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
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Gabriel Pardo Lelo de Larrea, Founder & CEO, RIDER Litigation Finance

By John Freund |

Gabriel Pardo Lelo de Larrea—a Mexican lawyer with international experience, business executive, and entrepreneur—has come up with a technological solution that aims to transform the litigation funding space by streamlining and optimizing the traditionally time-consuming funding process.

With a Law Degree from Mexico’s prestigious Universidad Panamericana, a Business Degree from IPADE Business School, and a Master’s in Finance from Duke University, Gabriel brings extensive expertise in arbitration, capital raising, private equity, and litigation finance. Recognizing a critical gap in the industry, he designed a democratized, efficient platform that empowers investors of all sizes to participate while providing owners of legal rights, across a broader spectrum of claim values, with accessible funding opportunities.

Company Name:   RIDER LITIGATION FINANCE, L.L.C.

Company Description:  Built on proprietary technology, RIDER’s automated and efficient processes address a critical need: simplifying and expediting deal sourcing, closing, and post-closing updates. Acting as a matchmaker within its carefully curated network, RIDER connects claimholders, law firms, and investors already registered on its platform.

By democratizing litigation funding, RIDER makes the industry accessible to investors of all sizes while empowering claimholders with large, medium, and smaller-scale claims to secure the financial support they need. This disruptive model expands the litigation finance ecosystem, delivering fairness and efficiency to all stakeholders. RIDER serves as the ultimate dealmaker enabler on a global scale.

  1. Tailored Applications: RIDER meticulously prepares Funding Applications in a format funders prefer, presenting key financial and material aspects with clarity and precision.
  2. Rigorous Filtering: We pre-select cases with a high likelihood of success, backed by double Legal Opinions, ensuring funders are presented with only the most compelling opportunities.
  3. Aligned Expectations: Before negotiations begin, all stakeholders are fully informed about financial expectations and other critical terms, fostering transparency and reducing delays.
  4. Streamlined Negotiations: RIDER’s assistance during negotiations accelerates agreement finalization, providing funders and claim holders with a seamless experience.

Year Founded:   2022, Launching Operations in November 2024.

Headquarters:  Mexico City, although with Global reach.

Area of the Company:   Founder & CEO

Member Quote:   "Democratizing Justice, Empowering Investment on a Global scale".

Read More
The LFJ Podcast
Hosted By John Freund |

In this episode, we sit down with Richard Culberson, CEO of Moneypenny & VoiceNation North America. Richard discusses how Moneypenny can save costs and increase operational efficiency for law firms and litigation funders through enhanced client communication services.

LCM Announces Appointment of Chief Financial Officer to the Board of Directors

By Harry Moran |

Litigation Capital Management Limited (AIM:LIT), a leading international alternative asset manager of disputes financing solutions, is pleased to announce the appointment of David Collins, Chief Financial Officer, to its Board of Directors, effective immediately.

David has brought significant expertise and fresh perspective to LCM during his first five months as CFO, making a positive impact on the company's financial operations and strategic planning. David is a Chartered Accountant and brings more than 20 years' experience in senior finance and capital markets roles across a range of leading institutions including EY, Morgan Stanley, Och-Ziff Capital (now Sculptor Capital) and Prudential plc.

Jonathan Moulds, Chairman of LCM, commented: "David's appointment to the Board reflects our confidence in his capabilities and his contributions to the business in a short period. We look forward to leveraging his experience as we continue to execute on our strategy for growth and value creation."

The following information is disclosed in accordance with Schedule 2(g) of the AIM Rules for Companies:

David Andrew Collins, aged 47, holds/has held the following directorships/partnerships in the last five years:

Current directorships:Previous directorships held in the past 5 years:
Greatham Advisors LimitedHoway Investments Ltd
Read More
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Jason Bertoldi, Global Team Leader, Litigation & Contingent Risk Insurance, Alliant Insurance Services

By John Freund |

Jason is a former litigation funder who now leads Alliant’s Global Litigation & Contingent Risk Insurance team.  He designs and brokers bespoke policies that cover a range of legal and regulatory exposures, and he regularly assists litigants, law firms, litigation funders, private equity clients, and other stakeholders in structuring and obtaining cutting-edge contingent risk insurance solutions.

