Why the European Union Should Allow Class Action Lawsuits

Posted on January 5, 2010 by Santiago Cueto

 American innovation spawned the personal computer, the internet and the Ipod.  All radically changed the way the world accessed information. Under a proposed EU Directive, another American innovation—the class action lawsuit—may radically change the way EU consumers' access justice.

Under the proposal presented by the EU Commission, consumers who suffer at the hands of companies that fix prices or abuse their dominant market position could soon find it easier to launch class action lawsuits for compensatory damages. In an attempt to avoid any abuse of class actions, however, the draft directive underlines that only state bodies or non profit-making organizations appointed by national governments in the EU can bring class action lawsuits in national courts. If adopted as a Directive by the European Commission, EU Member States would be required to implement it or face heavy fines.

In response to increased discontent among EU consumers and entrepreneurs over the rise of antitrust violations, the European Commission published a White Paper, Damage Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules to explore the utility of class action lawsuits in quelling anticompetitive behavior. The EU Commission wrote:

“With respect to collective redress, the Commission considers that there is a clear need for mechanisms allowing aggregation of the individual claims of victims of antitrust infringements. Individual consumers, but also small businesses, especially those who have suffered scattered and relatively low-value damage, are often deterred from bringing and individual action for damages by the costs, delays, uncertainties, risks and burdens involved. As a result, many of these victims currently remain uncompensated.

Opening the court house gates to private damage actions for alleged violations of EU antitrust law would represent a fundamental shift in EU competition policy on two fronts. First, the proposal would allow victims of EU antitrust violations to recover the estimated billions of Euros they forgo each year under the current enforcement regime.

Second, the proposed change would shift the Commission's overwhelming workload to private plaintiffs. As reported in the Financial Times article, Brussels accepts Microsoft’s browser offer and in the New York Times article, Europe Fines Intel $1.45 Billion in Antitrust Case, resources dedicated to the EU's antitrust enforcement efforts have been pushed to the brink. 

Opening the doors to class action redress, would best serve the interests of victimized EU citizens in the following ways:

  1. Consumers would be allowed to  create an effective system of private enforcement by means of  lawsuits that complement, but do not replace or jeopardize, public enforcement;
  2. Companies would be persuaded to play by the rules, as a greater number of antitrust violations would be detected, which would greatly increase the costs associated with noncompliance; and 
  3. EU enforcement would become streamlined and produce beneficial effects in terms of deterrence of future infringements and greater compliance with EU anticompetition policy.

While opponents of the proposed directive fear that the EU would become a forum shopping haven for unscrupulous U.S. attorneys, the export of  American ingenuity by way of innovative jurisprudence will prove to be a positive evolutionary step in EU anticompetition law.

Trend to Watch: Look for the EU to Implement Collective Redress Mechanisims to Complement Existing Anticompetition Laws 

     -Santiago

Tags: , , , ,

European Union E-Discovery Rules: What Every Corporate Litigator Must Know

Posted on August 15, 2009 by Santiago Cueto

To allay fears concerning the handling of users’ personal information, European  regulators have established operating guidelines for social-networking web sites to ensure they comply with the region's privacy laws. As reported in The Wall Street Journal, EU Lays Out Web Privacy Rules, the guidelines were established to shore up EU data privacy laws already in place.

Although the new EU guidelines are specific to social networking sites, they highlight the general rigidity of EU privacy laws. These laws have significant implications for litigation based in the United States. Collecting evidence for U.S. litigation among domestic states can be a challenging task. The task becomes backbreaking when dealing with EU nations. While not an impossible endeavor, it does require that attorneys become familiar with the requirements of EU data privacy law to ensure that data will be available upon request. Doing so will ensure that an e-discovery demand won't expose their clients to prosecution for violation of EU data privacy laws.

Any litigation reaching the European continent promises to frustrate and confound with a level of complexity not normally present in a purely American lawsuit. It is imperative that counsel confer with their clients as to the laws that will govern data created in the EU. This will guide clients in implementing procedures designed  to streamline the flow of data should litigation ever occur. It is equally essential to have access to lawyers versed in European law when litigation does arise. In this manner, the e-discovery can be conducted in the EU itself, which will limit the risk of any liability for  violation of its data privacy laws.

Privacy laws in the European Union derive from EU Directive 95/46/EC and protect personal data from disclosure in virtually all cases. The protection afforded by this directive is in sharp contrast to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which mandates that parties disclose relevant information regarding “any matter not privileged.”

In addition to the EU privacy laws, it is imperative that corporate counsel become familiar with the various “blocking” statutes enacted by EU member states. Switzerland, France and the United Kingdom, for example, have enacted blocking statutes that restrict discovery of information meant for disclosure in a foreign jurisdiction. A limited exception to these laws allows personal data to be transferred outside of the European Union for "the establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims." Because the EU has limited this exception to proceedings governed by the Hague Convention, it does not apply to U.S. proceedings conducted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

There are two important ways to legitimize the release of data in relation to e-discovery in the EU:

  1. Data may be released if the data subject gives their unambiguous consent.
  2. Data may be released if necessary to comply with a “legal obligation.” Although this provision is strictly interpreted, a US court order directing a company to produce data from a European subsidiary would most likely constitute a legal obligation. This may vary among EU member states. France, for example, has demonstrated an unwillingness to authorize the release of data pursuant to a foreign court order.

One often overlooked mechanism to streamline issues concerning the exchange of data in the EU is the US-European Union Safe Harbor Framework. The Framework offers a more simple and efficient means of complying with the adequacy requirements of EU privacy laws, which should particularly benefit small and medium enterprises. The Framework applies only to US companies and allows for transfers of data without prior approval. A certification form can be found at the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Safe Harbor Self-Certification website.

Another technique that can ease the pressure of compliance, a multinational enterprise can utilize is to commit itself to a binding set of corporate rules surrounding its data transfers. This option allows transfers of human resources data, since it applies to intra-group transfers. It also applies to companies across the globe, not just in the US, as is the case with the Safe Harbor Framework  

Counsel should work with their clients to determine which of these options is best tailored to the client's needs. This should involve a thorough understanding of the corporate structure and IT department. Although any e-discovery would still need to constitute a legitimate exchange of information, proving legitimacy will usually prove to be an easier task than justifying a transfer of data to the US.

Trend to Watch: Look for the EU to further shore up their privacy laws as business between U.S. and EU increases.
Tags: , , , , , ,