Trending Now
Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

Make no mistake, Litigation Finance IS Impact Investing!

The following article is part of an ongoing column titled ‘Investor Insights.’ 

Brought to you by Ed Truant, founder and content manager of Slingshot Capital, ‘Investor Insights’ will provide thoughtful and engaging perspectives on all aspects of investing in litigation finance. 

EXECUTIVE SUMARY

  • Litigation finance is instrumental in driving societal, environmental and governance change
  • The industry has yet to position itself as an Impact Investing asset class
  • There are few other financial industries that drive similar societal benefits through the application of finance

INVESTOR INSIGHTS

  • When assessing portfolios, look beyond the financial returns and focus on the social impact of the various pieces of litigation supported by the manager
  • Returns can be tangible (financial) and intangible (societal) and this is an asset class that exhibits both
  • Litigation finance should be viewed and characterized as a form of Impact Investing for purposes of investors’ portfolio allocation

From the first time I was introduced to litigation finance, be it consumer or commercial, I was quite surprised by the case studies.  What surprised me was not the outcome or the quantum of damages or the amount of profit being made by lawyers or litigation funders. Not at all.  What surprised me was the behaviour of the people involved on the defense side (typically) of these cases, and how blatant some of the actions of the defendant were as it related to the damages caused to the plaintiff (some of which I have highlighted here on the Slingshot blog).  Not being a litigator and not having experienced the dark underbelly of corporate litigation, I was somewhat surprised by the cavalier attitude that some folks had as it related to breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation and similar legal issues. Yes, it was the social justice aspect of litigation finance that first appalled and then attracted me to the sector, closely followed by the return profile (I am a capitalist after all).  This article discusses the nature of litigation finance and why it is ideally suited to be considered an Impact Investing asset class.

So, what is Impact Investing? 

It seems like the financial industry is constantly trying to put new monikers on investment strategies to appeal to different segments of investors and to differentiate their products.  The term “Impact Investing” is the latest in a trend of investment branding that has had strong appeal with a segment of investors, including Foundations, Endowments, Pension Plans, Family Offices and High Net Worth individuals who traditionally focused their efforts on investments that drove strong absolute returns. Before Impact Investing, there was Socially Responsible Investing and Environmental Social Governance (“ESG”) Investing, Green investing, Social Investing and so on.  For the remainder of this article I will refer to Impact Investing as a catchall for these references, even though each have nuanced differences.

The Global Impact Investing Network (“GIIN”), a UK based non-profit organization dedicated to Impact Investing, defines the amorphous term as “any investment into companies, organizations and funds with the intention to generate social and environmental impact alongside a financial return”.  As you will see from the many examples below, the underlying investments of many funders fall squarely into the Impact Investing mandate.

The Case Studies

The first case that hit home for me was Joe Radcliff vs. State Farm, whereby Joe identified that the insurance company was not treating like claims equally, so he decided to let the state regulator know. This one action, which was pure in its purpose to protect consumers, set off a chain of events that ultimately led to fourteen felony counts laid against Joe’s roofing business and its eventual demise.  Well, almost.  While 385 of 400 jobs were ultimately eliminated in short order due to the actions of an overzealous insurer, Joe’s business was able to live another day thanks to the litigation finance provided by Bentham IMF. Ultimately, Joe was able to restart his business, and more importantly, the defendant (oddly, the plaintiff in this case) was forced to pay $17 million in damages and interest.

At a September 2019 LF Dealmakers Forum conference, Boaz Weinstein from Lake Whillans guided the audience through an interesting case involving a software company named Business Logic that was decimated by the actions of one of its former customers who decided to copy their software in contravention of their supply contract.  Business Logic ultimately settled for a reported $60MM amount. That business now lives on as Next Capital, and employs 150 people thanks to the efforts of the plaintiff, plaintiff’s counsel and litigation finance.

Then there is the case of Miller UK vs. Caterpillar, which contains a somewhat similar fact pattern to Business Logic, whereby the actions of a former customer (contract breach and trade secret misappropriation) almost led to the demise of the business resulting in 300 of 400 employees being terminated. With litigation finance provided by Juris Capital LLC, Miller fought back and ultimately won a $75 million award.  The business has gone on to rehire many of its former employees and recently celebrated its 40th anniversary. The company has set a target of £50 million in revenue over the next five years.

