Legal Funding Journal is dedicated to informing and engaging the global legal funding community through daily news, insight, analysis and original content.

Latest News

View All

Mythbusting the Call for New Regulation of TPLF

By John Freund |

The following is a contributed piece from Rupert Cunningham, Director for Growth and Membership Engagement at the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA).

In their call for more EU regulation last week, AmCham EU, Business Europe and their co-signatories make misleading and inaccurate allegations about third-party litigation funding. These calls have been repeated by the same groups over and over again, pushed by big corporations that simply do not want those harmed by their wrongful behaviour to have recourse in the judicial system. ILFA will continue to counter these claims in the strongest terms. Below we unravel some of the most common misleading statements:

Myth: “Third-party litigation funders currently operate in a regulatory vacuum and without any transparency requirements.”

There is no regulatory vacuum. Litigation funders are regulated under company law in the same way as any other business, for example, the Directive on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices and the Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts. Specific to litigation funding, activities are regulated by the Representative Actions Directive and the Collective Redress Directive.

Publicly traded funders are further regulated through legislation on securities and financial instruments and by the relevant stock exchanges and financial authorities. This includes publishing annual reports on financial performance. Examples of other EU rules that apply to listed funders include the Shareholder Rights Directive, Prospectus Regulation, MIFID II.

Lawyers engaged in litigation are bound by professional, regulatory, and fiduciary responsibilities to represent the best interests of their clients where they practise.

Myth: “A civil justice climate that is abundant in abusive claims and mass private third-party funded litigation, creates a chilling effect that deters businesses from innovating, investing, competing, and prospering.”

Supporting meritorious litigation does not deter businesses from innovating and prospering - it deters corporate wrongdoing. As long as companies behave responsibly and comply with the obligations set out in the law, they have nothing to fear from litigation funding.

Myth: “If civil litigation remains funded by unregulated private third parties, we expect a surge in speculative litigation in the EU, which would undermine public confidence in the European justice systems at a time when maintaining faith in our democratic institutions is so critical.”

Far from undermining public confidence in the legal system, a recent independent report from the European Law Institute (ELI) concluded litigation funding plays a ‘functionally vital role in facilitating access to justice in many jurisdictions’.[1]

With public funding (legal aid) increasingly concentrated in the criminal justice sphere, litigation funding offers vital assistance to claimants bringing meritorious civil claims to courts. Greater access to justice, supported by litigation funding, leads to the development of better legal jurisprudence – a benefit to our legal system and to the rule of the law.

Myth: “TPLF is a for-profit business model that allows private financiers, investment firms, and hedge funds, to sign confidential deals with lawyers or qualified entities to invest in lawsuits or arbitration in exchange for a significant portion of any compensation that may be awarded, sometimes as much as 40% of the total compensation but can go even substantially higher.”

Litigation funder’s fees reflect the level of risk undertaken (which will vary) and are assessed case-by-case.

Many funded cases are “David vs. Goliath” in nature with well-resourced defendants. This requires substantial upfront financial investment to level the playing field and for cases to proceed. In the UK sub-postmasters’ recent successful claim against the Post Office, the Post Office spent nearly 250m GBP on its defence.

Myth: “The financial incentives of such practices encourage frivolous and predatory litigation, but they also shortchange genuine claimants and consumers.”

Litigation funding is provided on a non-recourse basis, i.e. if the case is unsuccessful, the funder loses their entire investment. There is no logical financial incentive for litigation funders to fund frivolous legal claims. Funders' due-diligence checks assist the justice system by weeding out unmeritorious claims that have a poor chance of success when put before a court. The approval rate for funding opportunities is as low as 3-5%.

Myth: “The introduction of a purely profit-motivated third party, often non-EU based, into the traditional lawyer-client relationship, raises serious ethical concerns and presents an economic security threat for Europe.”

