Spain

Before the Spanish Civil Procedure Law (Ley 1/2000, de Enjuiciamiento Civil) (LEC) was enacted, there was a fragmented, sector-specific framework for collective consumer protection. Under this framework, standing was conferred exclusively on consumer associations representing clearly identified consumers.

The LEC was a significant development, introducing collective actions and mechanisms to address diffuse interests (intereses difusos). Article 11 of the LEC broadened the standing of consumer associations, while Articles 221 and 222.3 of the LEC established criteria for identifying beneficiaries and extended the res judicata effects of judgments ultra partes.

At an international level, EU Directive 2020/1828 (“the Directive”) has primarily driven reform of collective action regimes. The Directive requires Member States to provide for representative actions for both injunctive and compensation measures, while leaving procedural implementation to national discretion. A draft bill (Proyecto de Ley) for the transposition of the Directive into Spanish law was submitted for parliamentary approval in March 2025 (“the Draft Bill”).

Spain has recently witnessed substantial collective action and mass claims litigation across multiple sectors, with competition law damages claims and consumer banking disputes being particularly prevalent.

In terms of quantity, the trucks cartel mass litigation is notable in that it has given rise to thousands of claims. However, the pace has slowed considerably as cases have been progressively withdrawn or settled, especially where their circumstances do not differ significantly from those already decided by the Supreme Court.

From a consumer mass litigation standpoint (which is the backbone of the current class action regime in Spain) the car manufacturer cartel case has been highly active, including seven collective actions that the Consumers Association filed against manufacturers who were fined by the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC) in 2015. Mass claim vehicles, including Cartel Damages Claims and Class Accelerator, have been used to file claims for thousands of car purchases through assignment of credit models. Additionally, consumer banking litigation increased significantly in 2025, involving loan arrangement fees, the IRPH (the mortgage benchmark index — Índice de Referencia de Préstamos Hipotecarios), floor clauses (including Spain’s largest collective proceedings brought by the consumer organisation the ADICAE — Asociación de Usuarios de Bancos, Cajas y Seguros — against 101 banking entities), and revolving credits.

The current class action regime under the LEC establishes a framework in which consumer associations are granted standing to defend their members, the interests of general consumers, and, depending on the determinability of affected parties, collective or diffuse interests pursuant to Article 11 of the LEC. Notably, the Public Prosecutor is also granted standing to bring such actions.

A public notice under Article 15 of the LEC invites affected consumers to participate, and judgments may set criteria for identifying beneficiaries while carrying ultra partes res judicata effects under Articles 221 and 222.3 of the LEC. If beneficiaries cannot be identified, Article 519 of the LEC allows unverified consumers to seek recognition of their beneficiary status via a simplified procedure, after which the court will verify whether they meet the criteria established in the judgment. Once recognised, such consumers may proceed to enforce the judgment in their favour, with the Public Prosecutor also empowered to initiate enforcement on behalf of affected consumers.

Collective actions in Spain are currently channelled through ordinary or verbal proceedings, depending on the subject matter and amount in question. Injunctive actions are specifically designated as verbal proceedings under Article 250.1.12 of the LEC. This procedural allocation highlights the absence of a dedicated collective redress procedure under the current LEC regime.

The current regime primarily focuses on consumer interests under the LEC. However, it is worth noting that the Directive is set to widen the scope of the potential collective action regime in Spain by introducing a minimum scope of application. The Spanish legislature intends to expand on this through the Draft Bill and subsequent legislative modifications.

Article 11 of the LEC distinguishes between three categories of collective interest protection:

• actions brought by consumer associations to defend the interests of its own members or the association itself;
• collective interests involving specific or easily identifiable groups, which may be pursued by associations or groups; and
• diffuse interests affecting indeterminate or difficult-to-determine populations, which may only be pursued by representative associations.

Judgments in these proceedings may determine specific beneficiaries or establish identifying criteria. As mentioned, res judicata effects of judgments extend to non-parties whose rights are represented through the parties’ standing.

