Mass claims across borders: a deep dive into France and Spain

Building on our previous analyses of class action regimes in the Netherlands, England and Wales, and Germany in January 2025 (see here) and Poland and Belgium in March 2025 (see here), we now turn to France and Spain where major transformations are underway. In a landmark move, the French Parliament has adopted a sweeping reform on May 2, 2025, consolidating seven fragmented legal schemes into a single, strengthened mechanism. This overhaul, driven by the transposition of European Directive 2020/1828, unifies the scheme while broadening its scope of application as well as introducing ground-breaking changes. In contrast, rather than making minimal adjustments to comply with EU requirements, Spain has seized this opportunity to undertake a comprehensive reform of its collective redress system. The Spanish Collective Actions Bill (Proyecto de Ley de acciones colectivas) introduced in 2025 goes beyond mere transposition European Directive 2020/1828, creating a unified system for collective consumer protection.

Find out more about the collective redress action regimes in France and Spain below:

• Recent enactment of sweeping reforms - a deep dive into France
• Collective Actions in defence of Consumers in Spain

---

Recent enactment of sweeping reforms - a deep dive into France

After more than a decade of mixed results, the French class action system is being completely restructured. In a landmark move, the French Parliament has adopted a sweeping reform on May 2, 2025, consolidating seven fragmented legal schemes into a single, strengthened mechanism. This overhaul, driven by the transposition of European Directive 2020/1828, unifies the scheme while broadening its scope of application as well as introducing ground-breaking changes.

With broader eligibility for claimants, simplified procedures, and an innovative civil penalty targeting intentional misconduct causing serial damage, the new system is more robust than ever. Notably, cross-border class actions are now possible, allowing consumer rights to be defended on a European scale.

This pivotal reform marks a turning point for collective litigation in France. Our article explores its evolution, current framework, and key implications for the future.

Origins and development of class action in France before the reform

Discussions on introducing class action in France began in the 1980s. Despite various proposals, repeated legislative attempts between 1990 and 2008 failed, significantly delaying its integration into French law.

Class action was officially introduced in France through the Hamon Law of March 17, 2014, primarily as a response to mass consumer disputes. However, its scope remained tightly constrained: applicable exclusively to consumer law, structured as an opt-in procedure, and limited to actions brought by accredited associations (by 2020, only about fifteen associations had standing to initiate proceedings).

Subsequent legislative developments progressively extended the class action mechanism beyond consumer protection. The Law No. 2016-41 of January 26, 2016, expanded the scope to include litigation related to health products. Later, Law No. 2016-1547 of November 18, 2016, established a general framework for group actions and introduced new causes of action in the following areas:

• Discrimination in the workplace or in obtaining an internship or job;
• Environmental matters;
• Personal data protection;
• Damage caused by public-law entities or private organisations entrusted with public service responsibilities.

Further expansion occurred under Law No. 2018-1021 of November 23, 2018, which allowed class actions for compensation related to collective harm suffered by consumers in the rental housing sector.

The coexistence of multiple regimes: an obstacle to class action effectiveness

While these successive reforms broadened the scope of class actions, they also contributed to increasing complexity. Seven distinct legal frameworks coexisted, each with different rules regarding legal standing, material scope of application, nature of reparable damages, existence (or lack thereof) of prior formal notice, and procedural mechanisms for remedying damages.
This fragmentation diluted the effectiveness of a tool that was originally designed to facilitate access to collective justice. The practical impact was limited–over the past decade, only 35 class actions were initiated in France. While some cases led to settlements and others remain ongoing, the vast majority were dismissed due to inadmissibility or lack of merit.

The plurality of class action regimes under French law therefore called for far-reaching reform, particularly with the need to transpose European Directive 2020/1828 of November 25, 2020, on representative actions for consumer protection.

Responding to this imperative, the French legislature enacted a landmark law on May 2, 2025, introducing a unified class action framework through a comprehensive adaptation of European Union law in the fields of economics, finance, the environment, energy, transport, health and mobility.

Transposition of the European Directive: The reform’s major innovations

The newly adopted legislation abolishes all previous group actions regimes, replacing them with a single, universal framework. This comprehensive mechanism introduces a number of key provisions: expanding the categories of entities authorised to initiate class actions, extending the scope to encompass any violation and any form of harm, and establishing an independent civil penalty for intentional misconduct causing serial damage.

An overview of the reform's key advancements

1. A broader scope of application

The new class action framework can be brought against any person acting in the course of their professional activity, including public legal entities under public law and private organisations entrusted with public service management.

The purpose of these actions can be either to halt a legal violation, to seek compensation for damages, or both simultaneously.

However, public health remains the only exception to this universal material scope: class actions in this field are restricted to breaches by producers, suppliers or service providers using specific products defined by the French Public Health Code.

Additionally, the scope of damages eligible for compensation now encompass all types of damages, regardless of their nature.

