Ministers urged not to weaken consumer and SME rights through review of UK’s opt-out collective actions regime

London, 13th October 2025 – Hausfeld, a leading global disputes only law firm, has warned that a Government consultation under review could weaken consumer and SME rights by undermining the UK’s collective actions framework - one of the few mechanisms that ensures powerful corporations can be held to account by voters and small businesses.

In its formal submission to the Department for Business and Trade’s (DBT) call for evidence, Hausfeld says that any move to dilute or politicise the framework would undermine access to justice, distort competition, and damage the UK’s reputation as a fair, rules-based market.

The submission highlights that collective actions are now central to the UK’s civil justice and competition system, allowing consumers and small businesses to obtain redress at scale for dispersed, low-value but systemically significant harms. It can also drive accountability where regulatory fines alone fall short and provide a credible deterrent that complements public enforcement.

Anthony Maton, Global Co-Chair at Hausfeld, said:

“Though still relatively new, collective actions have already proven their value - they’ve exposed serious misconduct, forced change in corporate behaviour and returned compensation to people who were overcharged or misled. They remain one of the few ways ordinary people and small businesses can secure justice when powerful companies break the rules. Weakening that system would reward bad behaviour and undermine public trust in the fairness of our markets.”

Response to DBT’s Call for Evidence

Hausfeld has shared its insight and expertise in a detailed response to the 31 questions the DBT posed as part of its call for evidence. Hausfeld calls on DBT to focus on reinforcing — not rolling back — the existing framework by preserving the opt-out structure that makes large-scale redress possible and providing clear, workable funding rules consistent with the CJC’s light-touch approach.

Preserving a viable funding ecosystem, subject to robust, existing court oversight, is critical to maintaining the regime’s effectiveness. The better course is not to dilute the regime but light-touch refinement: codify the CAT’s case-by-case scrutiny of funding and settlements, permit DBAs in opt-out claims, and explore an Access to Justice fund to crowd in capital where commercial funding is unavailable.

Out of the 28 claims certified by the CAT to proceed to trial, more than half involve a business or mixed class — reinforcing that the regime benefits not only consumers but also SMEs and responsible businesses. Anti-competitive conduct, whether through price fixing or abuse of dominance, acts as a tax on the economy. Collective actions help return those unlawful profits to the market and drive fairer competition.

Since 2022, lobbying from groups presenting themselves as consumer advocates but backed by large corporate interests -  including Fair Civil Justice, EPICE, and the European Justice Forum - has intensified. Weakening our domestic courts in response would deny UK consumers and enterprises effective redress and hand power back to the very companies the regime was designed to hold to account.

Civil justice as economic infrastructure

Hausfeld’s submission emphasises that civil justice is not simply a legal function but a form of economic infrastructure that underpins confidence in fair markets. With civil legal aid long withdrawn, the opt-out collective actions regime has become the only realistic route for consumers and SMEs to enforce their rights at scale.

The framework complements regulatory enforcement by making corporate misconduct financially unsustainable, ensuring that businesses which play by the rules can compete on equal terms. It also strengthens investor confidence by signalling that the UK is a market governed by principles, not a playground for corporate exploitation.

Conflict with the judge-led CJC review

Hausfeld raises concerns that the DBT review was launched merely months after the judge-led Civil Justice Council (CJC) concluded a detailed, evidence-based analysis of litigation funding – which underpins the system. The CJC’s report recommended proportionate, light-touch improvements to enhance transparency and capital adequacy while preserving access to justice.

Reopening the issue so soon after that careful, judicially-directed process, Hausfeld warns, risks creating uncertainty for courts, funders and businesses alike and gives the appearance of succumbing to lobbying by vested interests, including corporate-backed groups that have opposed the regime from the outset.

As part of its engagement with Government, Hausfeld has written to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP, and the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, Rt Hon David Lammy MP. The firm has urged them to protect UK consumers and SMEs and to ensure that any reforms are consistent with the CJC’s recommendations and that civil justice policy remains coherent and evidence-based across departments.

A system that supports fair competition and growth

The submission stresses that the regime promotes fair competition and sustainable growth by levelling the playing field for compliant firms and enabling smaller businesses to pursue compensation when markets are distorted.

Before the Consumer Rights Act 2015, most SMEs were effectively priced out of justice. The regime changed that: it allows collective claims to translate regulatory findings into enforceable redress and behavioural change, helping ensure that markets work for both consumers and responsible businesses.

Notes to editors

About Hausfeld

Hausfeld is a leading disputes-only law firm with 11 offices across Europe and the US. The firm possesses significant experience in bringing complex litigation in the areas of competition, commercial, financial services, environmental & Human Rights law. They are one of the leading firms representing claimants in all aspects of collective redress and group claims, including abuse of dominance litigation against Big Tech and other large corporates. For more info.

About the DBT review of the UK collective actions regime

• As part of its review into the opt-out collective actions regime, the Department for Business and Trade opened a call for evidence, including 31 questions, on 6 August 2025. The call for evidence will close on 14 October 2025.
• Currently lobbying against the regime is the so-called “Fair Civil Justice” campaign. The group was launched by the Institute for Legal Reform, which is affiliated to the US Chamber of Commerce, and has ties to American Big Tech firms. Its director is Seema Kennedy, a former solicitor and Conservative government minister.
• The key arguments in favour of retaining the regime are:
  • Access to justice: The regime is the only practical mechanism for consumers and SMEs to recover losses arising from breaches of competition law that are too small to pursue individually but transformative when aggregated. Without it, victims are left without redress and misconduct goes unchallenged and unchanged.
  • Holding corporates to account for misconduct: Collective actions make corporate abuse financially unsustainable. They ensure that companies profiting from overcharging or anti-competitive practices face real consequences, while compliant businesses benefit from fairer markets. Protecting the regime sends a clear signal - to global markets and to Big Tech - that Britain is not a playground for exploitation or misconduct.
  • The regime fosters stronger competition and innovation: By punishing misconduct and rewarding compliance, the regime underpins fair competition. This fosters innovation.

Media enquires

Please contact Dulcie Brennan at DRD hausfeldcampaign@drdpartnership.com