Under the rules currently in place, the general procedural path comprises preliminary steps, followed by proceedings conducted through either the ordinary or verbal procedural channels, with no certification phase. Notice to affected consumers is provided under Article 15 of the LEC, with judgment and enforcement governed by Articles 221 and 519 of the LEC. As noted above, there is currently no special procedure for collective actions beyond this general procedural framework.

The Draft Bill sets out a special procedure within (what would become) the LEC’s Book IV, Title IV. Key stages include filing a claim under Article 844, followed by a certification hearing under Article 846 to determine that the claims are sufficiently similar, that the action is not manifestly unfounded and that there are no conflicts of interest regarding funding. The certification order under Article 848 of the Draft Bill defines the alleged conduct and class. After that, claimants have a two- to six-month opt-in or opt-out window, managed via an online platform in accordance with Article 849. The claim will then progress to trial, judgment, and tailored enforcement mechanisms.

Under the current LEC regime, third-party funding is not specifically regulated. The costs associated with notices and proceedings have historically deterred actions, with associations relying on membership fees and public aid, subject to various limitations.

This, however, is addressed by the Draft Bill, which will introduce third-party funding regulation, including comprehensive transparency requirements:

• Article 844.1.f requires claims to disclose funding sources and any third-party funding arrangements.
• Article 850 requires courts to refuse third-party funding where conflicts of interest exist and gives them the authority to demand the production of the financing contract, and to hold hearings with the funder.

Also, with regard to costs (i.e. overall expenses relating to the dispute):

• Articles 849.1 and 851.6 establish that platform and notification costs are recoverable procedural costs (more specific than the overall expenses).
• Articles 843 and 860 state that coercive fines will be imposed for non-compliance.
• Article 877.2 establishes that the liquidator’s fees will be paid from any lump sum award and requires the liquidator to have civil liability insurance.
• Article 860.7 requires the judgment to incorporate a decision on procedural costs, in line with Article 394 of the LEC.

Whether the framework established by the Draft Bill will provide sufficient incentives for funders to finance consumer associations remains to be seen.

Under the currently applicable regime, there are no special timelines for collective actions. Standard procedural deadlines apply, which are as follows:

• Ordinary proceedings: 20 working days to answer the claim.
• Verbal proceedings: 10 working days to answer the claim. As mentioned above, injunctive consumer actions are classified as verbal proceedings under Article 250.1.12 of the LEC.

The Draft Bill does introduce specific timeframes for collective proceedings; however, it distinguishes between compensation actions (acciones resarcitorias) and injunctive actions (acciones de cese):

• In compensation actions, the timeframe for a response to a claim is two months under Article 858.1 of the Draft Bill, followed by a 20-day period to propose evidence under Article 858.2. The certification hearing will be convened two to four months after admission, in accordance with Article 845.1 of the Draft Bill, and the opt-in or opt-out window will last from two to six months, as set out in Article 848.5.
• In injunctive actions, the timeframe for a response to a claim will be one month, in accordance with Article 841 of the Draft Bill. These actions will follow the current verbal proceedings procedural track, albeit with the following specifics:
  • the hearing (vista) will be mandatory in all cases except those falling under Article 443 of the LEC;
  • no certification hearing process will apply; and
  • no opt-in/opt-out mechanism will apply.

Under the current LEC regime, Article 11 establishes a tiered framework for standing in collective actions. This framework distinguishes between different categories of interests and the entities entitled to defend them:

• Legally constituted consumer associations are granted standing to defend the rights and interests of their members, the association itself, and the general interests of consumers in court (Article 11.1, LEC).
  • Where the affected parties constitute a determinate or easily determinable group, standing to pursue the protection of these collective interests extends to consumer associations, entities legally constituted for consumer protection, and the affected groups themselves (Article 11.2, LEC).
  • Where the affected parties are indeterminate or difficult to determine, standing to pursue the protection of these diffuse interests is reserved exclusively for consumer associations that meet representative criteria under the applicable law (Article 11.3, LEC).
• Qualified entities referred to in Article 6.1.8 of the LEC are granted standing to bring injunctive actions to defend collective and diffuse consumer interests. While courts will accept an entity’s presence on the official list as proof of its capacity to be a party, they retain the authority to examine whether that entity’s purpose and the affected interests justify exercising the action (Article 11.4, LEC).
• The Public Prosecutor is granted standing to take action to defend consumer interests (Article 11.5, LEC).