2. An extension of standing to bring a class action

Class actions for cessation and compensation can now be initiated by accredited associations that meet specific criteria:

• Effective and public activity: the association must demonstrate, at the time of its accreditation application, that it has engaged in effective and public activity for at least twelve consecutive months aimed at defending the interests affected.
• Statutory purpose: the association's statutory purpose must include defending the interests that have been infringed.
• Absence of collective proceedings: the association must not be the subject of any collective proceedings under Book VI of the French Commercial Code at the time of its application for approval.
• Independence: the association must be independent and remain free from influence by anyone, other than those whose interests it defends, who have an economic interest in the introduction of a group action. To safeguard this independence, the association must have adopted written conflict-of-interest prevention procedures.
• Transparency: the association must publicly disclose, by any appropriate means, information regarding its statutory purpose, activities, main sources of funding and organisation.

For class actions aimed solely at cessation, the conditions have been simplified, allowing non-profit associations to take legal action if they meet these criteria:

• They have been regularly declared for at least two years;
• They can demonstrate an effective activity for 24 consecutive month;
• Their statutory purpose includes the defence of the affected interests.

Furthermore, class actions are no longer restricted to individuals: legal entities may now also form groups to bring such actions.

Similarly, and under certain conditions, representative trade union organisations, qualified European entities on the official list and the Public Prosecutor are entitled to bring class actions. In particular, the Public Prosecutor can initiate a class action for cessation of a breach as the main party or intervene as a joint party in any group action.

Lastly, prior notice is still required only for group actions based on the Labor Code.

3. A simplified procedure

In actions seeking cessation of a breach, claimants are not required to demonstrate the existence of a damage suffered by the members of the group, nor the defendant’s intent or negligence. In other words, there is no need to present individual cases. Instead, if the violation is established, the judge has the authority to order the defendant to cease the breach and to take all measures used to this end, as well as to order publicity to alert those impacted by the breaches.

In actions seeking compensation for damages, the claimant must present at least two individual cases in support of the claim, and the judge rules on the defendant’s liability. The judge will:

• Define the group of affected individuals,
• Establish the criteria for inclusion in the group,
• Determine the compensation framework for each category of claimants. Whenever possible, the judge will specify either the amount of damages or the criteria for assessing the damages within the same ruling,
• Determine whether publicity measures must be ordered should the defendant be found liable, or against the plaintiff if the claim is inadmissible,
• Set a 2-month to 5-year time limit within which eligible individuals meeting the criteria for inclusion and wishing to avail themselves of the judgment may join the group to obtain compensation for their loss.

Under the new regime, two possible routes are open for the settlement (or liquidation) of damages. Either collective proceedings or individual liquidation proceedings, which is the norm. However, collective proceedings are not an option for personal injury, as the damage must be assessed on an individual basis.

In case of a collective liquidation procedure, the claimant must request it, provided that the evidence and nature of the damage permit it (excluding bodily injuries). If so, the judge determines the amount of damages or, failing that, establishes the factors for assessing damages for each member of the group. When this option is chosen, the claimant is entitled to negotiate with the defendant to find an agreement on the amount of damages.

If an agreement is reached by the parties, the matter is then referred to the judge for approval. If the matter is not referred to the court within one year from the date on which the judgment ordering the collective compensation procedure acquires the force of res judicata, the standard individual compensation procedure applies.

A civil fine of up to €50,000 for dilatory or abusive conduct may be imposed on the claimant or defendant if the latter has obstructed the conclusion of an agreement in a dilatory or abusive manner.

4. Preservation of the opt-in mechanism

In France, individuals must explicitly express their willingness to join the previously defined group in order to benefit from the effects of class action in terms of compensation for damages.
Thus, individuals who seek compensation must actively opt into the class action by submitting their claims either to the defendant declared liable, or to the claimant in the action. The party found liable must compensate the losses of each group member individually.

For the collective liquidation procedure, this request is submitted only to the class action’s claimant.

5. A new mechanism: cross-border group action

In response to the rising risk of harm to collective consumer interests—heightened by globalisation and the digitalisation of the economy—the creation of a harmonised cross-border collective redress mechanism on a European scale now seemed essential.

By transposing the European Directive, the new French law enables French associations to initiate or participate in cross-border class actions within other EU Member States. Conversely, foreign EU qualified entities can now bring group actions in French courts.

These entities must meet similar criteria as French associations, with the added requirement of pursuing a non-profit purpose.

6. The introduction of a civil penalty for wilful misconduct causing serial damage

The reform also creates a new article 1254 in the French Civil Code, introducing a civil penalty for cases where a person is “found responsible for a breach of legal or contractual obligations relating to his or her professional activity”.

The judge may impose a civil penalty when two cumulative conditions are met:

1. The author of the damage has deliberately committed a fault with a view to obtaining an undue gain or saving;
2. The breach has caused damage to multiple individuals or legal entities under similar circumstances.

The penalty is proportionate to both the seriousness of the misconduct and the profit made by the perpetrator. If the offender is an individual, the penalty cannot exceed twice the profit made. If the offender is a legal entity, the penalty can be up to five times the profit made.

This financial risk of civil sanction is not insurable, further increasing liability exposure for businesses.

