Trending Now
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
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

ISO’s ‘Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure’ May Be Unenforceable

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has introduced a new policy condition entitled "Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure" (ISO Form CG 99 11 01 26) that may be included in liability policies starting this month. The condition allows either party to demand mutual disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements when disputes arise over whether a claim or suit is covered by the policy. However, the condition faces significant enforceability challenges that make it largely unworkable in practice.

As reported in Omni Bridgeway, the condition is unenforceable for several key reasons. First, when an insurer denies coverage and the policyholder commences coverage litigation, the denial likely relieves the policyholder of compliance with policy conditions. Courts typically hold that insurers must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from a policyholder's failure to perform a condition, which would be difficult to establish when coverage has already been denied.

Additionally, the condition's requirement for policyholders to disclose funding agreements would force them to breach confidentiality provisions in those agreements, amounting to intentional interference with contractual relations. The condition is also overly broad, extending to funding agreements between attorneys and funders where the insurer has no privity. Most problematically, the "mutual" disclosure requirement lacks true mutuality since insurers rarely use litigation funding except for subrogation claims, creating a one-sided obligation that borders on bad faith.

The condition appears designed to give insurers a litigation advantage by accessing policyholders' private financial information, despite overwhelming judicial precedent that litigation finance is rarely relevant to case claims and defenses. Policyholders should reject this provision during policy renewals whenever possible.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Valve Faces Certified UK Class Action Despite Funding Scrutiny

By John Freund |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a closely watched judgment certifying an opt-out collective proceedings order (CPO) against Valve Corporation, clearing the way for a landmark competition claim to proceed on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The decision marks another important moment in the evolution of collective actions—and their funding—in the UK.

In its judgment, the CAT approved the application brought by Vicki Shotbolt as class representative, alleging that Valve abused a dominant position in the PC video games market through its operation of the Steam platform. The claim contends that Valve imposed restrictive pricing and distribution practices that inflated prices paid by UK consumers. Valve opposed certification on multiple grounds, including challenges to the suitability of the class representative, the methodology for assessing aggregate damages, and the adequacy of the litigation funding arrangements supporting the claim.

The Tribunal rejected Valve’s objections, finding that the proposed methodology for estimating class-wide loss met the “realistic prospect” threshold required at the certification stage. While Valve criticised the expert evidence as overly theoretical and insufficiently grounded in data, the CAT reiterated that a CPO hearing is not a mini-trial, and that disputes over economic modelling are better resolved at a later merits stage.

Of particular interest to the legal funding market, the CAT also examined the funding structure underpinning the claim. Valve argued that the arrangements raised concerns around control, proportionality, and potential conflicts. The Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the funding terms were sufficiently transparent and that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the independence of the class representative and legal team. In doing so, the CAT reaffirmed its now-familiar approach of scrutinising funding without treating third-party finance as inherently problematic.

With certification granted, the case will now proceed as one of the largest opt-out competition claims yet to advance in the UK. For litigation funders, the ruling underscores the CAT’s continued willingness to accommodate complex funding structures in large consumer actions—while signalling that challenges to funding are unlikely to succeed absent clear evidence of abuse or impropriety.

Commercial

Court of Appeal’s First UPC Panel Draws Attention from Litigation Funders

By John Freund |

Litigation insurers and third-party funders across Europe are closely monitoring the first case heard by a newly constituted panel of the Unified Patent Court’s Court of Appeal, as the matter could offer early signals on how appellate judges will approach procedural and cost-related issues in the UPC system. The case, Syntorr v. Arthrex, is the inaugural appeal to be considered by the third Court of Appeal panel, making it an important early data point for stakeholders assessing litigation risk in the young court.

An article in JUVE Patent explains that the appeal arises from a dispute over European patent rights and follows contested proceedings at the Court of First Instance. While the substantive patent issues are central to the case, the appeal has attracted particular interest from insurers and funders because of its potential implications for security for costs and the treatment of insurance arrangements in UPC litigation. These questions are of direct relevance to how litigation risk is underwritten and financed, especially in cross-border patent disputes where exposure can be significant.

The establishment of additional appeal panels is itself a sign of the UPC’s increasing caseload, and early rulings from these panels will play a key role in shaping expectations around procedural consistency and predictability. For funders, clarity on whether and how courts scrutinise insurance coverage, funding structures, and security applications is critical when deciding whether to deploy capital into UPC matters. Insurers, meanwhile, are watching closely to see how appellate judges view policy wording, anti-avoidance provisions, and the extent to which coverage can be relied upon to satisfy cost concerns raised by opposing parties.

Although no substantive appellate guidance has yet emerged from this first hearing, the case underscores how closely financial stakeholders are tracking the UPC’s evolution. Even procedural decisions at the appellate level can have downstream effects on pricing, structuring, and appetite for funding complex patent litigation.

For the legal funding industry, the UPC Court of Appeal’s early jurisprudence may soon become a reference point for risk assessment, influencing both underwriting practices and investment strategies in European IP disputes.