The Draft Bill will establish a framework of qualified entities who have standing to bring collective actions. Therefore, pursuant to Article 835 of the Draft Bill, standing will be granted to the following:

• the Public Prosecutor;
• entities designated in accordance with Article 54 of the Consolidated Text of the General Consumer Law, approved by Royal Legislative Decree 1/2007 of 16 November (Texto Refundido de la Ley General para la Defensa de los Consumidores y Usuarios); and
• entities designated in other EU Member States for cross-border collective actions, provided they were designated prior to the infringing conduct and appear on the list published by the European Commission.

Moreover, Article 835.3 of the Draft Bill allows for multiple qualified entities to jointly exercise the same collective action, regardless of the Member State in which they were designated, with costs shared equally unless otherwise agreed on or ordered by the court. Pursuant to Article 836.1 of the Draft Bill, the defendant may challenge the claimant entity’s eligibility within 20 days of the claim having been served or as soon as the relevant facts become known, providing prima facie evidence.

Under the current LEC regime, the classic opt-in/opt-out distinction cannot be readily identified, as neither mechanism has been formally established. The ultra partes res judicata effects under Article 222.3 of the LEC mean that judgments in collective proceedings bind consumers who did not participate, creating what functions as a default opt-in rule. However, the LEC does not provide consumers with any means to opt out of ongoing collective proceedings. This is particularly problematic in the context of Article 11.3 of the LEC, with concerns about the constitutionality of the current framework.

This gives context as to why the Draft Bill will establish opt-out as the general rule through Article 848.2, whereby all consumers will be bound unless they opt-out within a court-determined deadline. Exceptionally, according to Article 848.3 of the Draft Bill, the court may order that only those consumers who have expressly stated their intention to be bound will be affected by the action (opt-in), provided that:

• such a measure is necessary for the fair administration of justice in the circumstances of the case; and
• the amount claimed or the value of the remedy sought for each beneficiary exceeds EUR 3,000.

The court will set a period of two to six months in which to exercise opt-in or opt-out rights, managed through an online platform.

Currently, courts rely on their general case management powers under the LEC, with no certification phase established for collective actions.

The Draft Bill introduces a formal certification phase, which applies only to compensation actions. At this stage, the court will first address any procedural issues and then assess whether the claims are sufficiently similar and determine if they are manifestly unfounded. The court will also scrutinise potential conflicts arising from litigation funding. The certification order will be subject to appeal.

Under the present system, the competition damages framework allows access to sources of evidence on a proportional basis and provides confidentiality protections. Special access rules for competition damages are set out in Article 283 bis LEC.

Article 838.1 of the Draft Bill will provide access to sources of evidence through the competition damages framework. This will include mechanisms for identifying affected consumers, as well as confidentiality safeguards. Subject to proportionality and confidentiality limitations, courts will be able to order disclosure from defendants or third parties, including for the purpose of identifying affected consumers. The competition damages disclosure rules under Article 283 bis LEC will apply mutatis mutandis.

Under the current LEC regime, available remedies include damages and restitution pursuant to general provisions, with judgments establishing criteria for identifying beneficiaries under Article 221 of the LEC.

The Draft Bill provides for both injunctions and a broad set of compensation measures, as set out in Articles 830 and 831. Judgments may include detailed compliance directives, per capita or category-based awards pursuant to Article 860.2, and coercive fines under Articles 843 and 860. The full range of remedies includes orders for cessation, declaratory relief, compensation, repair, replacement, price reduction and contract termination.

