Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

U.S. Commercial Litigation Finance Industry – Call to Association!

There is no other way to express it; the US commercial litigation finance industry is under assault from a variety of different interest groups and the industry lacks a homogenous voice to counter the opposition and to communicate its strong benefits.

No doubt, many industry participants are well aware of the recent report by a hedge fund short- seller against the industry’s largest participant.  While the report raises many issues for consideration, it is also symptomatic of a multi-pronged attack on the industry, whether organized or purely by coincidence.  This article is a call for the industry to unite and create an association to represent interests of the various participants and beneficiaries of the industry (lawyers, plaintiffs, funders and investors).

Why now?  Let’s look at the current litigation finance environment.

US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform

The single biggest opponent to the litigation finance industry has been the US Chamber of Commerce (“USCOC”), through their affiliate entitled U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (“ILR”).  The USCOC is the largest lobby group in America and the ILR has chosen litigation finance as one of its favourite punching bags.

While the USCOC boasts 3 million members , large and small, it is important to note that according to an article published by U.S. News entitled “The Chamber’s Secrets”, more than 50% of their contributions came from 64 donors. The article suggests that much of the funding for the USCOC comes from large corporate interest in legacy industries (tobacco, firearms, fossil fuels, banking, etc.). Accordingly, based on their funding sources, it should be no surprise that they are opposed to litigation finance.  In fact, the article goes on to state that many of the smaller businesses which used to be members of the USCOC are partnering to create alternative organizations like the American Sustainable Business Council to look after their best interests.  Perhaps litigation finance should align itself with these splinter groups as there is likely a high commonality of interests vis-à-vis commercial litigation finance.

So, what does this all mean for litigation finance? Well, the ILR has been lobbying the government hard to increase disclosure requirements related to litigation finance, and is espousing that litigation finance is a scourge that needs to be eradicated as it serves to promote frivolous lawsuits and increase the cost of litigation.  Their position is both inaccurate, and fails to serve the needs of all ILR members.  While certain members of corporate America would like to keep the proverbial litigation finance ‘genie’ in the ‘bottle’, we all know that litigation finance serves the interests of small corporate America particularly well by levelling the playing field through the provision of capital to pursue meritorious claims mainly for small corporations, the very constituency that the USCOC purports to represent. Of course, as the litigation finance industry pushes into providing portfolio financing to larger corporations (witness recent moves by Burford and Litigation Capital Management), it could very well be the case that the USCOC may no longer represent the best interests of its larger contributors.

Nevertheless, in light of the organized effort to denigrate the need and value of litigation finance by the ILR, the commercial litigation finance industry needs a unified voice to educate the market and our elected officials about the benefits of litigation finance, and to ensure that legislative changes support access to justice and continued industry growth.

Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure

The single biggest complaint from the USCOC relates to disclosure which is being raised with increasing frequency in litigation where litigation finance is being used.  Recently, a favourable decision in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California was issued whereby Judge Illston held that the discovery of the identity of the litigation funder was irrelevant.  This decision somewhat contradicted a previous decision by the same judge which compelled disclosure, although in one case relevance was conceded whereas in the other it was not. While it remains unclear to what extent disclosure is being requested and when disclosure is applicable and relevant, the issue is an active one.  While it does appear that there is a strong bias by the judiciary against disclosure; that according to a study conducted by Westfleet Advisors entitled “Litigation Funding and Confidentiality: A Comprehensive Analysis of Current Case Law”, it is incumbent on the industry to ensure disclosure is appropriate for the circumstances.

If disclosure relates to the existence of a third-party litigation finance provider in a case, many in the industry have said they would not necessarily be opposed to that level of disclosure. However, a panelist at a recent industry conference made an astute observation, suggesting that if the defense is even aware that a litigation funder is involved, the very knowledge of its involvement may influence the outcome of the case, which may be prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiff.  Sometimes there is value in silence.

If, on the other hand, disclosure encompasses the name of the funder and the amount and terms of the funding contract, this would clearly be prejudicial to the interests of the plaintiff as it provides the defense with economic knowledge about the funding terms which it could use to its advantage.

Either way, it is important for judicial authorities to understand the pros and cons of disclosure in the context of litigation finance so that they can rule in a way that is not prejudicial to either party in the case.  This is an area where education and lobbying by the industry could be an important determinant of standards for disclosure.

Legislative Trends in Consumer Litigation Finance

On the consumer side of the litigation finance market (predominantly personal injury settlement advances in the US), there have been a series of measures taken by various state legislatures that have served to limit and sometimes effectively eliminate the practice of settlement advances.  While these actions have been taken under the guise of consumer protection, the reality is that those states that have effectively eliminated the practice of consumer litigation finance have left thousands of injured parties in a very precarious position.  While legislators may have had the best of intentions in creating consumer protection legislation, the unintended consequences may be worse than the problem they were trying to solve.

My biggest concern is that litigation finance becomes a political platform issue that results in legislative reform that ultimately harms consumers more than it helps, and then those same reforms make their way into the commercial side of the market.  This is an area where a strong association liaising with other closely aligned associations can combine their resources to protect their collective interests.

Don’t Forget the Investors! 

The recent Muddy Waters report accusing Burford Capital of significant governance and financial reporting shortcomings should be another call to action for the industry.  These accusations have the potential to be a serious setback for the industry given the stature of Burford in both the litigation finance industry as well as from a capital markets perspective.

