Ministers should expand opt-out regime, not review its existence

David Greene, our Head of Commercial Disputes & Class Actions, and the founding Co-President of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA) recently contributed an article to The Times discussing the DBT’s review of the collective actions opt-out regime, arguing that the Government should not let the interests of big business take precedence, potentially undermining the rule of law.

Large corporations lobbying the Department for Business and Trade in its review of the UK’s opt-out regime seek to prioritise the interests of US corporations over the British public and businesses.

Introduced only a decade ago, the opt-out regime is still in its infancy. It was created to ensure that both consumers and businesses could obtain redress when powerful corporations break competition law, by abusing their dominance, or colluding in cartels.

Collective actions provide an efficient and proportionate way to hold wrongdoers to account and ensure that compensation is available to those affected, with the added benefit of deterring bad actors from breaking the law. To suggest that the regime is a burden on business is to turn its purpose on its head.

So why is the government reviewing the existence of this regime? The questions posed in the department’s call for evidence appear to reflect the manifesto of the US Chamber of Commerce, the world’s most powerful lobbying organisation, which represents the world’s largest companies and arguably aims to thwart the availability of litigation funding that ensures access to justice.

Read the full article in The Times (subscription may be required)