Jason is a Chambers Band 1-ranked litigation insurance broker and he has placed some of the largest and most creative contingent risk insurance policies, including multiple nine-figure policies. Jason frequently assists clients in monetizing contingent risk insurance policies and structuring transactions that incorporate insurance policies as investment collateral. Leveraging his background as a front-office finance analyst, Jason has helped clients obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in financing collateralized by contingent risk insurance policies.

Prior to joining the contingent risk insurance industry, Jason was a member of the Litigation Investing team at the D. E. Shaw group, a global investment and technology development firm with more than $60 billion in investment and committed capital. He is a former litigator at Susman Godfrey LLP, and a former law clerk for the Honorable Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Honorable Karen Nelson Moore of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Company Name and Description:  Alliant Insurance Services is one of the nation’s leading distributors of diversified insurance products and services. We operate through a network of specialized national platforms and local offices to offer our clients a comprehensive portfolio of solutions built on innovative thinking and personal service. The business of managing risk is getting more complex, and Alliant is meeting this complexity head-on, not with more layers of management, but with more creativity and agility. Alliant is changing the way our clients approach risk management and benefits, so they can capitalize on new opportunities to grow and protect their organizations.

Alliant is recognized as a leading destination for top-tier brokerage talent in the U.S, attracting brokers and specialists across a diverse spectrum of disciplines who are eager to advance their careers. With the advantage of being majority employee-owned, professionals choose Alliant for autonomy, unparalleled resources, and a unique equity ownership opportunity. As a testament to our commitment to excellence, Alliant maintains an impressive 99% producer retention rate and has earned Forbes’ prestigious title of one of America’s Best Large Employers.

Company Website: https://alliant.com/

Headquarters:  Jason is based in New York, NY

Area of Focus:  
Litigation and contingent risk insurance 

Member Quote:  As a former litigation funder, I believe that litigation funding and contingent risk insurance are complementary products. Combining the two can unlock enormous value for funders and their counterparties.  And designing creative insurance solutions for litigation funders is one of the most rewarding parts of my job.

Read More

Litigation Funding in the UAE: WinJustice Leading the Way

By Obaid Saeed Bin Mes’har |

The following was contributed by Obaid Saeed Bin Mes’har, Managing Director of WinJustice.

WinJustice is the first litigation funding firm in the UAE, empowering businesses and individuals to access justice without financial strain. The UAE’s unique legal landscape, divided into onshore and offshore jurisdictions, offers a dynamic environment for litigation funding. As a trailblazer in this space, WinJustice is committed to making justice accessible and affordable for all.


Understanding the UAE’s Legal Landscape

Onshore Jurisdictions

In the UAE’s onshore courts, the legal framework is based on federal laws and elements of Sharia law. While there are no explicit rules prohibiting litigation funding, the absence of clear regulations requires careful navigation. Key considerations include:

  • Principles of Good Faith: Parties must ensure that funding agreements align with the core principles of UAE law and avoid speculative transactions (Gharar).
  • Sharia Compliance: Agreements must balance financial interests with the broader public good (Maslaha), enabling parties to pursue valid claims ethically.

Offshore Jurisdictions

Offshore jurisdictions, including the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), offer a more structured environment for litigation funding. These jurisdictions follow common law principles and have implemented specific guidelines:

  • DIFC Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017: Requires disclosure of funding agreements to promote transparency and grants courts the authority to impose cost orders on funders.
  • ADGM Funding Rules 2019: Ensures that funded parties receive independent legal advice and fosters ethical practices in third-party funding.

WinJustice operates across both onshore and offshore jurisdictions, leveraging its expertise to guide clients through the complexities of litigation funding in the UAE.


