potential) claimants with the so-called Verbraucherrechtedurchsetzungsgesetz (VDuG), into which the existing Declaratory Model Action was integrated. In doing so, the German legislator exceeded the minimum standards prescribed by the RAD in some areas but took a conservative approach overall compared to other, more claimant-friendly jurisdictions, such as the Netherlands. The VDuG was partly praised for protecting businesses against “US class action-style” litigation. However, some criticised its lack of teeth, inter alia referring to restrictions on legal standing of qualified entities, the lengthy process, or the strict litigation financing requirements.

In September 2024 the German legislator enacted the so-called Leitentscheidungsverfahren, which, in the context of mass litigation cases pending in the court system, gives the FCJ the opportunity to provide general guidance to the lower courts by opining on questions viewed as central to numerous similar cases, even when the case before the FCJ has been withdrawn or settled. Such FCJ opinion may not have the binding effect of an actual decision but is intended to provide clarity in the proceedings pending in the lower courts (where cases might be suspended until guidance is given by the FCJ) and thus facilitate decisions on those pending cases. A common strategy of defendants had previously been to settle cases before the FCJ reached a final judgment, in order to avoid the creation of an FCJ precedent that could be used in the lower courts where such a precedent could be deemed unhelpful to defendants.

The current status of mass damages litigation in Germany

Have the legislative attempts to facilitate the collective or representative handling of mass damages claims helped to reduce the volume and complexity of mass damages litigation in the German courts?

Two conclusions can be drawn to date.

Mass damages litigation in Germany remains a diverse playing field

The regimes available in Germany for collective redress (VDuG) and model representative actions (KapMuG) so far seem to fall short of providing the one predominant (one-size-fits-all) mechanism for the collective assertion of mass damages claims that is needed to vastly reduce the number of individual mass damages actions to a more digestible level for the German judiciary.

Despite its recent revision, the representative model action of the KapMuG in securities litigation cases is unlikely to have a notable impact. It remains limited in its scope of application, and it is widely regarded as unattractively cumbersome and lengthy.

The VDuG, with its collective redress and declaratory relief options, at first glance seems to suffer from its inherent limitations, being designed to avoid broader use of the regime and “US style class actions”. In fact, since its introduction two-and-a-half years ago, a mere 16 cases have been initiated to date. Those 16 cases broadly relate to three different categories of claims:

• alleged data protection violations and their consequences (mainly relating to large IT services and platform providers);
• unilateral price adjustments under long-term contracts for the provision of consumer services (energy supplies, streaming and telecoms services); and
• individual contract rights and entitlements with a wide-ranging effect on consumers.

However, a third of these cases have been initiated within the first two months of 2026, and this may indicate that collective redress under the VDuG is picking up.

Notably, in those mass damages cases claimants continue to use the entire range of procedural means available to pursue their rights and entitlements.

Regarding the choice of measures provided by the VDuG, the claims are quite evenly spread across the three options:

• pure redress (payment/damages) claims (5 out of 16 claims);
• mere declaratory relief (6 out of 16 claims); and
• a combination of declaratory relief and actual redress (5 out of 16 claims).

The individual circumstances and strategic approaches taken by claimant law firms influence the means chosen in each case. It is worth noting in this context, however, that detailed requests for declaratory relief have been submitted particularly in those cases in which large and globally active platform services providers like Meta and Amazon are challenged in relation to their business models and business conduct regarding data protection and online platform services. In these cases it seems from the declaratory relief sought to be a primary objective of claimants to seek far-reaching clarifications from the courts on a broad range of yet unresolved legal issues that go beyond the case at hand and have significant litigation potential in related or similar cases (in particular in respect of data protection regulatory issues under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)).

Regarding procedural options outside of the collective actions regime of the VDuG, one can observe that numerous proceedings relating to mass damages scenarios are still brought as individual actions in the German courts, either as truly individual claims or in the form of bundled claims that have been bought and assigned often in parallel to collective actions under the VDuG (e.g. the Meta data-scraping case, BGH, VI ZR 10/24). This may be due in part to the limitations of the collective redress proceedings and factual differences between the cases that may necessitate litigation on an individual basis. However, one factor appears to play a significant role in this phenomenon: the strong and sophisticated claimant industry that emerged during the diesel emission cases. The VDuG leaves sufficient room for players within the claimant law firm community to maintain their mass litigation-based business models, and parallel developments such as the widely permitted bundling models and the increasing IT sophistication of such players provide the means to do so efficiently.

Continuing need to adopt to the complexity of mass damages litigation

As a result of the above-mentioned factors, mass damages litigation in Germany continues to be a complex undertaking for defendants.

The fact that mass damages claims are brought through a range of different means requires affected companies to deal with such claims in parallel on a number of different litigation fronts, making consistent case handling and strategy a complex, resource-intense and costly undertaking. In an international context where claims are being pursued in different jurisdictions at the same time, a further layer of complexity is added.

Companies active in areas that are particularly prone to mass damages litigation are well advised to assess their exposure, put strategies in place for such challenges and closely monitor case building exercises on the part of claimants. While the latter is easier to track where consumer protection organisations are required to report on their case building under the VDuG, activities of other claimant industry players are less transparent. As a rule of thumb, the higher the potential upside of a claim (the claim value), the more likely it will be for claimant activities to be invested in the pursuit of claims outside the collective actions regime under the VDuG, thereby increasing the need for a coordinated defence across multiple fora.

Whether the German court system will be able to efficiently handle an apparently increasing number of mass litigation cases in this diverse mass litigation landscape remains to be seen. This will depend on how well the system adapts to the challenges of modern mass claims mechanics. Various solutions are being discussed, but apart from the Leitentscheidungsverfahren, no significant step forward has been made to date.

For defendants, this means that once a company is drawn into a larger mass damages case, it is likely to stay involved for a longer period of time with limited opportunities to comprehensively settle cases early.