While these cases are poignant, one may conclude that as commercial cases, this is simply the cost of doing business (I respectfully disagree). However, to put a finer point on the social justice aspect of litigation finance, I will turn your attention to other cases which are more closely associated with Human Rights litigation.

Litigation Finance as Human Rights advocate 

Litigation Lending Services provided financing to a class action case commonly referred to as the “Stolen Wages” case in Queensland, Australia.  In brief, the Stolen Wages case involves the theft of wages from 10,000 First Nations Queenslanders who, from 1939 to 1972, had their wages withheld under discriminatory Protection legislation named the Queensland “Protections Act”.  Essentially, the indigenous community were forced to turn over their wages to the state, and in turn through a series of Superintendents, those monies were supposed to be paid to the indigenous community members.  Unfortunately, this never happened, and a significant sum of the monies were used to fund Queensland government initiatives.  Recognizing the severity of the issue, the Queensland government created a Stolen Wages Reparations Scheme which was designed to compensate its victims, but the class action argued the compensation was insufficient. The Class was ultimately awarded AU$190 million plus costs as further reparations.

Similarly, IMF Bentham is pursuing multiple class actions involving PFAS, a man-made chemical compound that was utilized in many industrial processes and products, including fire fighting foam. In these Class Actions, local residents and business owners are seeking compensation for the financial losses they have suffered as a result of the contamination, in particular (i) reduction in property values and (ii) damage to business interests such as farming, fishing, tourism and retail amongst others.

Recently there have been some more specific developments with respect to Impact Investing and litigation finance.  Burford announced its “Equity Project”, which has been “designed to close the gender gap in law by providing an economic incentive for change through a $50 million capital pool earmarked for [litigation finance matters] led by women”.

There is also at least one UK-based fund, Aristata Capital, that has a specific social impact mandate which is described as “…dedicated to driving positive social and environmental change with an attractive financial return”.

In the personal injury litigation finance market, almost every single case involves an individual who has suffered damages (typically physical) whereby their lives have been turned upside down and litigation finance has provided some semblance of normalcy while the plaintiff embarks on the long, arduous task of pursuing damages, typically from a large insurance company.

So, should litigation finance be considered “Impact Investing” 

No one likes litigation (except maybe the litigators), but litigation itself is not necessarily a bad thing.  The structural problem that most capitalist systems have, is that inevitably there are large corporations with (a) significant balance sheets and access to capital, (b) access to some of the best and brightest lawyers, and (c) time. Large corporations are also driven by shareholder returns like never before, which puts increased pressure on managers and executives to deliver shareholder value; some take that to heart by adjusting their ethical compasses accordingly.  One way to deliver shareholder value is to cut corners and hide behind balance sheets and lawyers, which is an unfortunate consequence of business in the twenty-first century.  Executives understand the power their large corporations have, and are prepared to deal with the consequences of their decisions regardless of whether those decisions are ethical. What’s more, the ultimate cost of litigation may pale in comparison to the equity value created by the decision. Accordingly, the frequency and cost of litigation has been driven upwards for decades, resulting in an unlevel playing field for large corporations. In short, the system is making the problem it created worse through compounding costs.

The concept of litigation was designed to help right wrongs, and the above examples illustrate that it has been quite effective in doing so. Litigation finance helps facilitate many of these cases through the provision of capital, albeit risky capital.  Managers and investors in the asset class can hold their heads high knowing that their investment monies are going to support cases like those mentioned above, where there has been a material and blatant decision made by one entity to damage another.  I can’t think of another asset class that is more impactful than litigation finance in terms of seeking justice and ensuring the companies and individuals that have been damaged at the expense of another’s actions are compensated.  Forget the investor returns, the societal benefits are even more compelling!

So, if you are an allocator within a pension plan, endowment, foundation, family office or high net worth individual, or a consultant to one of these investors, ask yourself if there is anything in your portfolios that even comes close to the positive societal impact provided by litigation finance (coupled with the financial returns).  I think you will be hard pressed to find many examples.  Investors need to change their attitude toward litigation finance, wipe away the negative patina associated with litigation, and start to appreciate how it is an asset class that is benefiting society – perhaps it has even benefitted someone you know.