The letter presents no substantive evidence that litigation funding is being used by ‘non-EU’ entities to destabilise the European economy or legal systems. ILFA suggests that experienced judges and lawyers operating in EU legal systems are more than capable of identifying threats to the integrity of our legal systems and safeguarding against the misuse or abuse of the court system for geopolitical or other aims.

Myth: “Funders are frequently the initiators of claims and may exercise control over decisions taken on behalf of claimants, and in this context, they prioritise their own financial aims over the interests of claimants. Faced with years of litigation brought by claimants with support from well-resourced funders, expensive legal costs, and reputational risk, defendants are often forced to settle even unmeritorious claims.”

Litigation funders make passive outside investments, meaning that funders do not initiate claims or control the matters in which they invest. A recipient of legal funding, and their legal counsel, maintain full control over the conduct of the case, including strategy and ultimate decision-making.

Myth: “If Europe continues to neglect proper oversight of private TPLF we risk our courts becoming profit facilitators for litigation funders, at the expense of European companies, consumers, and the integrity of our court systems.”

The reference to European companies is a curious one. Litigation funders make no distinction between EU or ‘non-EU’ claimants, basing funding awards on factual criteria such as the legal merits of a case, budget, funding required, and any other award and risks associated with the case.

This latest call from big businesses makes clear they continue to side with corporate wrongdoers, diminishing the legitimate rights of businesses and consumers to access justice and exercise their rights before the courts.

“Misleading and inaccurate claims like these appear around the world as part of a global lobbying effort to encourage unnecessary and burdensome regulation of the legal finance sector,” said Rupert Cunningham, ILFA’s newly appointed Global Director for Growth and Membership Engagement.  “Robustly challenging these persistent myths is critical to improving understanding of the sector amongst policy makers and wider industry stakeholders. That is why it is so important that international organisations like ILFA are able to respond to these claims on behalf of the sector, wherever and whenever they appear.”

By enabling the pursuit of meritorious claims, litigation funding levels the playing field and creates an equality of means between otherwise unequal parties.


[1] https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Publications/ELI_Principles_Governing_the_Third_Party_Funding_of_Litigation.pdf

Read More

International Legal Finance Association Adds West U Capital as New Member

By Harry Moran |

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), the only global association of commercial legal finance companies, today announced the addition of West U Capital to the organization’s rapidly growing membership base. 

West U Capital is an intellectual property investment firm actively seeking and engaging in a broad range of transactions, including patent litigation funding, law firm financing, patent acquisition, patent-based lending, or some combination of the four. West U’s team has decades of intellectual property-centric investment and capital management experience to provide patent owners and law firms with a range of capital options to help them monetize their patents and grow their businesses. 

“As the world’s leading association representing the commercial legal finance industry, ILFA is excited to welcome West U Capital as its newest member,” said Shannon Campagna, ILFA’s interim Executive Director. “The addition of West U and their IP investment and litigation expertise demonstrates the increasingly diverse arenas in which legal finance helps businesses and entrepreneurs access justice. The firm will play a significant role in promoting the highest standard of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector across investment areas.”

The firm was founded by Managing Partners Joseph Kessler and Mark Roche. Two experienced leaders in the intellectual property space, Kessler formerly co-founded and managed the IP Finance team at Fortress Investment Group, an ILFA member, and Roche co-founded and managed AT&T’s intellectual property arm, Knowledge Ventures, before co-founding IP investment firm Techquity Capital Management. 

“Joining ILFA marks an exciting milestone for West U Capital,” said Roche. “We're eager to contribute our expertise in patent litigation and law firm financing to ILFA's ongoing efforts to shape the future of commercial legal finance.” Kessler added, “ILFA's dedication to promoting transparency and ethical practices aligns with our values at West U. We look forward to collaborating with fellow members to drive innovation and ensure the continued growth and integrity of our industry." 

About the International Legal Finance Association 

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate, and influence legislative, regulatory, and judicial landscapes as the voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world. 

