Why collective actions still matter

The opt-out collective regime in the Competition Appeal Tribunal, introduced under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, allows consumers and SMEs to pursue damages for breaches of competition law on a collective basis. Claims are brought on behalf of the class by a representative and must satisfy rigorous criteria before proceeding - including case analysis, litigation plan and funding and ATE disclosure. Judicial approval is also needed of any proposed settlement.

As with any new regime, the introduction of new rules led to a plethora of interlocutory appeals including key decisions on the certification test by the Supreme Court in Merricks -v- MasterCard, and judgment awaited from the Supreme Court in the appropriate boundary for opt-in -v- opt-out claims in Evans -v- Barclays and others. Following a slow start, we are, however, now seeing early cases reach conclusion with settlements approved by the Tribunal in Merricks, Trains and Ro-Ro – and a first successful Judgment handed down in November in Kent -v- Apple finding that Apple abused its dominance in relation to the AppStore with an award of damages for consumer and business users of the AppStore of £1.5 billion.  

Call for Evidence by the Department of Business and Trade (DBT)

Yet on its 10^th anniversary, just as the regime  starts to come of age, its future now appears to hang in the balance. A call for evidence was announced by DBT in August 2025 to review the operation of the regime with apparent emphasis as to whether it was bad for economic growth. The regime, it appears, is caught between the option of evidence-led reform versus political pressure to placate big business.

A number of respondents have pointed to the relative infancy of the regime and the need to see a sufficient number of cases come to conclusion before it can be effectively reviewed. Yet barely days after the DBT closed its call for evidence in mid-October, HM Treasury published a policy paper on “ensuring regulators and regulation support growth” which states that the DBT review “has already identified the need for reform to ensure that consumers receive genuinely meaningful redress, whilst businesses can innovate with protections from speculative litigation”. 

To restrict the regime at this stage, so early in its development, would be a mistake. The collective actions regime is one of the few mechanisms that makes access to justice a practical reality for consumers and small businesses. It ensures that when powerful companies break competition law, they can be held to account, and the people and businesses harmed by that behaviour can secure compensation. In doing so, it underpins confidence in the market and ensures that fair and responsible businesses are not placed at a disadvantage by those who bend or break the rules. 

What’s at stake

Across the legal and policy community, there is broad recognition of the value of the collective action regime. Organisations including the Bar Council, Which?, and the Society of Labour Lawyers have each cautioned against any move that would limit collective access to justice. They understand that this framework delivers genuine redress for those harmed, creates accountability for misconduct, and deters anti-competitive behaviour that distorts markets and inflates prices.

The CAT’s recent judgment in Kent v Apple, shows the regime working exactly as intended. It provides a route for compensation that would be impossible on an individual basis, reinforces deterrence across a vital sector of the economy, and signals to businesses that compliance is the foundation of competitiveness, not its obstacle. To weaken that framework now would be to tilt the playing field back toward abuse of dominance and misconduct. 

Complementing, not replacing, regulators

Collective actions also provide a key contribution to enforcement. The Competition and Markets Authority plays a vital public role, but its resources are finite and its caseload complex. Private enforcement ensures that breaches of competition law are pursued even when regulators cannot act. Effective private enforcement reinforces, rather than undermines, public regulation. It translates findings of illegality into tangible accountability and returns to those harmed 

A system worth defending

The collective actions regime has not created a culture of speculative litigation. It has created a culture of accountability. It protects consumers and small businesses, rewards compliance, and signals that the UK’s markets are open, fair, and competitive.

As government considers its next steps, it should take confidence from the system’s success, not fear it. The UK has built a regime that is internationally respected, economically beneficial and legally sound. Preserving it would demonstrate that the UK is serious about upholding the rule of law, protecting fair competition, and attracting long-term, responsible investment. Weakening it would send precisely the opposite signal.