Ireland - Market Insights

Collective redress in Ireland after the 2023 Act: early lessons, funding constraints, and the path ahead

Ireland’s first formal collective redress regime commenced in April 2024, and the first claim brought under that regime reinforces early concerns that it will be shaped as much by funding constraints as by statutory design. The Representative Actions for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers Act 2023 (the “2023 Act”) creates a dedicated High Court procedure for qualified entities to seek injunctive relief and redress measures on behalf of consumers. The first case brought under the regime, Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) v. Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited, is a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief only. Until Ireland reforms its rules on third-party litigation funding, injunction-led actions are likely to dominate, while large-scale, redress claims will remain difficult to launch.

The 2023 Act: scope, standing, and remedies

Class actions in Ireland are rare. Prior to the enactment of the 2023 Act, class actions had no statutory footing and were litigated according to the procedural rules governing general litigation. The 2023 Act, which transposes the EU Representative Actions Directive introduced, for the first time in Ireland, a formal procedure for consumer collective actions.

A representative action brought under the 2023 Act must be brought in the High Court by a “qualified entity”, a designated non-profit body or public authority with a demonstrable consumer-protection mandate. As at early 2026, three organisations have been designated as qualified entities by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, namely, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Digital Rights Ireland, and NOYB (European Center for Digital Rights), all of which have a strong focus on digital rights and privacy issues. Indeed, comments from one such qualified entity signals an intention to utilise the 2023 Act procedure as a means of enforcement against a number of prominent tech companies headquartered in Ireland.

Injunctions and redress

Class formation under the 2023 Act depends on the relief sought. Where a qualified entity seeks an injunction, individual consumers are not required to notify the qualified entity that they wish to be represented by that qualified entity before admissibility. However, the qualified entity is still required to provide sufficient information regarding the consumers in the class.

By contrast, representative actions seeking redress operate on an opt-in basis. Each consumer must notify the qualified entity using prescribed forms before admissibility is determined. Once the consumer is represented by the qualified entity, the consumer is bound by the outcome and may not bring the same claim individually or join another representative action against the same trader for the same cause of action. The qualified entity also has a number of notification requirements for each consumer at this early stage.

Importantly, the 2023 Act pauses certain limitation periods for individual consumers in redress actions from the date of admissibility, protecting their individual rights while collective proceedings are ongoing. Final determinations on the existence of an infringement are also admissible in evidence in subsequent redress proceedings.

ICCL v. Microsoft: the first case under the 2023 Act

ICCL v. Microsoft, the first case brought by a qualified entity under the 2023 Act, was issued in May 2025 and admitted to the Commercial List in June 2025. The claim is indicative of how qualified entities are likely to utilise the procedure in its formative years and how the court will treat such claims. It being admitted to the Commercial List, along with comments made by the court during preliminary case management hearings, indicates that the High Court will prioritise claims brought under the 2023 Act.

The claim seeks declaratory and injunctive relief restraining the processing of personal data used as part of Microsoft’s real-time bidding processes. The nature of the reliefs sought to eliminate the need to recruit and verify an opt-in class before admissibility, removing a major source of friction, cost, and delay for the qualified entity. Accordingly, the claim has been brought by ICCL on behalf of all affected consumers in Ireland.

While limiting the upfront costs for a qualified entity, a claim seeking injunctive relief only is often no less costly for defendants than a claim for redress. Aside from the operational costs involved in complying with such an order, a defendant is also at risk of further collective and individual claims arising from a finding of an infringement, given that such a finding is admissible in evidence in any other action seeking redress against the same defendant for the same practice.

The funding gap: consumers shielded, qualified entities exposed

While the 2023 Act offers strong protection to individual consumers by insulating them from adverse costs in the ordinary course, subject only to a narrow exception, the cost risk for qualified entities, who are required to be non-profit entities, is significant. Ireland’s general “costs follow the event” rule applies, and there is no specific cost protection provided for unsuccessful qualified entities.

Third-party litigation funding, save for limited exceptions, is prohibited in Ireland under the offences of maintenance and champerty. Additionally, civil legal aid is expressly unavailable where an applicant is a member of a group acting with the same interest. As such, qualified entities are very much restricted in how they can fund claims under the 2023 Act and, it would seem for time being, such restrictions are limiting the nature of the reliefs sought under the 2023 Act.

While the 2023 Act does provide for a funding supervision mechanism under section 27 (which implements Article 10 of the EU Representative Actions Directive), until such time as third-party litigation funding is permitted section 27 has limited immediate effect domestically. The provision also does not apply to actions seeking only injunctive relief.

As a result, qualified entities are unlikely to pursue opt-in redress actions under the 2023 Act in the first instance. Qualified entities may, like the ICCL, be limited to declaratory and injunctive relief under the 2023 Act until funding rules are reformed. However, should a qualified entity succeed under an “injunction first” strategy, any follow-on redress claim, either as part of a collective action or brought by an individual claimant, may then become more attractive. For a collective claim, the qualified entity may utilise any cost windfall from the injunctive proceedings in a redress claim where liability may be streamlined.

Practical implications for businesses

Businesses operating in consumer-facing sectors in Ireland should treat the 2023 Act as a live compliance and litigation risk. In Ireland, businesses which carry a large data protection and digital privacy burden are likely to be at greater risk of a claim from an Irish qualified entity. Defence strategies and reserves should account for the likelihood of injunction-first litigation, potentially followed by redress claims where funding can be assembled.

Funding reform horizon

The Law Reform Commission is currently assessing responses to the Third-Party Litigation Funding Consultation Paper 2023 (published on 17 June 2023), and its final report is awaited. The Consultation Paper outlines how the current far-reaching prohibition on third-party litigation funding acts as a serious barrier to access to justice. It also considered section 27 of the 2023 Act as a mechanism for addressing certain concerns with third-party litigation funding. Further policy developments in relation to third-party litigation funding in Ireland are not expected before the final report of the Law Reform Commission which is expected in late spring 2026.

The European Commission has indicated that it will not proceed with plans to regulate third-party litigation funding and will instead give priority to monitoring the application of the Representative Actions Directive. As such, the funding issues for qualified entities arising from Ireland’s prohibition on third-party litigation funding will likely shape the nature of claims brought under the 2023 Act for the foreseeable future.

Conclusion

Ireland’s collective redress regime presently operates in the shadow of a third-party funding prohibition. The first claim under the 2023 Act sends an early signal that injunctive relief will be a qualified entity’s preferred procedure until the financing gap is bridged.

Notwithstanding this limitation, the 2023 Act is altering the litigation risk profile for consumer‑facing businesses, as injunction‑led claims test compliance, generate findings on infringement and may create momentum for subsequent collective or individual redress claims. Funding reform may change this landscape, although such reform is not expected in the near future.