Capital is the lifeblood of the industry, and to the extent negative accusations effect the outlook for an industry, they also impact the industry’s ability to attract capital.  Accordingly, in addition to codes of conduct and industry best practices, an association should also bear in mind the best interests of those that provide the fuel to move the industry forward – namely, investors.  In this vein, an association should be providing best practices in financial disclosure and reporting to ensure that the industry is well understood by investors, and that financial results are clearly explained and standardized across managers, both in public and private markets. An association should also be liaising with securities and accounting professionals to ensure they understand the industry and the limitations associated with fair value accounting in a market which exhibits both idiosyncratic and binary risk.  Existing guidelines and principles from groups like the Institutional Limited Partners Association could also serve to benefit association members and investors.

From a capital markets perspective, I believe the industry needs to position itself as a Socially Responsible Investing (“SRI”) asset class.  What other investment do you know of where you have the ability to change corporate behaviour for the better by providing capital to level the playing field.  Litigation finance is in the business of profitable social justice and the industry should ensure the investment community is aware of this fact. A strong industry association can undertake the necessary steps to ensure the investment community is aware of the social benefits associated with the asset class, while positioning the asset class appropriately in the context of investor portfolio construction.

Industry is at a Critical Juncture 

The US commercial litigation finance industry has been estimated by some as a $5-10B industry, although much of the industry’s capital sources are opaque and not well-tracked.  While the absolute number is not important, it is fair to say it is a relatively small market in the context of the US economy.  However, it is also a fast-growing market.  As markets gain notoriety and generate strong absolute returns, they can also be attractive for undesirable market entrants.  The industry is now large enough to be organized and capitalized in a manner that is meaningful and at a point in time in its evolution that will make it effective in ensuring that ‘undesirables’ don’t enter the market, to the benefit of all market participants.

Self-Regulation 

While the benefits of an industry association are generally well known, the commercial litigation finance industry also stands to benefit mainly through its own self-regulation.  The world of litigation finance is a relatively new area of finance and is one that is relatively complex, both from the perspective of capital provisioning, as well as the terms of the financial reporting of outcomes.  Further, commercial litigation finance solutions are highly customized for the case or portfolio of cases, and so the application of a ‘cookie cutter’ regulatory framework could be dangerous.  The last thing the industry needs is to be regulated by someone unknowledgeable about litigation finance.  The potential for unintended consequences, similar to what has happened in certain states on the consumer side, is a great example of why the industry should self-regulate.

In addition, the legal profession is already highly regulated.  The profession itself has numerous rules covering ethics and rules of civil procedure.  In fact, one could argue that the last thing the profession needs is another rule.  What is more important to the consumers of litigation finance is transparency about how the product works, and an internal monitoring function to ensure adherence with existing rules.  These are best crafted by those involved in the daily workings of commercial litigation finance.

Keep Calm and Organize!

It’s times like these when an industry needs to come together to create a strong association to represent its interests, before succumbing to the pressure of interest groups with opposing objectives and motivations.  The commercial litigation finance industry is on the precipice of either sharp decline or its next growth phase, and the outcome may lie in its efforts to create an association to protect its interests and espouse the benefits of litigation finance.  The industry needs a unified voice to speak on behalf of and to the benefit of the collective community (be they funders, plaintiffs, lawyers or investors) and across geographic borders to ensure global alignment, to the extent viable.  While an Association can benefit from support by some of the larger funders in the community, their support, while very much welcome, should not prohibit the industry from moving ahead with an association, given that all funders will eventually join out of necessity.

While the consumer side of the litigation finance industry has astutely created both the American Legal Finance Association (“ALFA”) and the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (“ARC”) to represent its best interests, it does not appear the same can be said for the larger commercial litigation finance market.  ALFA and ARC have proactively created a code of conduct, and have organized efforts to lobby, where appropriate, at the state and federal levels.  ALFA’s mandate includes being “committed to promoting fair, ethical, and transparent funding standards to protect legal funding consumers”, whereas ARC’s mandate includes advocating “…at the state and federal levels to recommend regulations that preserve consumer choice”.  In short, they are organized and they will benefit as a result of such organization despite increasing pressure on the industry at the state level.  In other jurisdictions where commercial litigation finance is more mature, industry associations have been created and are actively representing participants’ best interests, including the The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia and The Association of Litigation Funders of England and Wales.

In addition to fostering strong relationships with other global associations, the commercial litigation finance industry also needs to form strong bonds with consumer oriented associations, as the issues faced by both are often similar and arguably the consumer side can be viewed as ‘the canary in the coal mine’ for the broader industry as it provides financing to consumers which is often a more sensitive area of the market from a regulatory perspective.

The commercial litigation finance industry has a fantastic story to tell, it just needs someone to communicate it with passion!

For my part, I am discussing the concept with a variety of funders and intermediaries in the industry, and would like to hear from interested parties who are supportive of the creation of a US commercial litigation finance association.  I encourage readers to also read a recent article entitled “Litigation Finance Can and Should Protect its Reputation” (subscription required) written by Charles Agee of WestFleet Advisors, recently published in Law 360.

About the author

Edward Truant is an active investor in the global commercial litigation finance industry.  The author of this article can be reached at (416) 602-6593 or via email at etruant@gmail.com.

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.