For more information, visit www.ilfa.com and find us on LinkedIn and X @ILFA_Official

About West U Capital 

West U Capital is an intellectual property-centric investment and capital management firm providing a variety of capital options to help maximize the value of intellectual property, including patent acquisitions, litigation funding, law firm financing, patent-based lending, and hybrid or tailored combinations. Its partners include small and medium companies, multinational corporations, research entities, and universities from a wide array of technology and market sectors across geographical regions. With decades of transactional and investment experience, West U’s growing team has underwritten, executed, managed, and exited hundreds of IP-related investments and transactions involving billions in invested capital. 

For more information, visit https://www.westucapital.com/

Read More

European Consumer Organisation Says “No Need” for More Funding Regulations

By Harry Moran |

With the ongoing Civil Justice Council review set to shape the future of the litigation funding market in the UK, for funders and law firms on the European continent the possibility of more stringent rules governing third-party funding still looms on the horizon. 

In a recently published position paper, BEUC, The European Consumer Organisation laid out its stance on third-party litigation funding and addressed the ongoing debate around the potential for more rules governing funding in the EU. In ‘Justice unchained BEUC’s view on third party litigation funding for collective redress’, BEUC emphasised that with the prohibitively expensive costs of bringing collective redress claims, “robust funding mechanisms are essential.”

BEUC’s paper directly addresses the common criticisms and alleged downsides of third-party funding, stating emphatically that “concerns raised by critics appear insufficiently evidenced by specific cases, as shown by various independent academic studies.” For example, BEUC refutes the idea that litigation funding somehow encourages frivolous lawsuits, pointing out that not only has there been no evidence of abusive practices in EU member states, “evidence from the Netherlands shows no increase in meritless collective claims after TPLF’s introduction.”

The paper also highlights the success of the EU’s Representative Actions Directive (RAD), which it argues has already created “a framework to mitigate risks associated with TPLF, preventing conflicts of interest, undue third party influence, and ensuring judicial oversight to enforce compliance.” Taking aim at the proposed regulations that were put forward to the European Parliament, BEUC’s position is that “there is no need to add further EU rules regulating TPLF to the existing regulatory framework established by the RAD.” Furthermore, BEUC argues that “the specific measures recommended by the European Parliament may disproportionately disadvantage consumer organisations often relying on TPLF to bring collective redress actions.”

In a post on LinkedIn, International Legal Finance Association’s (ILFA) Chairman Neil Purslow expressed his support for BEUC’s stance, saying: “BEUC, the pre-eminent voice of consumer organizations in the EU, rightly recognizes the vital role funders played in enabling equal access to justice for consumers in collective redress. As BEUC highlights, litigation funding not only levels the playing field for consumers, but also deters corporate wrongdoing by strengthening consumer organizations in exercising their rights.”

The full position paper from BEUC can be read here

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Jonas Rey, Partner, Athena Intelligence SA & Founder, Liti Capital SA

By John Freund |

Athena Intelligence is the largest corporate intelligence firm in Switzerland, specializing in dispute resolution, litigation support and asset recovery. Liti Capital is a Swiss based litigation funders that made headlines in 2021 for tokenizing its equity and raising funds through cryptocurrency markets. The company has since invested in multiple global cases.

Company Website: https://athenaintelligence.ch/ - https://liticapital.com/

Year Founded: 2019 / 2021

Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland

Area of Focus: Asset recovery, blockchain, unorthodox cases

Member Quote: If there is a way to extract returns from this, we will find it.

Read More

Portland Communications Report: 62% of Public Have Low Understanding of Litigation Funding

By Harry Moran |

The Post Office Horizon scandal and the accompanying litigation brought both class actions and litigation funding into the spotlight for many in the wider public. A new survey on class actions shows that the public perception of third-party funding is shifting year-over-year, with a mixture of encouraging and concerning signs for litigation funders. 

