Search

Class actions enable consumers to take collective action against wrongdoing by businesses, which individual consumers may not find affordable or worthwhile. One of the drivers of the success of class actions has been the availability of funding to litigants. Along with these benefits come risks of abuse of the legal process. This article discusses how mixed jurisdictions have selectively adapted the uniquely American model of class action to suit their own circumstances. It argues that this experience is instructive for Member States of the European Union (EU) when they legislate to put in place a representative regime compatible with the EU's Representative Action Directive. Notably, the EU has retained the right to institute class actions in the hands of independent bodies rather than affected consumers, aiming to mitigate potential abuses and ensure a more balanced approach to collective redress. The article highlights the principal differences between the American model and the model the EU has adopted, focusing on the perceived role of the state and private initiatives in consumer protection, the nature of compensation that consumers could receive, how class actions are funded by the state or private agencies, and the role of the judge in legal proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article describes the GameStop short squeeze of January 2021, which was driven by retail investors from the online Reddit forum r/WallStreetBets. The short squeeze resulted in unprecedented market volatility and significant losses for institutional investors like hedge funds, leading to controversial trading restrictions by brokerages like Robinhood. This case study uses the GameStop saga to delve into key legal and ethical issues pertinent to an undergraduate business law class, including market manipulation, regulatory oversight/compliance, and conflicts of interest. It also examines fiduciary duties and class action lawsuits. By ex ploring these aspects, the study highlights the event's educational value in demonstrating many real-life examples of business law concepts while underscoring the need for robust regulatory frameworks in an era shaped by social media and technological advances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In practice, the ultimate outcome of many important discrimination cases, for example, the Wal-Mart, Nike and Goldman-Sachs equal pay cases, is determined at the stage when the plaintiffs request that the case be certified as a class action. The primary statistical issue at this time is whether the employment practice in question leads to a common pattern of outcomes disadvantaging most plaintiffs. However, there are no formal procedures or government guidelines for checking whether an employment practice results in a common pattern of disparity. This article proposes using the slightly modified likelihood ratio test and the one-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test to examine data relevant to deciding whether this commonality requirement is satisfied. Data considered at the class certification stage from several actual cases are analyzed by the proposed procedures. The results often show that the employment practice at issue created a common pattern of disparity, however, based on the evidence presented to the courts, the class action requests were denied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Taiwan Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Court appeal is an integral component of the constitutional right to judicial protection. This paper introduces ways to improve the institution of civil court costs through the prism of justice accessibility. The author studied the optimal mechanisms for paying state fees at civil court; the direct connection between the benefits for the payment of state duty, the principle of justice accessibility, and the right to judicial protection; grounds for granting benefits for the payment of state duty. The author finds it highly undesirable to increase the rates of state duty because this factor can affect the scope of guarantees for judicial protection. However, the current inflation creates prerequisites for an increase in the cost of civil trials for the state, which means expanding the criteria for benefits. A judicial practice analysis revealed no uniformity in the provision of benefits for the payment of state duty but identified the grounds for the application of certain preferential mechanisms. The author proposes to introduce additional guarantees for the right to legal protection, e.g., the institution of financing court costs by a third party, not involved in the case but with guarantees for reimbursement of their costs for financing the trial. The mechanism for investing court costs could be tested in group proceedings.

This paper explores the transformative potential of class action lawsuits in redefining justice for insurance policyholders in Indonesia. Through an in-depth examination of the legal landscape and specific cases, the study delves into the mechanisms and implications of leveraging class actions as a means of seeking justice within the insurance sector. By analyzing notable instances, such as the class action lawsuit initiated by insurance policyholders of PT Asuransi Jiwasraya and PT Asuransi Jiwa Adisarana WanaArtha, the paper scrutinizes the impact of collective legal action in addressing grievances and restoring violated rights. The research also navigates the legal provisions surrounding class actions in Indonesia, shedding light on their relevance and effectiveness in the pursuit of justice for insurance policyholders. Ultimately, this paper contributes to the ongoing discourse on legal remedies within the insurance industry, offering insights into the potential of class action lawsuits as a powerful tool for policyholders to assert their rights and demand justice in the Indonesian legal context.

