The Netherlands

The Netherlands has developed a sophisticated collective actions regime over the past three decades. Key policy drivers include increasing access to justice and the desire to channel mass claims efficiently through the courts. The foundation was laid in 1994 with the introduction of Article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC), which allowed representative claim organisations (foundations and associations) to bring collective actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, but not damages. In 2005, the Act on Collective Settlement of Mass Claims (WCAM) was introduced, enabling the Amsterdam Court of Appeal to declare settlement agreements in mass damage cases binding on all affected parties on an opt-out basis. The WCAM was notably used, amongst others, in the Shell/Royal Dutch (2009) and Converium (2012) settlements (both securities disputes) and was regarded internationally as a pioneering mechanism. The most significant reform came on 1 January 2020, when the Act on the Resolution of Mass Claims in Collective Actions (WAMCA) entered into force. The WAMCA introduced the possibility for claim organisations to claim collective damages on an opt-out basis. In 2023 the EU Representative Actions Directive was implemented, introducing the definition “qualified entity” in the already existing broader collective redress mechanism.

All class actions under the current regime (WAMCA) are registered on a website hosted by the judiciary. There is not an easily accessible and reliable source that gives a full overview of the number of class actions that are currently pending. The WAMCA was recently evaluated. The evaluation report noted 71 class actions that were registered in the WAMCA’s first five years.

The most prominent topical areas include securities fraud and financial misrepresentation, consumer protection and product liability, data privacy and GDPR violations, (e.g. cases against major tech companies), environmental and climate litigation, unfair commercial practices, product liability, competition law damages and public interest litigation. The Netherlands has emerged as a leading European jurisdiction for collective redress, attracting both domestic and cross-border claims.

The current Dutch class action regime is governed primarily by the WAMCA, which amended Article 3:305a of the DCC. The current regime applies to:

• Claims issued on or after 1 January 2020.
• Claims relating to events (e.g. a damage occurring event) dating 15 November 2016 or later.

The WAMCA allows claim organisations (foundations and associations) to bring collective actions for damages on behalf of a class of injured parties. The collective court approved settlement route (WCAM) continues to operate alongside the WAMCA. Key features of the WAMCA include:

• A mandatory claim registration in a central register.
• A selection procedure where, if multiple organisations file on the same event, the court appoints an Exclusive Representative (inspired by the U.S. lead plaintiff model).
• An opt-out mechanism for persons residing in the Netherlands and an opt-in mechanism for foreign claimants.
• Standing requirements for claim organisations.
• The possibility of court-awarded collective damages.

The EU Representative Actions Directive ((EU) 2020/1828) (the “RAD”) has been implemented into Dutch law, largely aligning with the existing WAMCA framework.

The WAMCA applies broadly to all areas of civil law. There are no subject matter restrictions. In practice, collective actions have been brought in areas including securities and financial services law, consumer protection, product liability, data privacy and GDPR, environmental law and climate change, competition/cartel damages, employment law, insurance, health and pharmaceuticals, and unfair commercial practices. Both contractual and non-contractual (tort) claims can be pursued collectively.

Dutch law does not provide for a formal definition of the term “class action”. Under Dutch law a class action usually refers to an action brought under the statutory class action regime (WAMCA). The action is representative in nature. The organisation acts on behalf of a defined class of affected persons, and any judgment or approved settlement can bind all class members (subject to opt-out or opt-in rules).

However, the definition is also used in relation to proceedings relating to bundled claims. Dutch law allows this as an alternative to the typical class action, whereby one person (entity or individual) files a (large) number of claims on behalf of a group of parties. This is generally structured by powers-of-attorney, (exclusive) mandates or by way of assignment of claims. The latter model is common in cartel follow-on damages claims and has recently been used in environmental damages.

A WAMCA proceeding typically follows the following stages:

• Filing and registration. The claim organisation files a writ of summons with the Amsterdam District Court and registers the action in a central public register.
• Waiting period. A three-month period applies from registration, during which other organisations can file competing claims regarding the same damage occurring event.
• Standing phase including Exclusive Representative appointment. The court verifies compliance with the formal requirements and, if multiple organisations have filed, the court selects one Exclusive Representative based on criteria such as representativeness, governance, expertise, and track record.
• Opt-out period. The court sets a period during which Dutch-domiciled class members can opt out, and foreign class members can opt in.
• Substantive proceedings. The merits of the claim are litigated, often involving written pleadings, oral hearings, and potentially expert evidence.
• Judgment or settlement. The court renders a judgment on liability and damages, or the parties may reach a settlement which can be submitted for court approval under the WAMCA or the WCAM.
• Distribution. Damages are distributed to class members.