Portland Communications has published a report titled ‘Reputation & Accountability – Class Actions, ESG and Values-Driven Litigation’, which provides insights into class action trends in the UK. Having surveyed 2,000 people, along with 540 ‘senior decision makers’ from UK businesses, the report also offers a view into the wider perception of class actions, law firms and the funders who back these claims.

The overall share of survey respondents who believed class actions lead to compensation for victims rose from 43% in 2023 to 57% in 2024, with a commensurate rise, 44% to 56%, in those who said that class actions hold large companies to account. However, despite this overall approval for the effectiveness of class actions, the more startling statistic may be that 81% of respondents believed that class actions mostly make money for funders and law firms.

Part of this distrust towards those supporting claimants may stem from a failure to properly educate the wider public, as 62% of those surveyed said that they had a ‘low’ understanding of how litigation funding works. Perhaps even more concerning for funders, is that those self-reporting this low understanding has risen from 49% in 2023. This lack of understanding is further cemented by the fact that 57% of respondents believed that unsuccessful class actions could still result in a financial loss for claimants.

However, the good news for litigation funders is that 67% of respondents would still prefer a situation where funders are taking a percentage compensation rather than paying the legal bills themselves. In support of this, there was also a notable decrease in the number of people who believed that all compensation should go to those affected, with a significant drop from 66% of respondents in 2023 to 46% this year.

The full report from Portland Communications can be accessed here.

FARA Unit’s Advisory Opinion Clarifies Stance on Foreign Litigation Funding

By Harry Moran |

An oft-repeated critique of litigation funding is that it may act as a vehicle for adversarial foreign actors to negatively impact U.S. national security or business interests. This is an argument that has primarily been leveled at policymakers to try and drive forward new regulations. However, an advisory opinion from a Department of Justice office shows that government bodies are already actively evolving their approach to foreign litigation funding.

An insights piece produced by law firm Morrison Foerster analyses an advisory opinion that was published by the DOJ’s Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) Unit. The opinion, which was issued on June 24, 2024, advising a U.S. law firm that it must register under FARA if it wished to pursue impact litigation as the claims were being funded by a foreign non-governmental organization. After comparing the opinion with public FARA registrations, the articles authors concluded that ‘the law firm that requested the opinion and ultimately registered, received funding from a private Australian NGO to pursue environmental-related litigation.’

Morrison Foerster’s detailed analysis shows that the opinion appeared to reshape certain aspects of FARA’s applicability to certain categories of foreign litigation funders, particularly as it relates to which situations would qualify for FARA’s legal and commercial exemptions from registration. 

Regarding the legal exemption, the opinion indicated that this does not apply if the funder is not party to the litigation or if the litigation aims to affect U.S. policy either. The authors suggest that ‘this would potentially create a registration obligation for any impact litigation or perhaps even any litigation that invokes policy arguments that is funded by a foreign entity, even when the foreign entity is a party to the litigation.

When it came to the commercial exemption, the advisory opinion seemed to only interpret the statutory language in isolation and did not consider FARA’s corresponding regulations. According to Morrison Foerster’s analysis, 28 C.F.R. § 5.304(c) of FARA’s regulations would make the commercial exemption available ‘for activities directly in furtherance of the commercial interests or other organizational objectives of a foreign principal’, as long as these commercial activities are not directed by, nor directly promote the interests, of a foreign government or party.

The advisory opinion written by Evan Turgeon, Chief, Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) Unit, can be read in full here

International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) Welcomes New BEUC Position Paper – ‘Justice Unchained’

By Harry Moran |

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), the global voice of commercial legal finance, has today commented on the new position of BEUC, The European Consumer Organisation, on the use of commercial funding for collective redress as expressed in their paper ’Justice unchained - BEUC’s view on third party litigation funding’. 

The BEUC paper acknowledges several key points:

  • Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) is essential to guarantee European consumers access to justice.
  • There is ‘insufficient evidence’ for the repeated, unsubstantiated claims of the US Chamber of Commerce that TPLF undermines the justice system.
  • There is ‘no need to add further EU rules regulating TPLF’ at this time and additional regulation of TPLF risks ‘disproportionately disadvantaging consumer organisations’ and increasing the cost of litigation for those accessing funding. 