At the beginning of the 21st century, a reform of the judicial system was carried out, essentially aimed at increasing the number of lawyers and opening public participation. In this context, a new class action legislation was promulgated in the field of consumer law to prevent instances of commercial malpractice and as a mechanism to recover damages from professionals in cases involving large numbers of consumers. This article examines how and the extent to which the new class action system contributes to the expansion of the judicial function. It also examines the potential for wider acceptance of this type of legal action within Japanese society.

The study discusses certain rules of group litigation in the civil procedure in the context of the legal status of class members in procedural relations. Attention is paid to the rights and obligations of the person who applies to court with a request to protect the rights and legitimate interests of a group of members. Participants in a class action include the person conducting the case (plaintiff-representative) and group members who joined the collective claim. The comparative legal method and teleological interpretation allow to conclude that there are active procedural relations only between the court and the claimant-representative, which predetermines the possibility of performing administrative actions, proving and appealing judicial acts only by the plaintiff, but not by the other claimants. The extremely curtailed scope of powers of the group members is justified by their voluntary joining a class action lawsuit. Relations within a group of persons are substantive in nature; this allows to highlight the necessity of appropriate private material mechanisms to satisfy the interests of the majority of participants under the rules on decisions in meetings. In view of the possibility of consolidating in a class homogeneous but different in size substantive claims of the group members we believe it is essential to establish the majority criterion, regardless of the price of the claim of each member. The research also reveals the contradiction in legal regulation in the event of a refusal to certify a group of persons after the initiation of proceedings on a class action in civil, arbitration and administrative litigation, substantiates the inexpediency of leaving a class action without consideration, and the need to consider personal claims of group members and allocate relevant cases in a separate production, as provided for in the Arbitration (Commercial) Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Attention is drawn to the gaps in the legal regulation of group proceedings in terms of establishing the amount and procedure for paying the state fee.

The notion of the "Revival of Public Rights" has always been a controversial topic in legal doctrines and judicial practice. Public rights and their instances on one side, and the concept of revival on the other, constitute the core of this divergence. This ambiguity has intensified with the emergence of new social developments, necessitating the anticipation of innovative methods to ensure public interest more prominently. The necessity to sue environmental violations, capital market misconduct, problems related to the quality of automobiles, and over the recent years calamities arising from the COVID-19 pandemic are among the factors that have posed discussions related to the revival of public rights and judicial methods to guarantee public benefit. While discussions on judicial guarantees of public interest in our legal system are of less enrichment, in legal systems of other countries, it has been extensively elaborated. Public interest law and the associated topics, such as public interest lawsuits, position, and rights admissible in these lawsuits, are closely linked to the concept of revival of public rights. This article, by employing a descriptive-analytical method and utilizing library data, along with interviews with most of provincial prosecutors and their practices, aims to remove ambiguities associated with the concept of public rights and its revival through comparative data analysis, with a focus on common law systems. Based on the findings of this research, public rights should be interpreted as rights without any limited beneficiaries, and retrieval, in terms of nature, signifies the concept of supervision and is equivalent to the non-criminal authorities of prosecutors.