Third-party litigation funding is permitted and widely used in the Netherlands. Claim foundations typically rely on external funding from professional litigation funders to finance proceedings. There are no statutory restrictions on litigation funding, though the WAMCA contains certain requirements regarding third party litigation funding. In short, the funding arrangement should:

• Sufficiently secure that the foundation and its board members can determine the strategy independently from the funder.
• Provide for sufficient funding to conduct the proceedings in first instance.

In light of this requirement, the court may order claim organisations to disclose their funding arrangement. The governance of the representative organisation (including the funding agreement) should ensure class members’ interests are adequately protected. Contingency fees for lawyers (as common in the U.S. and UK) are prohibited under Dutch bar rules.

The Dutch “loser pays” rule applies. The losing party may be ordered to pay a contribution towards the winning party’s legal costs, though these cost awards are typically very modest by international standards and are based on standardised tariffs rather than actual costs incurred. The consequence of this system is that the parties (regardless of whether they win or lose) will, to a large extent, bear their own lawyer fees. By way of example, in a recent final judgment in a collective action, the court ordered the claim organisation to pay adverse costs amounting to EUR 38,000 to the defendants, after its claim was rejected on the merits. In the Netherlands an adverse cost insurance is not common.

The WAMCA introduced two exceptions to this system. If a claim is clearly and manifestly unfounded, the plaintiff organisation may be required to pay up to five times the standard tariff. If a claim for damages is awarded, the court may award the actual costs incurred by the plaintiff organisation. No example of these more comprehensive cost award exists, making it unclear what costs this may cover in practice.

In general, on top of the three-month term for representative organisations to issue a competing claim, the duration of the standing phase is 12 to 18 months. The duration of the merits phase will depend on the nature of the claim and whether a separate quantum phase is requested or ordered by the court. In general, the expectation is that the merits phase will also last 12 to 18 months. Recently, on 17 December 2025, the final judgment on the merits in WAMCA proceedings regarding the Allergan breast implants case was handed down by the Amsterdam District Court. The writ of summons was issued early 2023, resulting in a total duration of approximately three years.

The cause for the relatively long duration of the proceedings is two-fold. Firstly, the current regime is relatively new and therefore is partly uncharted territory. Secondly, connected to the first point, parties (mainly defendants) have been able to raise (existing and new) formal points requiring the court to stage (further) proceedings and render interim decisions, resulting in delays. It is expected that, now courts are becoming more familiar with the current regime (WAMCA), the duration of proceedings will become shorter. This is especially true since the first Supreme Court judgments on procedural topics will become available shortly, providing the courts with more guidance when applying the WAMCA regime, allowing them to prevent delays.

Under the WAMCA, only foundations and associations have standing to bring a collective action. Individual persons cannot initiate WAMCA proceedings. The claim organisation must satisfy requirements under Article 3:305a DCC. In addition, there is a specific set of soft law governance rules applicable to representative entities (the “Claimcode”). The Claimcode provides for a comply-or-explain-regime. To what extent the Claimcode is adhered to will have significant weight in the court’s assessment of the standing of the claim vehicle, and in determining the Exclusive Representative of the class action in case of competing initiatives.

The requirements that the representative organisation should satisfy include:

• Its articles of association must describe the interest it seeks to protect.
• It must have a professional board and a supervisory body (e.g., a supervisory board).
• It must enjoy sufficient support among class members.
• It must have mechanisms to ensure class members can influence decision-making.
• It must have adequate governance and transparency, including publication of key documents on its website.
• It must have sufficient financial resources to conduct the proceedings in first instance.
• It must have a sufficient track record or demonstrate that it can adequately represent class members’ interests.

The latter requirement does not preclude special purpose or ad hoc representative organisations from initiating collective proceedings. Additionally, the claim organisation must have tried to achieve the desired result through consultation with the defendant before filing suit (i.e. a letter before action inviting the potential defendant to initiate settlement negotiations).

If the court finds the requirements above are not met, the claim will be declared inadmissible.

The WAMCA uses a dual opt-out/opt-in mechanism. For persons residing in the Netherlands, the default is opt-out: they are automatically bound by the outcome unless they actively opt out during a court-determined opt-out period. For persons not residing in the Netherlands, the mechanism is opt-in: they must actively register to be covered by the proceedings and bound by the outcome. Upon request, the court may deviate from this allowing foreigners to be bound on an opt-out basis as well.

The class members are determined by the representative entity in the articles of association and/or in the writ of summons (the document by which proceedings are initiated). The representative entity has great liberty in determining the scope of the class. The court may reject a collective action if the interests of the class members are insufficiently similar (commonality requirement) or if a collective action is not a more efficient and effective means of resolving the dispute than individual proceedings. The mere fact that the quantum requires assessment of individual circumstances does not preclude the claims from being part of a collective action. It is allowed to divide the class into sub-classes. The class is typically defined by the court in its order appointing the Exclusive Representative.