The Life Settlements industry (i.e. the purchase of life insurance policies from beneficiaries to assist in funding healthcare costs, or simply to monetize the value of their policy) has incurred a similar struggle as that of litigation finance, because the former is considered to be in the business of “death”.  This connotation is quite misleading, as Life Settlement providers are in the business of providing financial options to policy holders that insurance companies won’t offer (little known fact – about 80% of life insurance policies lapse, which means the insurer has very little costs to apply against the decades of premiums they receive, making the provisioning of these policies very profitable).  Similarly, the litigation finance industry is also in the business of providing options in the form of capital to injured parties to allow them to pursue their meritorious claims.

If one considers the impact litigation finance has had in its first few years of existence, one can start to imagine the fundamental impact it may have on society and the way in which corporations think, act and govern themselves.  One could argue that litigation finance may even be its own worst enemy.  If litigation finance as an industry is successful, then taken to its logical conclusion, there is a scenario where litigation finance is so effective that it changes the way in which corporations make decisions, as they strive to ensure that their decisions are not adversely and illegally damaging other businesses and thereby diminishing the need for litigation finance altogether.  Call me a skeptic, but I don’t believe human behaviour, regardless of incentives, will ever change that significantly, and so I am going to continue to invest in litigation finance.

The importance of being an “Impact Investing” asset class  

Clearly, Impact Investing is a significant trend as the following statistics will attest.

  • According to GIIN – currently $228 Billion in impacting investing assets, double that of LY
  • According to RiA Canada – Impact Investing has had 81% growth over 2 years
  • JP Morgan – over the next 10 years Impact Investing will encompass $400 Billion to $1 Trillion in invested capital
  • Graystone (Morgan Stanley) has created the Investing with Impact Platform, and also has $5B in institutional assets in the non-profit area alone

Every single wealth management firm, including Blackrock, Morgan Stanley & UBS, to name a few, have recognized that making a difference is becoming increasingly important to the investor community.  So, for a nascent industry looking to ‘stand out from the crowd’, and given the demand for Impact Investing and the inherent societal benefits associated with its service offering, the industry is best served by ensuring litigation finance is included in the Impact Investing conversation, which would be a critical role for an industry association to assume.

I encourage all members of the litigation finance community to start talking about the industry in the context of an “Impact Investing” asset class, as the industry is instrumental in making positive changes for the benefit of society, the environment and governance, as the above examples strongly illustrate.

Investor Insights

There is no doubt that litigation finance, whether consumer or commercial, should clearly qualify as a form of Impact Investing.  The benefits derived from the asset class extend well beyond financial returns and allocators should assess both tangible and intangible impacts of the asset class as part of their investment review. I believe that litigation finance is an important component of an investor’s Impact Investing portfolio and investors should not be dissuaded by those who argue otherwise (like the Institute for Legal Reform), the proof is in the outcomes of the cases that litigation finance supports.

Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc., and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.

Commercial

View All
Commercial People Moves

Therium Cuts UK Jobs as Part of Strategic Reorganisation

By Harry Moran |

Recent years have been described as a time of substantial growth and expansion in the global litigation funding market, yet new reporting suggests that one of the industry’s most well-known funders is downsizing its workforce.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides a brief insight into ongoing changes being made at litigation funder Therium, reporting that the company is undertaking a number of layoffs as part of plans to restructure the business. The article states that these job cuts have been made to Therium’s UK workforce, with the business claiming the cuts are motivated by strategic reorganisation rather than financial pressures. 

There are no details currently available as to which employees have been let go, with Therium having removed the ‘Our People’ section of its website. The Gazette also discovered the incorporation of a new company called Therium Capital Advisors LLP on 15 April 2025, through a review of Companies House records. The new entity’s records list Therium’s chief investment officer, Neil Purslow, and investment manager, Harry Stockdale, as its two designated members. 

Companies House records also show that Therium filed a ‘termination of appointment of secretary’ for Martin Middleton on 19 March 2025. Mr Middleton’s LinkedIn profile currently lists his position as Therium’s chief financial officer, having first joined the funder as a financial controller over 15 years ago.

At the time of reporting, Therium has not responded to LFJ’s request for comment.

Commercial Special Features

Litigation Funding in GCC Arbitration

By Obaid Mes’har |

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

Introduction

A Practical Overview

Third-party litigation funding (TPF)—where an external financier covers a claimant’s legal fees in exchange for a share of any resulting award—has gained significant traction in arbitration proceedings across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Historically, TPF was not widely used in the Middle East, but recent years have seen a notable increase in its adoption, particularly in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The economic pressures introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the high costs of complex arbitrations, have prompted many parties to view TPF as an effective risk-management strategy. Meanwhile, the entry of global funders and evolving regulatory frameworks highlight TPF’s emergence as a key feature of the GCC arbitration landscape.