The defense of collective rights, and the appropriate reparation of damages to victims is a recent development issue in the Colombian legal system. Although some legal provisions mentioned damages to an indeterminate group of people in cases of negligence, it was not until the 1991 Constitution that Colombia established the types of actions all individuals or groups can initiate to advocate for the integrity of their rights in the face of illegal actions or omissions by the State. There is currently no mechanism for groups to sue private entities efficiently that guarantees all individual and collective rights, akin to class actions. This scientific article delves into the multifaceted landscape of collective rights protection in Colombia, focusing specifically on the mechanisms and implications surrounding the deployment of group actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction Transvaginal mesh (mesh) surgeries have been used to treat stress urinary incontinence (incontinence) and/or pelvic organ prolapse (prolapse). In Australia, as in many other countries, the harms caused by mesh eventually prompted individual and collective attempts to achieve redress. The rise of mesh surgery as a procedure, the experience of mesh‐affected women and the formal inquiries and legal actions that followed all occurred in social, cultural and discursive contexts. One strategy to understand these contexts is to track how the mesh and key actors in the mesh stories have been portrayed in mass media sources. We conducted a media analysis of the most highly read Australian newspapers and online news media platforms, focusing on how mesh and the interaction of stakeholders in mesh stories were presented to the Australian public. Method We searched systematically in the top 10 most‐read print and online media outlets in Australia. We included all articles that mentioned mesh, from the date of first use of mesh in Australia to the date of our final search (1996–2021). Result After early scant media reporting focusing on the benefits of mesh procedures, major Australian medicolegal processes created a hook to shift reporting about mesh. The news media then played a significant role in redressing women's experienced epistemic injustice, including by amplifying previously ignored evidence of harm. This created an opportunity for previously unreported suffering to be revealed to powerful actors, in settings beyond the immediate control and epistemic authority of healthcare stakeholders, validating women's testimony and creating new hermeneutic resources for understanding mesh. Over time, media reports show healthcare stakeholders responding sympathetically to these new understandings in public discourse, contrasting with their statements in earlier media coverage. Conclusion We argue that mass media reporting, in synergy with medicolegal actions and the Australian Senate Inquiry, appears to have provided women with greater epistemic justice, giving their testimony privileged epistemic status such that it was considered by powerful actors. Although medical reporting is not recognised in the hierarchy of evidence embedded in the medical knowledge system, in this case, media reporting appears to have contributed to shaping medical knowledge in significant ways. Patient or Public Contribution We used publicly available data, print and online media outlets, for our analysis. Therefore, this manuscript does not contain the direct contribution of patients, service users, caregivers, people with lived experience or members of the public.

The defense of collective rights and the appropriate reparation of damages to victims is a recent development issue in the Colombian legal system. Although some legal provisions mentioned damages to an indeterminate group of people in cases of negligence, it was not until the 1991 Constitution that Colombia established the types of actions all individuals or groups can initiate to advocate for the integrity of their rights in the face of illegal actions or omissions by the State. There is currently no mechanism for groups to sue private entities efficiently that guarantees all individual and collective rights, akin to class actions. This scientific article delves into the multifaceted landscape of collective rights protection in Colombia, focusing specifically on the mechanisms and implications surrounding the deployment of group actions.

Copyright of International Journal of Legal Studies ( IJOLS ) is the property of International Institute of Innovation Science-Education-Development in Warsaw and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Taiwan Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The paper examines the procedure for considering a class action in the Russian civil procedure in order to identify obstacles to the effective application of this institution. In developed foreign legal orders, group proceedings are a popular socially significant jurisdictional procedure for considering a large number of the same type of requirements, which allows optimizing the burden on the judicial system, ensuring the achievement of legal certainty and the effectiveness of judicial protection. As a result of the reform of group production, an institution sui generis appeared, which differs in many respects from foreign analogues. Given that group proceedings in Russia are still not in demand, the authors has identified obstacles to the intensification of this procedure, many of which indicate a superficial regulation of the procedural form.The study used comparative legal, formal logical and systemic structural methods, which made it possible to give a comprehensive assessment of the identified gaps in the legal regulation of group proceedings in Russian civil, commercial and administrative litigation. The first of the identified problems is related to the lack of regulatory rules for certification of a group of persons. To initiate proceedings on a class action, it is necessary to join a significant number of co-plaintiffs, whose claims are based on homogeneous legal and factual circumstances. However Russian procedural codes do not regulate the criteria by which certification of a group should be carried out, and also do not establish rules for accepting a court ruling on preparing a case for trial, allowing members to subsequently authorize. It is noted that for effective group proceedings it is necessary to issue an appropriate definition, which would define the criteria for the homogeneity of the grounds for claims and the method of protecting the violated right chosen by the applicant. The law should directly provide for the possibility of appealing against such a judicial act. Also, for the purposes of joining the requirements to protect the interests of a group of persons, it is proposed to publish a notice on the initiation of proceedings not only on the websites of the court and the defendant, but also in the official media.The problems of implementing the qualities of the legal force of a court decision on a class action, such as exclusivity and prejudice, are also identified, since the law allows challenging the circumstances established when considering a class action when considering a personal claim of a member of a class who has not joined a class action in the future.