The current LEC regime lacks a dedicated ADR framework for collective settlements. Instead, these are governed by the following general procedural rules:

• Article 19 of the LEC establishes the general right of parties to dispose of the subject matter of the proceedings, including through settlement, provided this does not contravene the law or harm third-party or public interests.
• Article 415 of the LEC governs court approval for settlement agreements reached during proceedings (homologación), with approved settlements having the effects of a transacción judicial, meaning they are as binding as a final judgment and are enforceable through execution procedures for court-approved agreements.
• Article 221 of the LEC imposes specific requirements for judgments in consumer collective actions, including determining beneficiaries and establishing whether declaratory rulings have ultra partes
• Article 15 of the LEC requires the admission of claims brought by consumer associations to be published in the media and circulated in the affected area. This calls on affected consumers to assert their individual rights.

The Draft Bill will introduce much-needed collective settlement proceedings through Articles 864–872, which will require mandatory court approval (homologación) to determine whether settlements harm consumer interests or violate mandatory legal provisions. Settlements reached after certification will bind the certified class, while pre-certification settlements will require verification that certification requirements and approval criteria have been satisfied.

Currently, a prior court order recognising their entitlement for enforcement is needed to enforce a collective claim where beneficiaries remain unidentified, pursuant to Article 519 of the LEC. In such cases, the claimant is only responsible for distributing any sums recovered.

The Draft Bill will introduce an independent liquidator model for distributions under Article 877. This article requires the liquidator to be an accounting expert with at least 10 years’ experience, to hold civil liability insurance, and to be subject to the rules governing insolvency administrators. The liquidator should be appointed by agreement of the parties, or by a professional association if no agreement can be reached. They will be responsible for distributing lump sum awards where beneficiaries are not fully identified. Any excess funds will be returned to the defendant.

Under the current regime, res judicata in consumer-based collective litigation applies to all parties falling within the scope of Article 11 of the LEC. This encompasses not only perfectly determined parties (Article 11.2), but also indeterminate or difficult-to-determine parties (Article 11.3). The claimant association is responsible for enforcement, which must comply with the general LEC provisions and consumer-specific rules. Costs are awarded pursuant to Article 394 of the LEC.

Under the Draft Bill, res judicata will bind the certified class and those who have opted in. The Draft Bill also establishes detailed compliance mechanisms, coercive fines, and simplified consumer enforcement. Filing a collective action suspends the limitation period for individual claims, which begins to run again for any claimant upon opting out.

Finally, Article 843 of the Draft Bill sets out per diem fines ranging from EUR 600 to EUR 60,000 for non-compliance with a judgment.

As explained in Sections 2.1 and 3, above, Spain is currently undergoing significant legislative reform to transpose the Directive through the Draft Bill, which was submitted to parliament in March 2025.

The Draft Bill represents a significant overhaul of the Spanish collective action regime, introducing key innovations including:

• a formal certification phase for compensation actions;
• an opt-out mechanism as the general rule, with limited opt-in exceptions;
• mandatory third-party funding disclosure and judicial oversight; and
• specialised enforcement mechanisms, including the introduction of an independent liquidator model for the distribution of collective awards.

Upon enactment, the Draft Bill will place Spain within the group of EU Member States that have comprehensive collective compensation mechanisms, while preserving procedural autonomy in line with the Spanish civil law tradition. Although the exact date of its entry into force remains to be confirmed through the parliamentary process, the government’s decision to pursue the urgent legislative procedure suggests that implementation is a priority.

Moreover, the legislature’s decision to incorporate this new special procedure into the existing LEC framework reflects a deliberate intention to address existing deficiencies through consolidation, rather than creating an additional procedural system. Any future refinement of the regime is therefore likely to develop through judicial interpretation and legislative adjustments that build upon this established framework, maintaining the balance between procedural efficiency and robust judicial oversight that characterises the Spanish legal system.