The legal regime largely determines the default steps in the proceedings as described above. In general, Dutch courts have a broad discretion to determine the case management. Upon the parties’ request a case management hearing may be scheduled. The court can:

• Appoint or replace the Exclusive Representative.
• Set the scope and definition of the class.
• Determine the opt-out period for Dutch class members and the opt-in period for foreign class members.
• Order bifurcation of liability and quantum phases.
• Appoint experts.
• Order disclosure of documents.
• Schedule oral hearings.
• Refer parties to mediation or encourage settlement.
• Set procedural timetables.
• Make any other order it considers necessary for the efficient conduct of the proceedings.

The court can also issue preliminary judgments on common issues of fact or law. These case management powers are broad and flexible, allowing the court to tailor the procedure to the circumstances of each case.

The Netherlands does not have a common-law style discovery or disclosure regime. There is no general obligation of pre-trial discovery. However, parties may request specific document disclosure. Fishing expeditions are not allowed. A party must demonstrate a legitimate interest in the documents, that the documents relate to a legal relationship to which the requesting party is a party, and that the documents are sufficiently specified. The court may reject the request if there are compelling reasons to do so or if the proper administration of justice is assured without disclosure or in case the information is privileged. In WAMCA proceedings, disclosure requests may be particularly relevant in the context of financial information (potentially relevant for the quantum phase), internal communications and expert reports.

Under the WAMCA, the court can award declaratory relief (establishing that the defendant acted unlawfully), injunctive relief (ordering the defendant to take or refrain from certain actions), and (since 2020) collective damages. The WAMCA provides for damages calculated on a collective basis, allowing the court to determine aggregate compensation. Punitive damages are not available under Dutch law. The court may award damages in a lump sum or establish a framework for individual damage calculations. Statutory interest can be awarded. Non-pecuniary damages are available only in limited circumstances prescribed by law. The court can also order the defendant to make an offer of settlement to the class, and if the defendant fails to comply, the court can determine the terms of the settlement itself.

Settlement is actively encouraged in Dutch collective actions. Under the WCAM (which remains in force alongside the WAMCA), parties can jointly submit a collective settlement agreement to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal for approval. Once approved, the settlement becomes binding on all class members (subject to an opt-out right). The court will assess whether the settlement is fair and reasonable, considering factors such as the amount of compensation, the nature and extent of the damage, and the likelihood of success at trial. The WAMCA also allows the court to order the defendant to make a settlement proposal.

There is no mandatory ADR requirement before filing a WAMCA action. Claim organisations must demonstrate they have sent a letter before action, inviting the potential defendant for settlement discussions. When proceedings are pending, courts have the discretion to encourage the parties to initiate mediation. There is an early stage trend visible in this respect, for example, such mediation resulted into a settlement with Volkswagen regarding the “Dieselgate” affair. Also, pre-WAMCA, a significant number of collective disputes are resolved through settlement (Dexia, Shell/Royal Dutch, DSB Bank and Fortis/Ageas).

Distribution of damages to class members is typically managed by the claim organisation or a dedicated claims administrator appointed for that purpose. In WCAM settlement proceedings, the settlement agreement sets out the claims process, including how class members must register, what evidence they must provide, and the timeline for payments. The court can oversee the distribution process. It is also common that representative entities will have powers to monitor the handling of the claims, with or without the appointment of an accountant. In WAMCA judgments, the court can establish a distribution framework or order the defendant to pay into a fund from which class members are compensated. The claim organisation is responsible for ensuring an efficient distribution, and any remaining funds after distribution must be applied for purposes closely related to the interests of the class. The litigation funder’s share of any damages is typically set out in the funding agreement and is subject to scrutiny by the court to ensure it is reasonable and does not unduly reduce the compensation received by class members.

A WAMCA judgment is binding on all class members who did not opt out (for Dutch residents) or who opted in (for foreign claimants). Judgments are subject to appeal (a full new factual and legal round) and subsequently to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (limited to points of law). Judgments are commonly declared provisionally enforceable, allowing enforcement pending appeal. Enforcement of Dutch judgments within the EU is governed by the Brussels I Recast Regulation. A judgment obtained in the Netherlands is therefore generally enforceable throughout the EU. The same applies to the UK, due to the Hague Convention on Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. For enforcement outside the EU and the UK, other bilateral or multilateral treaties may apply. The Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (2019) may further facilitate cross-border enforcement as it gains ratifications.

The WAMCA is still a relatively new regime and the Dutch legislator has signalled that it will be evaluated after several years of operation.