Belgium Adopts Collective Redress Procedure
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.04.14
Summary – Since September 1, 2014, Belgian law contains a collective redress mechanism. The procedure is available to Belgian and foreign consumers seeking redress from companies that have breached a contract or have violated certain consumer protection laws (European and domestic). Actions can be opt-in or opt-out, but consumers must be represented by a recognized nonprofit organization. The procedure, which encourages settlements, is likely to have a substantial impact on all companies active in Belgian consumer markets.
In March 2014, the Belgian parliament, following the example of many other European member states (such as the Netherlands, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Austria, Spain, and Italy), approved a bill introducing a collective redress procedure to Belgian law. The act was published in the Belgian State Gazette on April 29, 2014 and entered into force on September 1, 2014.
The scope of the act is, however, limited. Collective redress will only be available in relation to contractual breaches and the violation of certain European and domestic consumer protection laws listed in the act. Where available, actions can be brought on behalf of foreign as well as Belgian consumers. Actions may only be brought in relation to loss occurring after September 1, 2014.
Jurisdiction over collective redress actions will be exclusively reserved to the courts of Brussels. This is intended to favor the specialization of these courts and guarantee uniform case law.
Consumers must be represented by a class representative. Only certain recognized consumer-centered nonprofit organizations are entitled to act as class representatives. The class representatives must also, however, be authorized by the competent court. For negotiation and settlement purposes only, the Consumer Ombudsman can also represent the class.
Having authorized a class representative, the court will also determine whether the class will be constituted on an opt-in or an opt-out basis. There are certain limits on the court's discretion: the opt-out system cannot be applied to foreign consumers, nor to claims with regard to physical or psychological damage (which are considered highly person-specific).
The act favors amicable dispute resolution, providing two resolution mechanisms, judicial, and extra-judicial. Before initiating legal proceedings, the class representative and the defendant may agree to a settlement, which is subsequently submitted to the court for ratification (this mechanism is similar to that in the Dutch Act on Collective Settlement of Mass Damages).
The class representative can also opt to file a collective action before seeking settlement. Once the court has declared the collective action admissible, it will impose a mandatory period of between three and six months, during which the parties must hold settlement negotiations. Any settlement must subsequently be ratified by the court.
If no settlement is reached during the mandatory negotiation phase, the action will be resolved by the court. If the court holds the defendant liable, it can make an award reflecting the damages suffered by the class. Punitive damages are not available.
In its judgment, the court appoints a "damage trustee," who will, under the close control of the court, be responsible for the enforcement of the judgment. A special court list of persons eligible to act as damage trustees will be drawn up, composed of lawyers, civil servants, and judicial agents. Unlike in other proceedings, the court remains active until enforcement of its judgment has been completed.
In order to inform the affected consumers, the certification order, as well as the final court judgment (either ratifying the settlement or on the merits), will be published in the Belgian State Gazette and on the website of the Ministry of the Economy. Additional publication measures may also be imposed by the court or the government.
Costs of the proceedings are, in accordance with the general rules on civil proceedings, paid by the losing party. This means that an unsuccessful class representative will have to pay the defendant's costs.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development

