The framework for collective actions delivers vital access to justice and accountability
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.
US investors continue to value Britain’s strong rule of law, showing our legal framework attracts growth.
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.
A decade ago, a lobbying group funded by the same interests — Justice Not Profit — sought to derail the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It failed then, and the government should not let those same interests interfere in our system of justice and undermine the rule of law now.
What underpins confidence in Britain’s economy and supports growth is the strong rule of law, not shielding powerful corporations from accountability. That point was reaffirmed last week in a report from the Competition and Markets Authority, which stressed that a fair and predictable legal environment is essential for innovation and investment.
It was also echoed by Bain & Company’s Transatlantic Confidence Index, which found that US investors continued to value Britain’s strong rule of law. The message from global investors is
clear: far from deterring growth, our legal framework attracts it.
Opt-out proceedings often follow regulators’ findings of abuse of dominance or cartel behaviour. The significant costs of bringing these claims, borne by litigation funders, ensure that speculative claims are not pursued. Funders will only fund meritorious cases on the advice of counsel — they risk their entire investment if a claim is lost and the “loser pays” rule means that they are also on the hook for adverse costs.
The government should strengthen our young but vital opt-out regime that delivers access to justice and accountability by looking at how to extend its scope beyond competition, increasing access to justice and further strengthening the rule of law, thereby supporting the Davids and not the Goliaths of this world.
David Greene is co-president of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association and head of commercial disputes and class actions at the law firm Edwin Coe.
Read the full article published by The Times here.
Published on September 24, 2025 by CORLA