Introduction: Transvaginal mesh (mesh) surgeries have been used to treat stress urinary incontinence (incontinence) and/or pelvic organ prolapse (prolapse). In Australia, as in many other countries, the harms caused by mesh eventually prompted individual and collective attempts to achieve redress. The rise of mesh surgery as a procedure, the experience of mesh‐affected women and the formal inquiries and legal actions that followed all occurred in social, cultural and discursive contexts. One strategy to understand these contexts is to track how the mesh and key actors in the mesh stories have been portrayed in mass media sources. We conducted a media analysis of the most highly read Australian newspapers and online news media platforms, focusing on how mesh and the interaction of stakeholders in mesh stories were presented to the Australian public. Method: We searched systematically in the top 10 most‐read print and online media outlets in Australia. We included all articles that mentioned mesh, from the date of first use of mesh in Australia to the date of our final search (1996–2021). Result: After early scant media reporting focusing on the benefits of mesh procedures, major Australian medicolegal processes created a hook to shift reporting about mesh. The news media then played a significant role in redressing women's experienced epistemic injustice, including by amplifying previously ignored evidence of harm. This created an opportunity for previously unreported suffering to be revealed to powerful actors, in settings beyond the immediate control and epistemic authority of healthcare stakeholders, validating women's testimony and creating new hermeneutic resources for understanding mesh. Over time, media reports show healthcare stakeholders responding sympathetically to these new understandings in public discourse, contrasting with their statements in earlier media coverage. Conclusion: We argue that mass media reporting, in synergy with medicolegal actions and the Australian Senate Inquiry, appears to have provided women with greater epistemic justice, giving their testimony privileged epistemic status such that it was considered by powerful actors. Although medical reporting is not recognised in the hierarchy of evidence embedded in the medical knowledge system, in this case, media reporting appears to have contributed to shaping medical knowledge in significant ways. Patient or Public Contribution: We used publicly available data, print and online media outlets, for our analysis. Therefore, this manuscript does not contain the direct contribution of patients, service users, caregivers, people with lived experience or members of the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Brazil is a large exporter of commodities that supply global value chains. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), in 2019 commodity exports entailed 8.4 per cent of Brazilian Gross Domestic Product.1 Although commodities exportation is important for the Brazilian economy, their production or extraction often causes human rights harms and environmental damages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Opinião Jurídica is the property of Revista Opiniao Juridica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