Growing Adoption

Although the initial uptake was gradual, TPF is now frequently employed in high-value disputes across the GCC. Observers in the UAE have noted a discernible rise in funded cases following recent legal developments in various jurisdictions. Major international funders have established a presence in the region, reflecting the growing acceptance and practical utility of TPF. Similar growth patterns are evident in other GCC countries, where businesses have become increasingly aware of the advantages offered by third-party financing.

By providing claimants with the financial resources to pursue meritorious claims, third-party funding is reshaping the dispute-resolution landscape. As regulatory frameworks evolve and more funders enter the market, it is anticipated that TPF will continue to gain prominence, offering both claimants and legal professionals an alternative means of managing arbitration costs and mitigating financial risk.

Types of Cases

Funders are chiefly drawn to large commercial and international arbitration claims with significant damages at stake. The construction sector has been a key source of demand in the Middle East, where delayed payments and cost overruns lead to disputes; contractors facing cash-flow strain are increasingly turning to third-party funding to pursue their claims. High-stakes investor–state arbitrations are also candidates – for instance, in investment treaty cases where a government’s alleged expropriation deprives an investor of its main asset, funding can enable the claim to move forward . In practice, arbitration in GCC hubs like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and others is seeing more funded claimants, leveling the field between smaller companies and deep-pocketed opponents.

Practical Utilization

Law firms in the region are adapting by partnering with funders or facilitating introductions for their clients. Many firms report that funding is now considered for cases that clients might otherwise abandon due to cost. While precise data on usage is scarce (as most arbitrations are confidential), anecdotal evidence and market activity indicate that third-party funding, once rare, is becoming a common feature of significant arbitration proceedings in the GCC. This trend is expected to continue as awareness grows and funding proves its value in enabling access to justice.

Regulatory Landscape and Restrictions on Third-Party Funding

UAE – Onshore vs. Offshore

The United Arab Emirates illustrates the region’s mixed regulatory landscape. Onshore (civil law) UAE has no specific legislation prohibiting or governing litigation funding agreements . Such agreements are generally permissible, but they must not conflict with Sharia principles – for example, funding arrangements should avoid elements of excessive uncertainty (gharar) or speculation . Parties entering funding deals for onshore cases are cautioned to structure them carefully in line with UAE law and good faith obligations. In contrast, the UAE’s common-law jurisdictions – the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) – explicitly allow third-party funding and have established clear frameworks.

The DIFC Courts issued Practice Direction No. 2 of 2017, requiring any funded party to give notice of the funding and disclose the funder’s identity to all other parties . The DIFC rules also clarify that while the funding agreement itself need not be disclosed, the court may consider the existence of funding when deciding on security for costs applications and retains power to order costs against a funder in appropriate cases. Similarly, the ADGM’s regulations (Article 225 of its 2015 Regulations) and Litigation Funding Rules 2019 set out requirements for valid funding agreements – they must be in writing, the funded party must notify other parties and the court of the funding, and the court can factor in the funding arrangement when issuing cost orders . The ADGM rules also impose criteria on funders (e.g. capital adequacy) and safeguard the funded party’s control over the case .

In sum, the UAE’s offshore jurisdictions provide a modern, regulated environment for third-party funding, whereas onshore UAE allows it in principle but without detailed regulation.

Other GCC Countries

Elsewhere in the GCC, explicit legislation on litigation funding in arbitration remains limited, but recent developments signal growing acceptance. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait do not yet have dedicated statutes or regulations on third-party funding . However, leading arbitral institutions in these countries have proactively addressed funding in their rules. Notably, the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) updated its Arbitration Rules in 2023 to acknowledge third-party funding: Article 17(6) now mandates that any party with external funding disclose the existence of that funding and the funder’s identity to the SCCA, the tribunal, and other parties . This ensures transparency and allows arbitrators to check for conflicts. 

