MEPs back idea of US-style legal suits for consumers[fr][de] 

A large majority of MEPs adopted, on 6 September, an own-initiative report by French Socialist Béatrice Patrie, supporting the idea of an EU-wide "collective redress" system, inspired by the US class-action model. "[We] need to allow associations to act on behalf of victims of similar wrongdoing by a same trader," Patrie stressed. 

Her report comes as the Commission plans to review the EU's consumer strategy, adapting it to recent market evolutions such as the development of e-commerce, and raising levels of consumer protection across the bloc by harmonising the fragmented rules currently applied in the 27 member states (EurActiv 13/03/07). 

According to MEPs, the existing system penalises cross-border shoppers: "The current system clearly punishes cross-border customers, leaving them at the mercy of a ping-pong game between the different national authorities...Some form of collective action is necessary," said Green MEP Heide Rühle. 

The US system allows individual claims to be aggregated into one law suit, giving consumers the incentive to seek compensation when it would be too expensive or time-consuming to take action on their own. But the model has been criticised for its aggressive nature, where enterprising lawyers seek out disappointed consumers and demand huge punitive payments in the hope of earning large legal fees. 

However, Patrie underlined that the EU’s aim would not be to mimic the American 'class action' model, whose "aggressive touting of consumers by unscrupulous lawyers and awards of punitive damages against economic operators in no way reflects the legal culture in European countries". 

Any European system would also benefit professionals, she stressed, saying: "They would benefit from a secure regulatory framework, thus enabling them to take full advantage of an internal market of 500 million consumers." 

European business federation BusinessEurope welcomed the vote, saying that "well-protected consumers are key for companies". But it added: "A certain number of questions concerning the problems justifying action, coherence with other Community legislation and its interaction with the ongoing discussions on contract law still need to be answered before any proposal is tabled."