7. Additional and transitional provisions relating to class actions

The reform abolishes previous sector-specific class action regimes, while introducing a two-year transitional period during which actions may still be filed under former conditions. These provisions apply only to class actions initiated after the law’s publication, i.e., from 2 May 2025.

As for the penalty for wilful misconduct resulting in mass harm, the civil penalty will only apply to cases in which the triggering event occurred after the law’s publication.

Moreover, jurisdiction over class actions is vested in specially designated civil courts.

Lastly, the reform allows third-party funding of class actions, provided such financing remains transparent and does not have, “either as its purpose or its effect, the exercise of influence over the initiation or conduct of the group action in a manner that could prejudice the interests of the represented persons”.

Conclusion

The newly established legal framework for class actions significantly heightens corporate exposure to litigation risks, surpassing those inherent in previous fragmented regimes.

By introducing a unified and universal class action mechanism–marked by broader applicability, an expanded pool of eligible claimants, streamlined procedural rules, and the potential for cross-border litigation–the French legislator has signalled a clear ambition to enhance both the efficiency and accessibility of this legal instrument.

Yet, while this legislative consolidation addresses structural shortcomings of the former system, it does not inherently ensure the mechanism’s success. As with any procedural reform, its effectiveness will ultimately depend on its practical implementation. Although the legislator has laid the foundations for a renewed model, it is now incumbent upon courts, legal practitioners, and affected parties to interpret and leverage its provisions effectively.

While uncertainties remain, this reform undeniably marks a turning point and has a potential to reshape the French litigation landscape. By reinforcing the prominence of class actions, it compels economic actors to anticipate and integrate these heightened risks of into their strategic decision-making and compliance frameworks.

---

Collective Actions in defence of Consumers in Spain

Historical Background and European Framework

Historically, Spain had a fragmented system of collective consumer protection scattered across various procedural and substantive laws. The system primarily focused on cessation actions with limited mechanisms for obtaining compensation for affected consumers.

The European Union's Directive (EU) 2020/1828 on representative actions for the protection of collective interests of consumers establishes minimum standards across all Member States, requiring effective procedural mechanisms for both cessation and redress measures. Published on December 4, 2020, the directive gave Member States until December 25, 2022, to adopt implementing provisions, which would become applicable from June 25, 2023.

Spain's New Collective Actions Bill: A Comprehensive Reform

Rather than making minimal adjustments to comply with EU requirements, Spain has seized this opportunity to undertake a comprehensive reform of its collective redress system. The Spanish Collective Actions Bill (Proyecto de Ley de acciones colectivas) introduced in 2025 goes beyond mere transposition, creating a unified system for collective consumer protection.
The bill introduces a new area into Spanish Civil Procedure Law (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil) dedicated exclusively to collective actions, consisting of 58 articles organised into three chapters covering common provisions, specific provisions for cessation actions, and specific provisions for redress actions.

Key Features of the New Spanish System according to the Bill

Types of Collective Actions

The bill distinguishes between two fundamental types of actions:

1. Collective Cessation Actions: these aim to stop illegal conduct and prohibit its repetition. They can also declare that certain conduct violates consumer protection regulations. They do not require proof of negligence or actual damage and are imprescriptible.
2. Collective Redress Actions: these seek compensation for damages suffered by consumers, including indemnification, repair or replacement of goods, refunds, contract termination, or price reduction. They can be brought independently, without requiring a prior declaration that the conduct violates collective interests.

Consumer Participation: The Opt-Out Revolution

One of the most significant innovations is the adoption of an "opt-out" system as the general rule under this approach:

• The action and its results bind all affected consumers unless they expressly request to be excluded.
• Only in exceptional cases (involving claims exceeding €3,000) may the court decide to implement an "opt-in" system.
• For consumers with habitual residence outside Spain, an "opt-in" approach always applies.

Qualified Entities and Standing to Sue

The bill modifies the Consumer Protection Act to regulate "qualified entities" authorised to bring collective actions:

• Consumer associations designated for national or cross-border actions
• Competent public bodies and entities responsible for consumer protection
• Entities designated in other EU Member States for cross-border actions

Specialised Procedural Mechanisms

The bill creates specialised procedures tailored to collective actions, including:

• Certification Hearing: after admitting the claim, the court will conduct a hearing to verify the legitimacy conditions, homogeneity of claims, and absence of conflicts of interest.
• Electronic Platform: the court will require the plaintiff entity to establish an electronic platform allowing affected consumers to express their intention to be included or excluded and providing a direct communication channel.
• Settlement Agreements: detailed regulation of settlement agreements is established, requiring judicial approval with a high level of scrutiny.
• Execution Mechanisms: simplified execution procedures are envisaged, including the appointment of a paid liquidator to manage the distribution of compensation to unidentified beneficiaries.

Conclusion

Although the deadline imposed on Member States for transposing the Directive into their national laws has already passed, the draft law has not yet been approved in Spain. We will therefore have to wait until the final text is adopted to find out how collective actions in defense of consumers will ultimately be regulated under Spanish law.