Trending Now
Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital

‘Secondary’ Investing in Litigation Finance (part 2): Why, why now, and how to approach investing in Lit Fin Secondaries

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 Summary

  • Evolution of Litigation Finance necessitates the need for a secondary market
  • Investing in Litigation Finance secondaries is much more difficult than other forms of private equity due to the inherent difficulty in valuing the ‘tail’
  • Experts should be utilized to assess case merits and valuation
  • Life cycle of litigation finance suggests timing is right for secondaries

Slingshot Insights:

  • Investing in the ‘tail’ of a portfolio, where most secondary transactions will take place, can be more difficult than primary investing
  • Dynamics of the ‘tail’ of a portfolio are inherently riskier than a whole portfolio, which is partially offset by enhanced information related to the underlying cases
  • Secondary portfolios are best reviewed by experts in the field and each significant investment should be reviewed extensively
  • Derive little comfort from portfolios that have been marked-to-market by the underlying manager
  • Investing in secondaries requires a discount to market value to offset the implied volatility associated with the tail

In part 1 of this article, I explored some of the basic concepts of secondary investing, specifically in the context of the commercial litigation finance asset class.  This article continues the discussion and explores some of the unique aspects and characteristic of the ‘tail’ of a litigation finance portfolio, why now is a particularly good time for secondary transactions and other investment considerations with respect to secondary investing.

Investing in the ‘tail’

In a prior article, I made reference to three phases of risk in the context of litigation (there are more but let’s keep it simple for now).  As a case evolves, it moves from a phase where the case is “De-Risking” because more information is flowing to the point where both parties have an abundance of, and equal information about, the litigation (yet still have different perspectives based on subjective value judgments), which moves the case into something I referred to as the zone of “Optimal Resolution” (credit to John Rossos at Bridgepoint Financial who developed this ‘three phases of risk’ analogy). Optimal Resolution is a period of time where both parties understand what information the other party has, the legal precedents being referenced, and perhaps some insights into how similar cases would have been judged in the past.  With an abundance of information, the two parties should come together to form a conclusion around a reasonable settlement and bring the case to an end.  However, if they fail to do so, the case starts to enter into the “Re-Risk” stage where the parties typically commence with a trial or arbitration, at which stage both sides may get more entrenched in their positions and if they do the outcome ultimately becomes binary, as it will be decided by a third party (i.e., judge, arbitrator or a jury) without a vested economic interest in the outcome.  Any good litigator will tell you to avoid a binary outcome if at all possible, as these outcomes are quite unpredictable (i.e. your odds of winning may be better in Vegas).

I make reference to these three phases because the ‘tail’ tends to capture the Re-Risk stage of litigation/arbitration, which is the riskiest part of the litigation process.  So, when investors are looking at a secondary portfolio of single case investments, they are almost by definition investing at the riskiest part of the lifecycle of the case.  Of course, that is not always the case, and it depends whether you are the plaintiff or the defendant.  If you are a plaintiff, you may have a number of interim procedural wins and so you may believe there is a stronger possibility of success as compared to when the manager first under-wrote the case.  Therefore, you may be feeling relatively good about your prospects. However, while one would think justice is equitable, consistent and repeatable, that is rarely the case, which makes this stage of the litigation process the most dangerous, as the plaintiff may be lulled into a false sense of security based on some procedural wins and damning evidence against the defendant.

The fact that these cases are in the tail of the portfolio firmly suggests that (i) they have been going on for a long time, which means that (ii) you may have two entrenched, deep pocketed parties who are not likely to give in soon, which means that (iii) the outcome will more likely than not end up in a binary decision.  Of course, it may also mean that it is closer to resolution, as many cases have been settled on the ‘court room steps’.