Likewise, the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution (BCDR) included provisions in its 2022 Arbitration Rules requiring a party to notify the institution of any funding arrangement and the funder’s name,, which the BCDR will communicate to the tribunal and opponents . The BCDR Rules further oblige consideration of whether any relationship between the arbitrators and the funder could compromise the tribunal’s independence. These rule changes in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain align with international best practices and indicate regional momentum toward formal recognition of third-party funding in arbitration.

Disclosure and Transparency

A common thread in the GCC regulatory approach is disclosure. Whether under institutional rules (as in DIAC, SCCA, BCDR) or court practice directions (DIFC, ADGM), funded parties are generally required to disclose that they are funded and often to reveal the funder’s identity . For instance, the new DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022 expressly recognize third-party funding – Article 22 obliges any party who enters a funding arrangement to promptly inform all other parties and the tribunal, including identifying the funder. DIAC’s rules even prohibit entering a funding deal after the tribunal is constituted if it would create a conflict of interest with an arbitrator. This emphasis on transparency aims to prevent ethical issues and later challenges to awards. It also reflects the influence of global standards (e.g. 2021 ICC Rules and 2022 ICSID Rules) which likewise introduced funding disclosure requirements.

Overall, while no GCC jurisdiction outright bans third-party funding, the patchwork of court practices and arbitration rules means parties must be mindful of the specific disclosure and procedural requirements in the seat of arbitration or administering institution. In jurisdictions rooted in Islamic law (like Saudi Arabia), there is an added layer of ensuring the funding arrangement is structured in a Sharia-compliant way (avoiding interest-based returns and excessive uncertainty. We may see further regulatory development – indeed, regional policymakers are aware of litigation funding’s growth and are considering more formal regulation to provide clarity and confidence for all participants .

The GCC region has seen several important developments and trends related to third-party funding in arbitration:

  • Institutional Rule Reforms: As detailed earlier, a number of arbitral institutions in the GCC have updated their rules to address third-party funding, marking a significant trend. The Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) 2022 Rules, the Saudi SCCA 2023 Rules, and the Bahrain BCDR 2022 Rules all include new provisions on funding disclosures. This wave of reforms in 2022–2023 reflects a recognition that funded cases are happening and need basic ground rules. By explicitly referencing TPF, these institutions legitimize the practice and provide guidance to arbitrators and parties on handling it (primarily through mandatory disclosure and conflict checks). The adoption of such rules brings GCC institutions in line with leading international forums (like ICC, HKIAC, ICSID, etc. that have also moved to regulate TPF).
  • DIFC Court Precedents: The DIFC was one of the first in the region to grapple with litigation funding. A few high-profile cases in the DIFC Courts in the mid-2010s involved funded claimants, which prompted the DIFC Courts to issue Practice Direction 2/2017 as a framework. This made the DIFC one of the pioneers in the Middle East to formally accommodate TPF. Since then, the DIFC Courts have continued to handle cases with funding, and their decisions (for example, regarding cost orders against funders) are building a body of regional precedent on the issue. While most of these cases are not public, practitioners note that several DIFC proceedings have featured litigation funding, establishing practical know-how in dealing with funded parties. The DIFC experience has likely influenced other GCC forums to be more accepting of TPF.
  • Funders’ Increased Presence: Another trend is the growing confidence of international funders in the Middle East market. Over the last couple of years, top global litigation financiers have either opened offices in the GCC or actively started seeking cases from the region. Dubai has emerged as a regional hub – beyond Burford, other major funders like Omni Bridgeway (a global funder with roots in Australia) and IMF Bentham (now Omni) have been marketing in the GCC, and local players or boutique funders are also entering the fray . This increased competition among funders is good news for claimants, as it can lead to more competitive pricing and terms for funding. It also indicates that funders perceive the GCC as a growth market with plenty of high-value disputes and a legal environment increasingly open to their business.
  • Types of Arbitrations Being Funded : In terms of case trends, funded arbitrations in the GCC have often involved big-ticket commercial disputes – for example, multi-million dollar construction, energy, and infrastructure cases. These are sectors where disputes are frequent and claims sizable, but claimants (contractors, subcontractors, minority JV partners, etc.) may have limited cash after a project soured. Third-party funding has started to play a role in enabling such parties to bring claims. There have also been instances of investor-state arbitrations involving GCC states or investors that utilized funding (though specific details are usually confidential). The Norton Rose Fulbright report notes that funding is especially helpful in investor-treaty cases where an investor’s primary asset was taken by the state, leaving them dependent on external financing to pursue legal remedies.