How Litigation Funding Benefits UAE Businesses

Litigation funding provides a lifeline for businesses facing high-stakes legal disputes, particularly in sectors like construction, real estate, and finance. Key benefits include:

  1. Access to Justice: Enables businesses to pursue claims without worrying about upfront legal costs.
  2. Risk Mitigation: Shifts the financial burden to the funder, allowing clients to focus on their core operations.
  3. Leveling the Playing Field: Empowers smaller businesses to compete with larger opponents in complex disputes.

The Role of Arbitration in Litigation Funding

Arbitration is a preferred dispute resolution method in the UAE, governed by the Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018 and updated regulations in the DIFC and ADGM. Notably:

  • Both DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022 and arbitrateAD guidelines emphasize transparency by requiring disclosure of third-party funding agreements.
  • Arbitration proceedings offer a flexible and confidential framework, making them ideal for cases involving third-party funding.

WinJustice specializes in funding arbitration cases, ensuring our clients have the financial support needed to achieve favorable outcomes.


Why WinJustice is the Right Choice

As the pioneer in UAE litigation funding, WinJustice offers:

  • Expert Guidance: Decades of combined experience in navigating UAE’s legal systems.
  • Custom Solutions: Tailored funding arrangements to meet the unique needs of each client.
  • Ethical Standards: Commitment to transparency, fairness, and compliance with UAE regulations.

Whether you are pursuing a commercial dispute, arbitration claim, or high-value litigation, WinJustice provides the financial resources and expertise to secure justice.


Conclusion

Litigation funding is transforming the UAE’s legal landscape, and WinJustice is proud to lead this change. By bridging the gap between justice and affordability, we are enabling businesses and individuals to take control of their legal challenges with confidence.

Visit WinJustice to learn more.

Read More

Hausfeld & Co LLP: Confirmed – Collective Action Seeking More Than £1.5bn from Apple Set for January Trial

By Harry Moran |

Dr Rachael Kent’s over £1.5bn collective action against Apple for alleged overcharging in relation to the Apple App Store will go to trial on 6 January 2025. The Competition Appeal Tribunal has confirmed the trial will run for eight weeks, with the first week reserved as a reading week. Hearings will commence on 13 January 2025 at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Salisbury Square House, 8 Salisbury Square, London EC4Y 8AP.

The claim, which seeks compensation for millions of UK consumers and businesses, alleges that Apple breached competition law by abusing its dominant position through its conduct relating to its App Store. According to the claim, Apple has excluded competition and charged unfairly high commissions of up to 30% on app and in-app purchases (including subscriptions) made on iPhones and iPads.

Dr Kent has issued a revised Trial Hearing Notice, available here, which confirms the trial schedule and provides further information about the case. For more information on the claim, visit www.appstoreclaims.co.uk/Apple. Class members are encouraged to check the website for updates about the claim, including access to Tribunal orders and further guidance. The Notice can also be found in the “Documents” section of the claim website.

For those interested in observing the trial, it will be open to the public both in person and online via the Tribunal’s website. A “Watch Now” link will be available under the Diary section on the Tribunal’s homepage (www.catribunal.org.uk) on the trial commencement date.

Further information on the claim

The legal claim applies to purchases made on many popular apps on iPhones and iPads, including Fortnite, YouTube and Tinder. It does not apply to apps providing “physical goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app”. These include Deliveroo and Uber, which are not required to use Apple’s payments system or pay Apple the disputed 30% commission on every purchase of and/or within their apps.

Affected app purchasers, on whose behalf the collective action is brought, will not pay costs or fees to participate in this legal action, which is being funded by Vannin Capital, a global litigation funder. The action is insured, which means that class members have no financial risk in relation to the claim.

Dr Kent is represented by Lesley Hannah, Sofie Edwards, Kio Gwilliam, Emma Poland, Jonathan Amior, Natalie Jukes, Jake Henderson, Abigail Masters and Kazi Elias at law firm Hausfeld & Co. LLP, with barristers Mark Hoskins KC and Matthew Kennedy from Brick Court Chambers, and Tim Ward KC, Michael Armitage and Antonia Fitzpatrick from Monckton Chambers

About Hausfeld & Co. LLP

Hausfeld is a leading international law firm specialising in competition law, with significant expertise in all aspects of collective redress and group claims.