Following the publication of the report, Neil Purslow, Chairman of the Executive Committee of ILFA, commented:

‘BEUC, the pre-eminent voice of consumer organisations in the EU, rightly recognises the vital role funders played in enabling equal access to justice for consumers in collective redress. As BEUC highlights, litigation funding not only levels the playing field for consumers, but also deters corporate wrongdoing by strengthening consumer organisations in exercising their rights.

We support the BEUC conclusion that further regulation at the EU level at this time does not make sense and that existing tools provide safeguards to ensure the system works fairly. While our critics like the US Chamber of Commerce continue to push unsubstantiated claims to constrain access to justice, BEUC has been able to see through and identify the clear benefits of litigation funding for consumers.’ 

The full paper from BEUC can be found here

About ILFA

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate and influence legislative, regulatory and judicial landscapes as the global voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world. For more information, visit www.ilfa.com and like us on LinkedIn and X @ILFA_Official. 

About BEUC

BEUC is the umbrella group for 44 independent consumer organisations from 31 countries. Their main role is to represent them to the EU institutions and defend the interests of European consumers, covering areas such as competition, consumer rights, digital rights, redress and enforcement, financial services, safety, sustainability and trade policy.

Read More

Jason Bertoldi Joins Alliant Insurance Services 

By Harry Moran |

Jason Bertoldi, formerly the Head of Contingent Risk Solutions for Willis Towers Watson, announced that he has joined Alliant Insurance Services and taken up the position of Global Team Leader for Litigation & Contingent Risk Insurance.

In a post on LinkedIn, Bertoldi announced that he is joining Alliant from WTW, where he served for the past two years. He also brings experience from both the legal and financial services industries, having begun his career at Susman Godfrey before moving to The D. E. Shaw Group.

Commenting on the move, Bertoldi said: “I'm thrilled to be joining such a talented team, in an industry that I've been lucky to be a part of for these past few years.” 

The First Collective Work on Third Party Funding in Spain is Presented by Ramco Litigation Funding and ICADE University.

By Harry Moran |

The book La Financiación de Litigios en derecho español y comparado: estado del mercado y su regulación, (Thrid Party Funding in Spanish and Comaprative Law) published by ARANZADI LA LEY, is being presented by Ramco Litigation Funding and ICADE University. This work provides clarity and reflection on this figure, which is undoubtedly a tool that helps to dynamise the legal sector and provides better access to justice.

This is the first collective book, with 21 leading authors, on Litigation Funding in Spain and is a guide to the status, nature and regulation of this figure in Spain and in Comparative Law. It is aimed at all professionals in the legal sector and includes, in a novel way, in a single work, the perspective of professionals from different areas of the legal sector (professors, lawyers, in-house lawyers, company lawyers, arbitrators, financiers, etc.) both nationally and internationally, on the different aspects of Litigation Funding. The book has been published in Spanish and will be published in English language at the beginning of next year.

Since the first funders entered Spain in 2017, Litigation Finance has seen exponential growth year on year, following the trend observed in other countries. Spain is the fourth country in its use in Europe, after the United Kingdom, Germany and the Netherlands, as indicated in the European Parliament report.

In recent years, the Spanish market has experienced a growing demand from companies, law firms and individuals, who see Litigation Finance as a tool to monetise their legal assets, reduce costs and manage risks.

The book was presented las Wednesday at ICADE's headquarters with the intervention of the Dean of the Faculty of Law and author, Abel Veiga, who stated that a work of this nature was necessary for reflection and debate on this figure in Spain. Urquiola de Palacio, exchairman of the UIA and arbitrator, the book's prologue writer, commented on the importance of the work in Spain, as well as its potential impact in other jurisdictions, and suggested that it should be translated into English in order to be sent to the European Commission in the process of research being carried out on the regulation of Litigation Funding.

