Series
Blogs
Collective redress around the globe
Collective redress around the globe
9 January 2026
Series
Blogs
9 January 2026
Collective redress procedures which allow claimants to bring combined actions in court proceedings have become increasingly popular across the globe and we expect that trend to continue in the years to come. Whilst these procedures share the common purpose of bundling claims that would individually be practically and economically unviable, they vary significantly in their structure and operation across different legal systems. Businesses with cross-border operations therefore need to be able to understand the differences between jurisdictions so that they can navigate legal and procedural complexities, optimise litigation strategy and manage business risks.
Key differences between jurisdictions include the types of mechanisms available – such as class actions, representative actions, multi-party claims, and collective actions – as well as their structural features. Some jurisdictions permit opt out class actions, others require claimants to proactively opt in. There are often limitations on who may bring collective actions, for example the representative may have to be a designated consumer association. Available procedures are also often limited to particular legal subject matters (for example, consumer, environmental or antitrust laws), whilst other jurisdictions allow claims to be brought on a broader basis.
The availability and structure of litigation funding, which is often crucial to the viability of collective actions, is another aspect of collective redress which differs from country to country. These variations relate to the legal requirements for funding arrangements and the commercial availability of different types of funding. For instance, funding may be available from public bodies, lawyers acting on contingency fee arrangements, or third-party finance providers.
Linklaters’ updated global guide on collective redress is designed to equip businesses with the practical knowledge necessary to navigate these complexities. Through a structured analysis of key jurisdictions across the globe, we address ten critical questions in each country, providing clarity on the procedural nuances and risk factors that define collective redress in different legal systems.