Accordingly, the risks are different than those of investing into a ‘blind pool’ portfolio where the cases have yet to be picked. In a nutshell, the investor in a secondary does not get the benefit of the early wins and relatively more attractive IRRs to offset the more binary characteristics of the tail, which likely includes bigger losses (if for no other reason than a loss in the tail means the original capital commitment has likely been fully consumed).  Since the secondary investor has to make his or her returns from the more binary portion of the portfolio, which means higher volatility as the probability of a loss is higher in the tail segment of the distribution (a well-known statistical characteristic), ultimately, it would be dangerous for a new investor to pay a premium, and conversely, it is likelier the investor will need to buy at a discount.

But discount to what – original cost or current fair market value?  Discounting to cost is a fairly easy exercise, but may not be meaningful.  Discounting to fair market value is pretty challenging in the context of a tail comprised of single case investments, each of which is more likely than not in the Re-Risking stage of the investment life cycle.  Nevertheless, it is only logical that a secondary investor should treat the investment as though it was a new portfolio and underwrite every significant investment in the portfolio from scratch, to do otherwise would be reckless.  A “diligence light” approach is not acceptable given the potentially higher risks inherent in the tail and so as much, if not more, time should be spent underwriting secondary portfolios as compared to primary portfolios. Also recognize that when selling secondary portfolios the seller and their advisors are in ‘sell mode’, and so a second set of sober and skeptical eyes is probably the best way to value these assets.  An astute investor can also structure the investment by limiting its downside by negotiating a lower entry price in exchange for a sharing of the upside with the exiting investor, so that it becomes a ‘win-win’ transaction with the secondary investor getting some downside protection, and the exiting investor retaining some upside.

A positive aspect of investing in the tail is that the majority of the legal spend has taken place and so your deployment risk is probably low, which essentially means that if you win, your ROI will likely be a multiple of a higher known number as compared to when the investment was originally underwritten. That’s IF you win!  It also means that you have the ability to determine the impact of fees on expected returns based on when the fees were charged in relation to when the cash was invested, which may help with the gross-to-net return spread issue that can be significant in litigation finance.  There is also the potential that these cases may settle relatively early in the life cycle of the secondary investor’s ownership period, which will likely generate stronger IRRs and MOICs, and hopefully minimize the ‘fee drag’ (the impact fees have on net investor returns).

Why now?

There has been much recent chatter in the litigation finance sector about secondary opportunities, so why now?

Well, it’s mainly reflective of the extent of time the industry has been in existence.  The commercial litigation finance industry started in earnest between five and ten years ago in the US.  Accordingly, a meaningful amount of capital has been raised and a sufficient amount of time has passed to allow for the conditions necessary for secondaries – namely supply.  The supply mainly stems from a confluence of investor interest in liquidity for their longer dated investments, and GP interest in ‘putting some points on the board’, meaning they need to show some track record so they can raise a subsequent fund. Simply, the timing seems right, and when an institution needs a way to achieve liquidity for its portfolio, it will find a way to do so.

How best to approach investing in secondary transactions?

Different from other forms of private equity, acquiring litigation finance investments in the secondary market requires the expertise of a litigation finance fund manager.  I say this because of the risks inherent in the tail end of the portfolio, and the expertise required to assess this tail is the same expertise required to underwrite new investments.  It would be a mistake to confuse investing in secondary transactions in litigation finance with other private equity sectors like leveraged buy-out or venture capital, where the valuation metrics and approach to valuation are much more transparent and well accepted. Valuation in litigation finance is much more in the realm of ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ (aka “a subjective value judgment”), with one group seeing much more value in a case than another based on their biases and experiences.  Managers that invest in secondaries should be prepared to do extensive diligence on a large part of the portfolio, and certainly those investments in the portfolio that appear riskier and disproportionately large relative to the average case size in the portfolio.