The round table was moderated by Diego Agulló (professor of International Law in ICADE)  and the speakers were Antonio Muñoz Murillo, director of litigation at Iberdrola; Paulino Fajardo, partner at HSF Kramer; Ruth Rodríguez Lazcano, lawyer at the Technical Office of the Supreme Court; and Cristina Soler, CEO of Ramco Litigation Funding.

Antonio Muñoz Murillo spoke about the importance of the in-house figure in companies and the need for legal departments to adapt to business structures in order to be proactive, exploring new models that exist in the market to add value to their operations.

Paulino Fajardo insisted on the need to normalise the figure of the litigation funder as just another operator in the market and not as something extraordinary. He stated that lawyers owe it to their clients, and that it is up to their clients to decide whether or not to use these structures, while maintaining the lawyer's total independence.

For her part, Ruth Rodriguez explained the importance of reference works to guide judges and help them to better understand the framework and the use of funders.

Cristina Soler closed the event by thanking all the authors and ICADE, highlighting how important it is for Ramco to have promoted a book of this magnitude to raise awareness of this figure, which continues to grow in Spain with a high degree of user satisfaction, as stated in the recent report published by Ramco in 2023. He insisted that funders do not generate more frivolous litigation, as they study cases in depth and their chances of success; on the contrary, they generate resources for better access to justice.

Ramco will continue to promote valuable activities that provide information and help to improve the understanding of Litigation Finance in a transparent and coherent manner.

For more information: www.ramcolf.com  

Read More

UK Competition Court Throws Out Google’s Challenge to £7Bn Consumer Lawsuit, Paving Way for Full Court Showdown

By Harry Moran |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has certified the £7 billion claim against Google brought by Nikki Stopford, a consumer rights campaigner, on behalf of tens of millions of UK consumers – rejecting Google’s attempt to torpedo the claim early, and adding to the Big Tech firm’s legal and regulatory woes.

The specialist UK court will require Google to defend its longstanding conduct in the search engine market, after approving the landmark legal action brought by Nikki Stopford and legal firm Hausfeld & Co LLP.

The claim accuses Google of exploiting its dominance in the search market to increase advertising costs, which were ultimately passed on to consumers. With certification now secured, millions of UK consumers are poised to pursue compensation for the economic harm caused by Google’s conduct.

The CAT’s decision is the latest in a series of setbacks for Google’s parent company Alphabet, which is fighting to preserve its all-important dominance in online search globally. Earlier this month, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) proposed that the US courts should force Google to sell its Chrome web browser, prohibiting Google from entering into agreements that make it the default search engine on smartphones and browsers, and additional restrictions to ensure its Android smartphone software does not favour Google Search.

The full CAT judgment can be viewed here. The UK court dismissed Google’s arguments in full, including its attempt to have the claim struck out. The CAT held that Ms Stopford had put forward a serious case and authorised her to act as the class representative and permitted the claim to proceed to trial.

Following the CAT’s certification, Ms Stopford will represent all UK-domiciled consumers aged 16 years or over who, during the period from 1 January 2011 until 7 September 2023 (inclusive), purchased goods and/or services from a business selling in the UK, which used search advertising services provided by Google. The action is being brought as an opt-out collective action, meaning that everyone in the UK affected is automatically included as a claimant in the case unless they opt out.

The case against Google

The collective action argues that Google used its dominant position in the UK search engine market to overcharge advertisers and that these costs were then passed directly on to the consumer.

Google forced mobile phone handset manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search and Google Chrome browser apps on devices that used Google’s Android operating system; and

Google paid billions to Apple to ensure that Google was the default search engine on all devices, such as the iPhone, that used Apple’s iOS operating system.

Other proceedings

The DoJ action follows a long legal fight brought by the DoJ and several Attorneys General in the US, culminating in a judgment in August 2024 by the District Court of Columbia, which found that Google’s conduct is anti-competitive and unlawful.