Read More

GAO Publishes Report on Patent Litigation Funding

By Harry Moran |

The role of third-party funding in patent litigation has remained a contentious issue in the United States, with it often being targeted by critics of litigation finance as a prime example of the dangers of foreign interference. However, a new report from an independent government agency may provide some useful context for this ongoing debate, and balance the viewpoints of those on each side of the argument.

A new report published by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) shines a spotlight on the world of third-party funding for patent disputes, reviewing recent developments in the sector and garnering insights for industry stakeholders. The report, which is titled ‘Intellectual Property: Information on Third-Party Funding of Patent Litigation’, was delivered to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property.

The GAO study was compiled over the last 12 months using interviews with a range of industry representatives including litigation funders, technology companies that were frequently defendants in patent litigation, law firms, inventors who had used third-party funding, and court judges. The report also reviewed third-party reports from Unified Patents, RPX, and Westfleet Advisors, whilst also analysing data from  the Stanford NPE Litigation Database. Furthermore, the GAO reviewed a dozen patent litigation cases and reviewed academic literature on the subject.

Explaining why the study was conducted, the GAO highlighted the ‘limited’ amount of publicly available data on third-party funding of patent litigation, and the concerns raised by stakeholders around the extent of the practice amid the general lack of formal disclosure of funding.

In its interviews with litigation funders, the GAO found there were ‘multiple factors that inform their decision on whether to invest in a particular lawsuit’, from the strength of the patent in question to the existence of information exchange between the patent owner and the defendant company. Separately, representatives from these defendants suggested that ‘more than half of all patent infringement lawsuits filed against them had confirmed or suspected third-party funding.’

The topic of disclosure requirements was unsurprisingly a focus of the GAO’s research, with stakeholders identifying both benefits and concerns around the introduction of more stringent transparency rules. Among these identified benefits of enhanced disclosure were the ability of judges to discover conflicts of interest, shedding light on the involvement of foreign entities in patent litigation, and the possibility of facilitating case resolution in situations where the presence of a funder may encourage defendants to reach a settlement. When it came to the concerns around mandating disclosure of funding, stakeholders questioned the relevance of this detail to the underlying litigation, the potential of biasing any litigation towards defendants by providing information around the plaintiff’s financial resources, and finally the issue of increasing the burden on the court system by adding these additional measures.

The full report can be read here.

Burford Capital CEO says Government Inaction Over PACCAR is ‘Perilous’

By Harry Moran |

Over 16 months have passed since the Supreme Court’s decision in PACCAR which caused upheaval in the UK litigation funding sector, with few signs of encouragement that a legislative solution will come into force before the two-year anniversary of the judgment. Whilst the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) ongoing review into litigation funding is laying the foundations for eventual government action, it is increasingly clear that funders are growing impatient with the lack of urgency from Westminster.

Speaking with City AM, the CEO of Burford Capital, Chris Bogart offers his views on the new government’s approach to litigation funding and expresses dissatisfaction at the “uncertainty” caused by its cautious approach to addressing the impact of PACCAR ruling. Bogart cautioned that delaying a legislative solution whilst waiting for the outcome of the CJC’s review could endanger London’s “very strong global reputation for legal services.”

Bogart explained that with Burford’s position as a global litigation funder, they have both the opportunity and the need to prioritise certain markets, meaning that the government’s inaction is resulting in Burford being “less focused on using dispute resolution in London” than in past years. Bogart highlighted the strength of dispute resolution jurisdictions in New York, Paris and Singapore, and Burford are “migrating some dispute resolution activity away from London and towards New York.”

Bogart explained the company’s position through a rational financial framework, saying that he is “in the business of allocating capital to places that are reliable and deliver returns for shareholders.” In closing, Bogart sent what appeared to be a direct message to policymakers in London, warning that “it is perilous for the new government to take action or to exist in inaction that moves that capital away from London.”