At the beginning of the 21st century, a reform of the judicial system was carried out, essentially aimed at increasing the number of lawyers and opening public participation. In this context, a new class action legislation was promulgated in the led of consumer law to prevent instances of commercial malpractice and as a mechanism to recover damages from professionals in cases involving large numbers of consumers. This article examines how and the extent to which the new class action system contributes to the expansion of the judicial function. It also examines the potential for wider acceptance of this type of legal action within Japanese society [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Upon the Transposition of European Directive No. (UE) 2020/1828 of 25/11/2020, whose new rules will apply from 25/6/2023, each EU Member State will be required to have at least one collective action, responding to the limit Its minimum requirements, aimed at protecting the collective interests of consumers, The directive called it the representative action, can be bringing against any professional who breaches his obligations, by organizations he calls qualified entities, provided they are designated in advance by member states. And that representative action can be domestic, as it can be cross-border. However, the main weakness of the directive is that it sets unified and binding criteria for all Member States to designate qualified entities for the purpose of bringing cross-border representative actions, and In contrast leaves those countries free to set criteria for designating qualified entities for the the purpose of bringing national representative action, in a way that leads to a lack of coordination between Member States, and to increase the risk of forum shopping. Therefore, This study is content to shed light on this particular problem, and on the solutions that some propose to address it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Class actions appear as a mechanism for regulating markets and encouraging honest practices. In light of economic developments, civil law systems today focus on adopting lawsuits capable of protecting aggrieved persons and easing pressure on courts as well as remedying the shortcomings of some other types of group lawsuits, which are ineffective, as we may learn from previous cases. This article is based on civil law jurisdictions; it analyses and highlights various legal principles that impede the adoption and efficiency of class actions to show that they are not an unfit lawsuit but rather a hindered one. The article adopts a comparative approach to two different law systems to demonstrate how each system regulates class actions: French legislation as an example of a civil law system and American legislation as an example of a common law system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Large sums of money have been awarded against manufacturers of midurethral slings (MUS) because of complaints of pain and other complications, even though pelvic pain is rarely seen at the 6–12 weeks review. Hypothesis and Aims: Pain/other posterior fornix symptoms (urge, frequency, nocturia, and abnormal emptying) may appear weeks or months after MUS surgery due to dislocation of already weakened uterosacral ligaments (USL), a consequence of diversion of pelvic forces from pubourethral ligaments strengthened by the sling. Methods: Review for prevalence, pathogenic pathway from damaged USLs to pain, OAB, emptying, and other late complications by reference to data from functional anatomy imaging, mechanical support of USLs (speculum test), and post‐USL surgical repair. Results: Pelvic pain and other pelvic symptoms frequently co‐exist pre‐operatively with SUI, but are not volunteered because patients complain of one main pelvic symptom, others being "under the surface" (Pescatori Iceberg). Late de novo occurrence of symptom complications beyond perioperative MUS surgery may occur: pain (5.7%), retention (5.4%), UTI (9.3%), and OAB (10.2%). Xray/ultrasound evidence of pelvic forces acting on USLs support the hypothesis of diversion of forces. Improvement of pain and urgency by the "speculum test" indicates USL causation, as do cure of pain and other pelvic symptoms by USL slings. Conclusions: Late‐occurring PFS symptoms are the fault of neither implant, nor surgeon, but more likely consequences of pelvic forces acting on USLs already weakened by childbirth/age. Bladder/bowel/pain symptoms need to be sought out preoperatively and discussed before MUS surgery. Brief Summary: Late MUS complications, OAB, pain, retention subject to class actions, may be caused by uterosacral dislocation from pre‐existing structural weakness, not surgeon or device. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses a recent decision rendered by Brazilian Supreme Court on the Extraordinary Appeal 1.101.937/SP, in which the Court ruled on the (in)constitutionality of article 16 of Law 7.347/1985. The aforementioned statute provided for a territorial limitation of the effects of decisions rendered in Civil Class Actions. In order to achieve the aimed objective, this article will review legal experts and scholars’ opinions on the matter, case law and fundamental institutes of Civil Procedural Law.

Abstract This study aims analyze the KPPU's decision as the basis for class action in court in demanding compensation for violations of unfair business competition, and the juridical obstacles in examining group claims based on the KPPU's decision. This is normative legal research using statutory and case approach. The results shows that the KPPU's decision can be used as the basis for a class action lawsuit in court in the context of demanding compensation for consumer losses caused by violations of business competition as long as the KPPU's deliberations and decisions include preliminary evidence of public (consumer) loss and meet the general requirements for a class action lawsuit. The juridical obstacles really depend on the level of understanding of the judges and also the documents and / or case files from the KPPU as evidence of consideration of consumer losses. Abstrak Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis putusan KPPU sebagai dasar gugatan kelompok (class action) di pengadilan dalam menuntut ganti rugi akibat pelanggaran persaingan usaha tidak sehat, serta hambatan yuridis dalam pemeriksaan gugatan perwakilan kelompok yang didasarkan pada putusan KPPU. Penelitian hukum normatif ini menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan kasus. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa putusan KPPU dapat dijadikan dasar gugatan class action di Pengadilan dalam rangka menuntut ganti rugi atas kerugian konsumen yang disebabkan oleh pelanggaran persaingan usaha sepanjang dalam pertimbangan dan putusan KPPU mencantumkan adanya bukti awal adanya kerugian masyarakat (konsumen secara luas) dan memenuhi persyaratan umum untuk dilakukan gugatan perwakilan (class action). Hambatan yuridis yang dialami pengadilan tentunya sangat bergantung pada tingkat pemahaman hakim dan juga dokumen dan/atau berkas perkara dari KPPU sebagai bukti adanya pertimbangan terhadap kerugian konsumen.

