Trending Now
Commercial Deals

Multibillion Pound Claim Filed Against Sony Group

August 22, 2022

Multibillion Pound Claim Filed Against Sony Group

A claim against Sony Group was filed on 19 August 2022 in the UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). The claim is being brought on behalf of UK-based PlayStation users who have purchased digital games and/or add-on content from the PlayStation Store since 19 August 2016. The claim is being funded by Woodsford, the UK’s leading ESG, access to justice and litigation finance business. It’s alleged that Sony is breaching UK and EU competition law by abusing its dominant position resulting in consumers paying inflated prices for digital PlayStation games and add-on content. This standalone collective action is brought on behalf of an estimated 9 million potential class members. An application has been made to the CAT for a Collective Proceedings Order which if ordered will result in a single class representative representing all potential class members on an opt-out basis. The proposed class representative is consumer champion Alex Neill, Chief Executive of Resolver.co.uk. Alex’s team, funded by Woodsford, includes the law firm Milberg London LLP, economics experts at Berkeley Research Group LLC and barristers from Monckton Chambers. Woodsford’s Chief Executive Officer, Steven Friel, commented: “Woodsford’s ESG team is dedicated to holding big business to account when corporate wrongdoing causes loss to consumers and other stakeholders. We are proud to support Alex Neill’s case, helping deliver access to justice for millions of gamers. Our significant financial and professional resource is already backing UK class actions against train companies accused of overcharging, and shippers whose cartel behaviour is alleged to have inflated the price of cars. With the launch of this claim against Sony, and with more landmark cases being worked up, Woodsford is now clearly established as the most successful ESG and litigation finance business in this area of UK collective redress.” Further information on the claim and updates on its progress can be found at www.playstationyouoweus.com. About Woodsford Founded in 2010 and with a presence in London, New York, Brisbane, Philadelphia and Minneapolis, Woodsford is a leading ESG, access to justice and litigation finance business. Whether it is helping consumers achieve collective redress, ensuring that investors and universities are properly compensated when Big Tech infringes intellectual property rights, or helping shareholders in collaborative, escalated engagement up to and including litigation with listed companies, Woodsford is committed to ensuring the highest ESG standards while providing access to justice. Working globally with many of the world’s leading law firms, our legal experience, investment, business and technical expertise, in tandem with our significant financial muscle, makes us a powerful partner and a formidable adversary. Woodsford is a founder member of both the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) and the Association of Litigation Funders of England & Wales (ALF), and a member of the International Corporate Governance Network. Woodsford continues to grow, and we welcome approaches from experienced litigation lawyers and other professionals who are interested in joining our team. For more information visit www.woodsford.com

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Life After PACCAR: What’s Next for Litigation Funding?

By John Freund |

In the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s landmark R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal decision, which held that many common litigation funding agreements (LFAs) constituted damages-based agreements (DBAs) and were therefore unenforceable without complying with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations, the litigation funding market has been in flux.

The ruling upended traditional third-party funding models in England & Wales and sparked a wide range of responses from funders, lawyers and policymakers addressing the uncertainty it created for access to justice and commercial claims. This Life After PACCAR piece brings together leading partners from around the industry to reflect on what has changed and where the market is headed.

An article in Law.com highlights how practitioners are navigating this “post-PACCAR” landscape. Contributors emphasise the significant disruption that followed the decision’s classification of LFAs as DBAs — disruption that forced funders and claimants to rethink pricing structures and contractual frameworks. They also explore recent case law that has begun to restore some stability, including appellate decisions affirming alternative fee structures that avoid the DBA label (such as multiple-of-investment returns) and the ongoing uncertainty pending legislative reform.

Discussion also centres on the UK government’s response: following the Civil Justice Council’s 2025 Final Report, momentum has built behind proposals to reverse the PACCAR effect through legislation and to adopt a light-touch regulatory regime for third-party funders.

Commercial

Litigation Funding Founder Reflects on Building a New Platform

By John Freund |

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Limits Recovery of Litigation Funding Costs

By John Freund |

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.