A Radical Idea: What if We Restructured the Insurance Industry for the Public Good?

By Reid Zeising |

The following was contributed by Reid Zeising, CEO & founder of Gain.

Health insurance and third-party liability insurance are public goods, yet the insurance industry is structured on a for-profit model, which focuses on increased profits and shareholder returns, often over the needs and welfare of policyholders and claimants. Today’s largest insurers, especially third-party liability carriers, reap over $100 billion in annual profits, [1] while premiums and costs are on the rise for those depending on the policies that they issue for their financial protection. The insurance industry has a moral responsibility and a duty as a corporate citizen to prioritize its policyholders and claimants. By transitioning to a public utility model, the industry can refocus its priorities without jeopardizing liability carrier’s needs to cover operating costs and pay shareholder returns. By thinking like – and actually being – a public utility, insurers can fulfill their duties as a provider of an essential public good without imperiling their own financial health.

Transitioning to a Public Utility Model

The insurance industry predominantly operates on a for-profit model, emphasizing profit maximization[2] and shareholder returns.[3] This model, however, often neglects the welfare of policyholders and claimants.[4] It also does not reflect the reality that health insurance and third-party liability insurance are public goods. A public good is a benefit or service that should be available to all citizens and that ultimately contributes to the wellbeing of society as a whole.[5] One proven and effective model for delivering public goods is the public utility company, which is privately owned by investors, but committed to the provision of public good. A public utility company oversees essential services, ensuring their accessibility, reliability, and affordability.[6] By restructuring third-party liability carriers along these lines, we can elevate the role of insurance carriers from profit-centric entities to institutions focused on consumer welfare.[7] Similar to utilities, carriers could receive a fixed, reasonable return,[8] enabling investments in increased technology and efficiencies and sustainability while preventing the accumulation of excessive profits at the expense of policyholders.

Benefits of the Public Utility Model

Enhanced Payouts: Transforming the current model would necessitate that carriers pay out all remaining premiums to claimants, after covering operational costs, guaranteed returns and dividends. This fundamental change would translate to increased payouts for claimants, alleviating their financial burden and ensuring adequate compensation. This contrasts with the present situation, where substantial portions of premiums are often reserved for investments and increased profit margins, limiting the resources allocated to claimants. The Affordable Care Act sought to cap profits by mandating that health insurance companies could spend no more than 20 percent of revenue from premiums on administrative costs, marketing, and profits. However, insurers have skirted these rules by increasing overall costs and raising premiums, boosting revenues.[9] Therefore, further reform, along the lines proposed here, is needed.

Industry Shift to Public Good: By orienting the industry towards the welfare of policyholders and the larger community, we can establish a new standard of corporate responsibility within insurance carriers. This alteration fosters a climate where the pursuit of public good[10] becomes inherent, eclipsing the erstwhile emphasis on profit maximization. Under this paradigm, carriers become stewards of societal welfare and financial responsibility, ensuring equitable distribution of resources and safeguarding policyholder interests.[11]

Policyholder Centric: In this reimagined model, policyholders would be the primary beneficiaries, receiving enhanced protections and services. This framework mandates a focus on policyholder needs and aspirations, catalyzing the development of consumer-centric policies and practices. Additionally, the compulsory dividend payouts would ensure that policyholders receive tangible, financial benefits, contributing to economic stability and welfare.

A More Equitable Economy: The proposed transition has profound economic implications, marking a departure from purely capitalistic orientations to a more balanced, equitable economic structure. The substantial increase in payouts would stimulate consumer spending and economic activity, while the emphasis on public good would promote social cohesion and mutual responsibility. Moreover, this shift would mitigate the socioeconomic disparities[12] emanating from the current profit-driven model, fostering a more inclusive and equitable economic environment.