The author of this contribution deals with specifics of consumer disputes in Austrian civil procedure law. He analyses special provisions that address consumers in dispute resolution and general procedural rules that do not specifically apply to consumers but have their major impact on consumers. He gives an overview on the caselaw of the Austrian Supreme Court in which the Court has introduced several ways to protect the interests of consumers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper at hand deals with collective procedural mechanism in the Czech Republic. Class action is nowadays considered one of the main procedural tools to protect consumers. Collective procedure in business-to-consumer disputes is thus on its rise in Europe. Yet, the Czech Republic belongs to few EU Member States where consumers still cannot rely on comprehensive regulation of collective action. The paper firstly provides for a brief introduction of existing possibilities that are governed by the Czech procedural law such as right of a consumer organisation to file for representative action on injunction relief or judge's discretion to use the consolidation of civil proceedings. Further, the article focuses on the question, whether it would be useful if the Czech consumers (or qualified entities on their behalf) could file for collective action on redress measure. The paper subsequently presents the main principles of the unsuccessful Proposal for Collective Proceedings Act, which was submitted by the former Government. Finally, the article elaborates on possible development in this matter, given a duty of the Czech legislator to implement Directive on representative actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article constitutes a continuation of the research conducted so far in the domain of collective consumer redress in the European Union. The aim of the article is to discuss the issue of various legal mechanisms functioning in the selected EU Member States that serve consumers as a means of collective redress. In the first part of this paper, it was presented that the models of consumer protection vary significantly in the individual Member States. After having scrutinized some terminological remarks regarding consumer law enforcement, the main analysis focuses on the legal solutions adopted in Belgium. In the second part of the discussion, the author presents relevant legal solutions adopted in the UK and the Netherlands. Specifically, the author discusses the various approaches to the issues fitting in the dichotomic scheme, that is, the so-called opt-out and opt-in mechanisms. Special consideration is devoted to the issue of admissibility of collective redress and legal standing to bring collective actions. The paper employs dogmatic and analytical methods for the process of interpretation of the normative material and the analysis of case law. The study uses the comparative perspective to identify solutions emerging from effective practices found in legal systems of the EU Member States. The findings emerging from the analysis show how significantly the Dutch and English systems of collective redress vary. The article also provides some tentative conclusions that would make it possible to decide which legal solutions operating with success in those jurisdictions could be adopted into Polish law.

Managing the Risk of Offshore Oil and Gas Accidents: The International Legal Dimension is a book from the Edward Elgar’s New Horizons in Environmental and Energy Law Series. It is structured around the assessment of domestic and regional legal concepts regarding safety, liability and compensation for harm, and is divided in three Parts containing topics consisting of one or several Chapters.

Litigation funding has become synonymous with class action litigation in Australia with third-party funders being a key source of financing. This article addresses the rise and regulation of litigation funding in Australia through three pathways: judicial oversight of litigation funding, government regulation of litigation funding and competition from lawyers. Initially, litigation funding was subject to minimal regulation in an effort to promote access to justice. However, concerns about the size of profits made by funders which in turn impacted Australian businesses and reduced the compensation available for group members saw the adoption of a more detailed and restrictive regulatory approach. Further regulation has been proposed and criticised for hampering funding of class actions. This article concludes with a middle or compromise position that recommends a base level of regulation and empowers the courts to act as a check on excessive fees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large-scale data applications are becoming an increasingly integral part of how both public and private sector organisations function. The transition towards a data-driven society means that processes within organisations will be organised structurally differently than they used to be and that decision-making will be based on profiles and algorithms more often than not. This change requires several adjustments to the legal regime, both to make the best possible use of the opportunities this change has to offer and to lay down safeguards against dangers and risks. To facilitate this process, a number of changes is needed to the current, individual-centred legal paradigm, such as laying down a protective regime for non-personal data, providing protection to public interests and societal harms and granting a bigger role for representative and collective actions and public interest litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A ground-breaking judgment of the Australian Federal Court regarding the Montara oil spill in the Timor Sea in 2009, Sanda v PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd (No 7) (Sanda (No 7)),1 is one of the few Australian class actions to proceed to a favourable judgment for the claimants. It is also the first judgment against an Australian company for cross-border pollution loss suffered by foreign claimants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Shipin Kexue/ Food Science is the property of Food Science Editorial Department and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In April 2018, the European Commission introduced a long awaited Proposal for a Directive on represented actions, which aims to modernize the existing European collective redress system. The aim of this paper is to answer the question whether the solutions put forward in this Proposal will improve the landscape of collective redress in the EU. For this purpose, I analyse the existing model of collective consumer redress in the EU, as set forth by Directive 98/27/EC, Directive 2009/22/EC and Recommendation 2013/396/EU; I also evaluate it from the perspective of its functionality with special consideration of key problematic issues. Against this background, I present the legal provisions put forward in the Proposal for a Directive on representative actions. The comparison of both legal structures makes it possible to give an answer to the question whether the proposed legislation can remedy the existing problems of the collective redress system and, thus, to answer the question whether it will contribute to strengthening the mechanism for the protection of collective consumer interests in the EU.