This judgment also supports Nikki Stopford’s claim that Google’s commercial agreement with Apple foreclosed the market for search on iOS devices, as do recent findings by the UK Competition and Markets Authority.

Meanwhile, the European Commission imposed the biggest fine in history on Google for the anti-competitive practices in Android.

It is alleged that the abuses by Google are possible because Google is set as the default search engine account for at least 94% of the mobile device sector, by usage. Google Ads generated over $224 billion in revenue in 2022, accounting for almost 80% of parent company Alphabet’s revenue ($283 billion in 2022).

Nikki Stopford, the class representative in the action, said:

“This green light from the tribunal is a significant victory for UK consumers. Almost everybody uses Google as their go-to search engine, trusting it to deliver quality results at no cost. But its service isn’t genuinely free because its dominance has resulted in increased costs for consumers. Google has been warned repeatedly by competition regulators. Yet it continues to rig the market to charge advertisers more, which raises the prices they charge consumers. This action seeks to promote healthier competition in digital markets, and to hold Google accountable and ensure that consumers are compensated for the harm caused by its conduct.”

Luke Streatfeild, Partner at legal firm Hausfeld & Co LLP, who is leading the litigation, said:

“This judgment is good news for UK consumers, as the case for compensation brought by our client on their behalf can now proceed to trial. The judgment is also helpful in clarifying the standard for assessing exclusionary conduct by dominant companies, in particular in digital markets with high barriers to entry, and it will be a useful reference point in future cases that aim to promote fairer competition and better outcomes for consumers in those marketplaces.”

Further information

The certified claim against Google is being brought at the CAT against Alphabet Inc., Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited and Google UK Limited under CAT Claim No. 1606/7/7/23.

Who is eligible to be part of the claim?

All that is necessary is that a consumer purchased goods or services from a business who advertised using search advertising services provided by Google. It is not necessary for them to have seen the goods or services advertised on Google or used Google to purchase the goods or services. This is because the claim says that these higher prices affected all a business’ products if it advertised on Google.

Those who are interested in finding out more about the claim and signing up for regular updates should visit www.searchclaim.co.uk.

About the class representative

Nikki Stopford is co-founder of Consumer Voice and brings 25 years of experience in advocating and raising industry standards for consumers. She is Chair of the British Standard Institute’s Consumer Forum and a member of its Standards Policy and Strategy Committee. She has held executive leadership roles running successful digital and content-led consumer-facing businesses that have engaged and advocated for millions of consumers. Most notably, she was Group Director of Research and Publishing at Which? – the UK's largest consumer organisation – for more than 10 years.

Additional notes

Affected claimants, on whose behalf the class action is brought, will not pay costs or fees to participate in this legal action, which is being funded by global commercial litigation funder Hereford Litigation. The action is insured, which means that class members have no adverse cost risk in relation to the claim.

Ms Stopford is represented by:

  • Hausfeld & Co. LLP, Partners Luke Streatfeild and Simon Bishop, supported by Counsel Jonothan Broadbent and Stella Gartagani, Associates Natalie Jukes, Ginevra Bicciolo and Lisa Amrani and paralegals Martha Papapostolou and Alice Caroff
  • Charles Rivers Associates, Oliver Latham, Vice President, supported by Director Sam Marden and Senior Associate Liam Connolly
  • Rosamilia Consulting, Davide Rosamilia, co-founder and principal consultant
  • Ben Lask KC of Monckton Chambers
  • Daniel Jowell KC and Colin West KC, both of Brick Court Chambers
  • Mehdi Baiou and (formerly) Andrew Lomas, both of One Essex Court.
Read More

Fundraising

View All

Case Developments

View All

Legal Innovation

View All

People Moves

View All

Regulatory

View All

Consumer

View All

Thought Leadership

View All
The LFJ Podcast
Hosted By John Freund |
The LFJ Podcast
Hosted By John Freund |
The LFJ Podcast