Redefining the Insurance Industry

The transformation of the insurance industry -- particularly third-party liability carriers – into a public utility model is a radical yet necessary step towards creating an equitable and consumer-oriented industry. By guaranteeing returns and mandating the allocation of remaining premiums to claimants, we can ensure the industry serves the public good and prioritizes policyholder welfare. This transition is not merely a structural adjustment; it symbolizes a philosophical shift, redefining the purpose and responsibilities of insurance carriers in a way that recognizes that third-party liability insurance carriers are essential public goods. This revolutionary approach promises increased payouts, enhanced policyholder benefits, and a collective pursuit of societal well-being. The pivot from a profit-centric paradigm to a model centered on public welfare, where the interests of consumers are placed above unchecked profit accrual. In the long term, this alteration can be a catalyst for more claims being paid and funds being utilized for the purposes they were intended.  Insurance is in place to reimburse those who have suffered through no fault of their own, and a utility model can assure that more monies are paid to consumers and less goes into the coffers of companies beyond what is needed to service these portfolios.


[1] “Visualizing the 50 Most Profitable Insurance Companies in the U.S.,” HowMuch.net, https://howmuch.net/articles/top-50-most-profitable-us-insurance-companies-2020. Data is based on Fortune 500 listings.

[2] Elisabeth Rosenthal, “Insurance policy: How an industry shifted from protecting patients to seeking profit,” Stanford Medicine Magazine, May 19, 2017, https://stanmed.stanford.edu/how-health-insurance-changed-from-protecting-patients-to-seeking-profit/.

[3] Nathalia Bellizia, Davide Corradi, and Jürgen Bohrmann, “Profitable Growth Is King: The 2022 Insurance Value Creators Report,” Boston Consulting Group, September 2, 2022, https://www.bcg.com/publications/2022/insurance-total-stakeholder-return-value-creation-report/.

[4] Rosenthal, “Insurance policy.”

[5] National Consumer Law Center, Access to Utility Service, 6th ed. 2018, 1.1.5, www.nclc.org/library; Jason Fernando, “What Are Public Goods? Definition, How They Work, and Example,” Investopedia, March 20, 2022, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/public-good.asp.

[6] David E. McNabb, “Chapter 1: Public utilities: essential services, critical infrastructure,” in Social and Political Science 2016, October 28, 2016, 3-18, Elgar Online, https://www.elgaronline.com/display/9781785365522/chapter01.xhtml.

[7] Jonathan D. Washko, “It’s Time to Resurrect the Public Utility Model Concept–But This Time for Healthcare,” Journal of Emergency Medical Services, October 18, 2017, https://www.jems.com/news/it-s-time-to-resurrect-the-public-utility-model-concept-but-also-for-healthcare-this-time/.

[8] McNabb, “Chapter 1: Public utilities: essential services, critical infrastructure.”

[9] Marshall Allen, “Why Your Health Insurer Doesn't Care About Your Big Bills,” NPR, May 25, 2018, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/05/25/613685732/why-your-health-insurer-doesnt-care-about-your-big-bills.

[10] Samuel S. Flint, “Public Goods, Public Utilities, and the Public's Health,” Health & Social Work, Volume 36, Issue 1, February 2011, 75–77, https://academic.oup.com/hsw/article-abstract/36/1/75/659133?redirectedFrom=PDF.

[11] Carter Dredge and Stefan Scholtes, “The Health Care Utility Model: A Novel Approach to Doing Business,” NEJM Catalyst, July 8, 2021, https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.21.0189.

[12] Samuel L. Dickman, David U. Himmelstein, and Steffie Woolhandler, “Inequality and the health-care system in the USA,” America: Equity and Equality in Health 1, The Lancet, April 8, 2017, Volume 389, 1431-1441, https://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/pdfs/US-equity-and-equality-in-health-1491475717627.pdf.

Read More

UK Facebook Users Could Benefit from £2.1 Billion Class Action as Case Proceeds to Trial

By Harry Moran |

Competition law expert Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s multi-billion pound case against Meta has been certified by the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London. Meta failed to prevent the case from proceeding as neither the Competition Appeal Tribunal nor the Court of Appeal granted Meta leave to appeal.