The subject. The article is devoted to problems of institute of collective legal protection in German civil procedure law.The purpose of the article is to confirm or disprove hypothesis of the need to introduce the institution of general class action in German civil procedural law.The methodology of the study includes general scientific methods (analysis, synthesis, description) and sociological approach.The main results and scope of their application. German civil procedure law is based on the principle of "two parties". However, there are many situations that do not fit into the traditional scheme of individual legal protection, because either the conflict is affected by many persons, or the conflict goes beyond the individual interests of the affected persons. For processes in which a significant number of persons are involved, as a means of protection, first of all, claims for abstention from actions (Unterlassungsklagen) submitted by associations of consumers and entrepreneurs are offered. These claims, in spite of the dogmatic difficulties, have been implemented in practice and proven. Special legal regulation on this issue exists in the legislation on consumer protection, competition and Antimonopoly legislation. Added to this are the more recently the claims of the unions about the withdrawal of the profits (Verbandsklagen auf Gewinnabschöpfung). The claim for recovery (Einziehungsklage), which allows associations to join several unidirectional claims of consumers in a single lawsuit, is also regulated in a special way. However, there is still no General class action in German law.Conclusions. The author concludes that the absence of a General class action is a legal gap in German civil procedure law. This situation is criticized as insufficient to raise the issue of causing mass harm before the court. First of all, there is the absence of a collective action aimed at compensating for harm, which is regarded as alien to German law. The relevant initiatives of the European Commission in this regard contain only non-binding recommendations to States parties on the introduction of collective forms of legal protection. This topic becomes even more relevant in Germany in connection with the "diesel scandal" and the introduction of the bill on a collective model claim for recognition (Musterfeststellungsklage).

In Mukaddam v Pioneer Food (Pty) Ltd 2013 2 SA 254 (SCA), Nugent JA stated that, once the class is confined to claimants who choose positively to advance their claims and are required to come forward for that purpose, he can see no reason why they are not capable of doing so in their own names through joinder – they do not need a representative to do so on their behalf. The members who choose to opt in to the class action will thus be identifiable. If that is the case then, according Nugent JA, joinder may be the appropriate procedural device. A problem evidenced by this approach is accordingly that, by suggesting that joinder is the appropriate procedural device where all the claimants are identifiable, rather than a class action, the court essentially attacked the viability of the opt-in regime of class action litigation. The preferential treatment afforded by our courts to the opt-out class action regime is further reinforced by the finding of Nugent JA that the opt-in class action regime can be utilised only in exceptional circumstances. As exceptional circumstances had not been proved, he found that a class action was not the most appropriate way to pursue the claims. He accordingly suggested that joinder was a viable option to pursue the claims. The opt-in class action regime requires individual class members to take positive steps to participate in the class action. In other words, class members are required to come forward and opt into the class action, failing which they will not be bound by or benefit from the outcome of the litigation. Support for the opt-in regime is essentially premised on the belief that individuals who are unaware of the litigation should not be bound by its outcome. The opt-out class action regime, on the other hand, automatically binds members of the class to the class action and the outcome of the litigation unless the individual class members take steps to opt out of the class action. Support for the opt-out regime is essentially based on the view that the opting-in requirement could undermine one of the primary purposes of class action litigation, which is to facilitate access to justice. The Constitutional Court in Mukaddam v Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd 2013 5 SA 89 (CC) held that Nugent JA was wrong to find that an applicant in an opt-in class action is required to show exceptional circumstances. However, the court did not provide reasons for its disagreement. The issue relating to exceptional circumstances in opt-in class actions was dealt with in two sentences. The Constitutional Court also failed to deal with the nature and status of the opt-in class action compared with opt-out class actions in South African law. The note will accordingly consider when, if at all, it is appropriate to use the opt-in class action regime compared to the opt-out class action regime.