Belgium: Class Actions Now Available to SMEs and the Self-Employed
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.22.18
As heralded by our client alert of September 29, 2017, the Belgian legislator has now approved a new act to broaden the scope of the Belgian collective redress system by making class actions also available to SMEs and self-employed individuals.
The Act, dated March 30, 2018, was published in the Belgian State Gazette on May 22, 2018 and amends Book XVII, Title 2 of the Belgian Code of Economic Law as introduced in 2014.
As originally drafted, Book XVII, Title 2 of the Belgian Code of Economic Law allowed consumers who had personally suffered damage as a result of a common cause to file a collective redress action (also known as a class action) for damages through a group representative. As from June 1, 2018, this same redress is opened up to SMEs and the self-employed, who may now—through a group representative—file a collective redress action against an undertaking that breaches its contractual obligations or violates a limited list of European and domestic laws (the violation having occurred after September 1, 2014).
SMEs are defined as Belgian or foreign enterprises which employ fewer than 250 employees and have an annual turnover of less than €50 million or a total annual balance sheet of less than €43 million. As a result, the majority of Belgian companies will be able to benefit from this collective redress system. According to the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium, no fewer than 98 percent of all Belgian enterprises will now be eligible.
The procedure for SMEs and self-employed individuals to file for a collective redress action is the same as the procedure for consumers set up in 2014. They must be represented by an accredited group representative, such as an inter-professional organization recognized within the Superior Council for Self-Employed and SMEs.
From now on, only the Brussels Commercial Court will be competent to try and adjudicate collective redress actions. The Brussels Court of Appeal will remain competent for appeals filed against decisions rendered by the Brussels Commercial Court.
Although this legislative innovation should ensure the better protection and enforcement of the rights of SMEs, the extension will expose companies to an increased litigation risk. It could indeed provoke an increase in B2B claims based inter alia on violations of unfair market practices, competition law or the GDPR.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