As GCC countries continue to attract foreign investment and enter into international treaties, one can expect more ICSID or UNCITRAL arbitrations connected to the region – and many of those claimants may turn to funders, as is now common in investment arbitration globally.

  • Emerging Sharia-Compliant Funding Solutions: A unique trend on the horizon is the development of funding models that align with Islamic finance principles. Given the importance of Sharia law in several GCC jurisdictions, some industry experts predict the rise of Sharia-compliant litigation funding products. These might structure the funder’s return as a success fee in the form of profit-sharing or an award-based service fee rather than “interest” on a loan, and ensure that the arrangement avoids undue uncertainty. While still nascent, such innovations could open the door for greater use of funding in markets like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, by removing religious/legal hesitations. They would be a notable evolution, marrying the concept of TPF with Islamic finance principles – a blend particularly suitable for the Gulf.

Overall, the trajectory in the GCC arbitration market is clear: third-party funding is becoming mainstream. There have not been many publicly reported court challenges or controversies around TPF in the region – which suggests that, so far, its integration has been relatively smooth. On the contrary, the changes in arbitration rules and the influx of funders point to a growing normalization. Businesses and law firms operating in the GCC should take note of these trends, as they indicate that funding is an available option that can significantly impact how disputes are fought and financed.

Conclusion

Litigation funding in the GCC’s arbitration arena has evolved from a novelty to a practical option that businesses and law firms ignore at their peril. With major arbitration centers in the region embracing third-party funding and more funders entering the Middle Eastern market, this trend is likely to continue its upward trajectory. 

For businesses, it offers a chance to enforce rights and recover sums that might otherwise be forgone due to cost constraints. For law firms, it presents opportunities to serve clients in new ways and share in the upside of successful claims. Yet, as with any powerful tool, it must be used wisely: parties should stay mindful of the legal landscape, comply with disclosure rules, and carefully manage relationships to avoid ethical snags. 

By leveraging litigation funding strategically – balancing financial savvy with sound legal practice – stakeholders in the GCC can optimize their dispute outcomes while effectively managing risk and expenditure. In a region witnessing rapid development of its dispute resolution mechanisms, third-party funding stands out as an innovation that, when properly harnessed, aligns commercial realities with the pursuit of justice.

At WinJustice.com, we take pride in being the UAE’s pioneering litigation funding firm. We are dedicated to providing innovative funding solutions that enable our clients to overcome financial hurdles and pursue justice without compromise. By leveraging third-party litigation funding strategically—balancing financial acumen with sound legal practices—stakeholders in the GCC can optimize their dispute outcomes while effectively managing risk and expenditure.

If you are looking to maximize your dispute resolution strategy through expert litigation funding, contact WinJustice.com today. We’re here to help you navigate the evolving landscape and secure the justice you deserve.

Case Developments Commercial

European Commission Fines Apple €500m and Meta €200m for DMA Breaches

By Harry Moran |

Antitrust and competition claims brought against large multinational corporations often represent lucrative opportunities for litigation funders, and the announcement of a new series of fines being imposed on two of the world’s largest technology companies could set the stage for more of these claims being brought in Europe.

Reporting by Reuters covers a major antitrust development as the European Commission has handed down multimillion dollar fines to both Apple and Meta over their breaches of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). These fines follow non-compliance investigations that began in March 2024, with Apple receiving a €500 million fine for breaching its anti-steering obligation through the App Store, and Meta being fined €200 million for breaching the DMA obligation to allow consumers the option to choose a service that uses less of their personal data.

Teresa Ribera, Executive Vice-President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition at the European Commission, said that the fines “send a strong and clear message”, and that the enforcement action should act as a reminder that “all companies operating in the EU must follow our laws and respect European values.”

In a post on LinkedIn, Gabriela Merino, case manager at LitFin, explained that these fines “mark the first non-compliance decisions issued by the Commission under the new regulatory framework.” As LFJ covered earlier this month, LitFin is funding a €900 million claim against Google in the Netherlands over its anti-competitive practices that were first brought to light by another European Commission investigation. Merino said that “these latest rulings are a welcome boost” to LitFin’s own case.

Statements from both Apple and Meta decried the fines, with the former arguing that the decision was “yet another example of the European Commission unfairly targeting Apple”. 

The full press release from the European Commission detailing the investigations and associated fines can be read here.