The other important element is to ensure that you have a diversified portfolio.  If you are purchasing a tail portfolio, then it likely means there are fewer investments than what was present in the original portfolio earlier in its investment cycle; hence, there will be a higher degree of volatility, in statistical terms.  Since there are now fewer investments in the tail portfolio and the early resolutions likely provided strong returns, the remainder of the tail has to stand on its own merit and so it will be important to ensure the tail portfolio is large enough to be diversified in its own right.  To the extent it is not well diversified, I would consider spreading your overall secondary allocations across more than one portfolio, until you get a desired (target) degree of diversification (case types, case sizes, geographies, defendants, law firms, etc.) with a limited concentration risk within the portfolio.  A portfolio with 50 cases might seem diversified, but if three of those cases represent 30% of the capital and they all turn out to be losers (which is statistically a very real potential outcome), then it puts a lot of pressure on the remaining portfolio to both offset the large losses while simultaneously producing target returns for the portfolio as a whole.

Lastly, I would consider putting in place an insurance wrapper for ‘first loss’ insurance.  This type of insurance can be expensive, and so you need to be prudent and careful not to over-insure.  You have to look at the risk of loss probabilistically, and such an analysis could show that you don’t likely have to insure 100% of the principal, but probably just a fraction of the principal, and preferably through first-loss coverage, where the insurer takes the obligation for the loss on the first, say, 20% – 30% of the portfolio (the riskiest portion, statistically speaking), and the investor is exposed for the remaining 70% – 80% (the decreasingly less risky portion).

I think most secondary portfolios should be valued at a significant discount to market value with a range of probability-sequenced outcomes to triangulate to a valuation. The valuator should not lose sight of the fact that approximately 30% of litigation finance backed cases lose, and so this should be a starting point for the analysis of the potential value of the portfolio, and stress-tested from there to reflect the higher risk inherent in the ‘tail’.  However, there can also be specific investment opportunities which through the process of de-risking may represent better opportunities than they did before the de-risking process and the investor may be able to justify or may be forced to accept a higher valuation in order to be able to transact.

In situations where the litigation is so significant that it can actually have an impact on a defendant’s publicly traded securities, you could also use options on the publicly traded securities of your counter-party to hedge your investment such that if you lose the case you make money on the hedge, and if you win the case, the cost of unravelling the hedge becomes the cost of an otherwise successful transaction.  Of course, any hedge will be imperfect as the stock price of the defendant can be influenced by a number of factors in addition to the outcome of the litigation, the very outcome you are trying to hedge.

David Ross, Managing Director & Head of Private Credit at Northleaf Capital Partners notes: “We approach secondary transactions in a prudent and judicious manner with thorough analysis on concentration risk, deep dive on case merits and outcomes, as well as comprehensive financial diligence and modeling. We tend to mitigate investment risk by way of conservative structuring and cautious underlying assumptions that provide significant cushion for the investment.”

It is only through a cautious approach that one can successfully invest in commercial litigation finance secondaries.  Other areas of litigation finance (consumer, law firm lending, etc.) will likely have different risks and portfolio characteristics that allow for less extensive diligence on the portfolio, which may be a consideration for some investors.

Slingshot Insights

For those investors interested in the litigation finance secondary market, I think it is important to approach the investment with caution and a high level of expert diligence to offset the implied volatility that the ‘tail’ of the portfolio offers.  It is also important to understand the motivations of the seller – a manager looking to create a track record will have different motivations than an investor who needs liquidity.  The seller’s motivations may also offer insight into the extent price can be negotiated. It is important not to lose sight of the typical loss rate of the industry and the fact that the tail should exhibit enhanced volatility (more losses) as compared to a whole portfolio, and so an investor should model their returns, and hence their entry price, accordingly. Should you choose to make a secondary investment, consider a variety of options to de-risk the investment by sharing risks and rewards with others (i.e. insurance providers or the vendor of the asset). Above all else, make sure your secondaries are diversified or part of a larger diversified pool of assets.

As always, I welcome your comments and counter-points to those raised in this article.

 Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc. and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.  Slingshot Capital inc. is involved in the origination and design of unique opportunities in legal finance markets, globally, investing with and alongside institutional investors.

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.