Introduction
When a single event harms a large group, a data breach, a cartel, a misleading prospectus or a defective product, litigating individually is often not worthwhile. The collective action bundles those interests in one set of proceedings. Since 1 January 2020 a representative organisation can also claim collective damages, under the Act on the Settlement of Mass Damage in a Collective Action (WAMCA). That makes the gateway to the procedure, the standing (admissibility) of the claiming foundation, the most hotly contested element.
The collective action and the WAMCA
The basis of the collective action is Article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC): a foundation or association with full legal capacity may bring a claim to protect the similar interests of others. Until 2020 that route allowed only a declaratory judgment or an injunction, not damages. The WAMCA made the collective damages action possible and replaced the loose provision with a detailed procedure in Article 1018b et seq. of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP). The Act applies to collective claims about events that took place on or after 15 November 2016; older facts remain governed by the former collective action law. A pending collective claim is entered in the central register of collective claims; other organisations then have three months to bring their own claim for the same event, so that parallel proceedings are avoided. Alongside the WAMCA there is the Act on the Collective Settlement of Mass Damage (WCAM, Article 7:907 DCC), under which a settlement reached between parties can be declared universally binding.
Standing: representativeness and safeguards
The crux lies in standing. The WAMCA tightened the requirements for the representative organisation: alongside representativeness, a sufficiently large and engaged constituency, governance and funding safeguards apply. The safeguard requirement of Article 3:305a(2) DCC demands that the interests of the constituency are sufficiently protected, among other things through an appropriate governance structure, a supervisory body, the absence of a profit motive and transparent funding. The Claims Code 2019 (Claimcode) serves as a benchmark. In the case concerning the Airbus investors, the Court of Appeal in The Hague held that a claim foundation without its own organisation, dependent for all its work and its funding on commercially operating third parties with a profit motive, does not meet that requirement; the structure qualified as entrepreneurial lawyering and the foundation was declared inadmissible (Court of Appeal The Hague 23 December 2025, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2025:2738).
What is decisive is that ultimate control over the claim stays with the organisation itself and not with the litigation funder. In the Vattenfall case the District Court of Amsterdam examined the funding agreement extensively against that principle (District Court of Amsterdam 25 October 2023, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:6683). That an initial defect may be curable is shown by the proceedings against Google: after the foundation had substantiated its representativeness and amended the funding agreement so that control rested with it, it was after all declared admissible (District Court of Amsterdam 19 March 2025, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:1859).
The exclusive representative, the narrowly defined group and opt-out
Where several organisations act for the same event, the court appoints one exclusive representative to conduct the collective action (Article 1018e DCCP); where there is only one foundation, that one is appointed. The court then defines the narrowly described group of persons whose interests the action concerns and the content of the claims. The opt-out phase follows: injured parties domiciled in the Netherlands are in principle bound by the outcome unless they declare within the set period that they do not wish to take part. Around that moment the court may also give the parties a period to attempt a settlement (Article 1018g DCCP). That is how the Google case proceeded, where the court scheduled the opt-out and the settlement period after declaring the foundation admissible.
International jurisdiction
Mass damage is often cross-border, so the jurisdiction of the Dutch court is a hurdle of its own. Where there are foreign defendants, the court may base its jurisdiction on the ordinary rules of the Brussels I-bis Regulation. The special anchor ground for co-defendants (Article 8(1) Brussels I-bis) applies, however, only to defendants domiciled in an EU Member State. In the Airbus case this meant that the Dutch court declined jurisdiction over directors resident outside the EU (Court of Appeal The Hague 23 December 2025, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2025:2738). The circle of parties that can be sued is therefore shaped in part by their place of establishment or residence.
Collective settlement and distribution
If the proceedings result in a settlement, the court can determine it at the joint request of the parties; it binds the whole group subject to opt-out. Outside pending WAMCA proceedings, a collective settlement agreement can be declared universally binding by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal under the WCAM (Article 7:907 DCC). In both routes the dispute shifts, after the questions of standing and liability, to the assessment and the distribution of the loss across the group.
What decides the outcome
The outcome of WAMCA proceedings is decided first of all in the preliminary phase: representativeness, governance and whether control over the claim genuinely rests with the organisation rather than with its funder. A party preparing a collective action, or defending against one, is well advised to set up the organisational structure, the funding agreement and the definition of the group early and sharply, because that is where the decision on access to the substantive hearing is made.