The case is now proceeding to trial, opening up the prospect of compensation for 46 million UK Facebook users.

Every Facebook user who were domiciled in the UK on 15 February 2024 and accessed Facebook at least once in the period between 14 February 2016 and 6 October 2023 will be automatically included in the case unless they opt out by 5 March 2025.

Dr Lovdahl Gormsen says: “We welcome the opportunity to hold Meta to account for abusing its dominant position by exploiting 46 million UK users’ data. Meta abused its market dominance by imposing unfair terms and conditions on UK users and imposing an unlawful price. We are very pleased that the Tribunal has approved me to go ahead and represent the class in our pursuit of redress for each individual affected”

The Tribunal ruled Meta’s attempts to challenge Dr. Lovdahl Gormsen’s claims were “insufficient” after expert testimony from leading economist Fiona Scott Morton, a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economics at the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. Whilst Meta attempted to appeal this decision, the Court of Appeal in October refused permission for them to do so.

Class action claims have risen in the UK in the past three years but do not always receive a Collective Proceedings Order. As of November 2024, only a third of all cases have reached this stage, underscoring the importance of this decision.

Dr Lovdahl Gormsen’s case argues that Meta set an ‘unfair price’ for UK Facebook users. The “price” set for granting access to the social network was the surrender of UK users’ highly valuable personal data on a take-it-or-leave-it basis for access to the network. In return, users only received “free” access to Facebook’s social network, and zero monetary recompense whilst Facebook generated billions in revenues from its users’ data. This unfair deal was only possible due to Meta’s market dominance, meaning users had no other social network they could use to get the same service.

The claim seeks damages of at least £2.1 billion, plus interest, on aggregate for all UK consumers affected.

Kate Vernon, partner and Head of Competition Litigation Practice at law firm Quinn Emanuel, representing Dr Lovdahl Gormsen said: “This groundbreaking case promises to redefine the application of competition law in the context of data exploitation. It sets a legal framework for approaching this pivotal matter and represents a significant shift in how we address the associated critical issues.”

Dr Lovdahl Gormsen’s legal action is an opt-out class action brought under the Competition Act 1998 and the first to protect individuals’ data rights against Meta under competition law in England and Wales. The case is backed by some of Britain’s most prominent lawyers and economists, such as the Rt. Honourable Lord Neuberger, former President of the Supreme Court, Professor Richard Whish, Honorary Kings Counsel, economist Chris Pike, and Peter Vicary-Smith, former CEO of Which?.

A notice of the collective proceedings order, which sets out how users may opt out of the claim, can be found here.

About Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen

The case is being led on behalf of the class by Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen, Senior Research Fellow at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL) and the director of the Competition Law Forum.The Competition Law Forum is a noted centre of excellence for European competition and antitrust policy and law.

In addition, Dr Lovdahl Gormsen is a Board Member of the Open Markets Institute and sits on the advisory board of the Journal of Antitrust Enforcement (OUP).

As an international expert in the field, Dr Lovdahl Gormsen co-authored the paper “Facebook’s Anticompetitive Lean in Strategies” (2019) and “Facebook’s Exploitative and Exclusionary Abuses in the Two-Sided Market for Social Networks and Display Advertising” (2021). The latter argues that antitrust enforcement is required to prevent the company from reinforcing its data-driven abuse of market power.

Dr Lovdahl Gormsen is represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP, one of the UK’s leading competition law specialists. The case is spearheaded by Quinn Emanuel partner Kate Vernon, a highly respected competition law specialist, and assisted by partner Leo Kitchen, and associates Megan Hiluta, Aadil Master and Alexander Groes. Also advising Dr Lovdahl Gormsen are counsel Robert O’Donoghue KC of Brick Court Chambers, Tom Coates of Blackstone Chambers, Greg Adey of One Essex Court and Ian Simester of Fountain Court Chambers.

The case is being funded by Innsworth, one of the world’s largest civil litigation funders.

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
Hosted By John Freund |