Views
EU modernises consumer dispute resolution: An overview of the new ADR Directive
By Alexia Kaztaridou (Linklaters)
On 25 September 2025, the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) of the European Parliament approved the text of the political agreement on the Alternative Disputes Resolution for Consumer Disputes Directive. This Directive establishes a framework for resolving through ADR procedures contractual domestic and cross-border consumer disputes arising from the sale of goods or provision of services between consumers and traders within an EU context. The amendments to the prior Directive aim to modernise the existing framework in light of new consumer trends, such as the growth of e-commerce, and bring significant changes across several areas, enhancing the protection for consumers and clarifying obligations for traders and ADR entities. The Directive maintains its minimum harmonisation approach, allowing Member States to provide for stronger consumer protection. Read more
US Supreme Court: Judgment in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico) – A few takeaways
Written by Mayela Celis, Maastricht University
In June 2025, the US Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico) 605 U.S. 280 (2025). The Opinion is available here. We have previously reported on this case here, here and here (on the hearing).
As previously indicated, this is a much-politicized case brought by Mexico against US gun manufacturers, alleging inter alia negligence, public nuisance and defective condition. The basic theory laid out was that defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the trafficking of guns to Mexico causing harm and grievances to this country. In this regard, the complaint focuses on aiding and abetting of gun manufacturers (rather than of independent commission).
In a brilliant judgment written by Justice Kagan, the Court ruled that PLCAA bars the lawsuit filed by Mexico. Accordingly, PLCAAS’s predicate exception did not apply to this case. Read more
French Supreme Court upholds asymmetric jurisdiction clauses in Lastre follow-up
by Jean-Charles Jais, Guillaume Croisant, Canelle Etchegorry, and Alexia Kaztaridou (all Linklaters)
On 17 September 2025, the French Cour de cassation handed down its decision on the Lastre case. This followed a landmark preliminary ruling of February 2025 from the CJEU, which laid out the conditions for a valid asymmetric jurisdiction clause under article 25 of the Brussels I recast regulation.
Asymmetric jurisdiction clauses allow one party to initiate proceedings in multiple courts or any competent court, while the other party has fewer options or is restricted to a specific jurisdiction. Such clauses are common in financial agreements (read more in our previous blog post here).
In the latest development of the Lastre case in France, the French Supreme Court opted for a pro-contractual autonomy stance, favouring the validity of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses.
News
Open Online Conference: “Cross-Border Enforcement of Child Support: Pros and Cons of the Different National Systems” on January 28th, 2026 3-5:30pm CET
The Child Support Forum in cooperation with the International Union of Judicial Officers is pleased to invite every interested stakeholders of the cross border child support recovery to an open conference on January 28th, 2026 from 3 to 5:30 pm (CET).
According to Art. 41 of Regulation (EC) No. 4/2009 and Art. 32 of the 2007 Child Support Convention, the enforcement procedure shall be governed by the law of the state of enforcement. But in practice, the prospects of successfully initiating cross-border enforcement proceedings are not always easy to assess. In order to enforce successfully, it is necessary to know the specifics of the legal system of the state of enforcement (the Requested state).
Key questions in this context are:
- What does the process of enforcement of child support looks like in different states?
- Are maintenance claims given a degree of priority?
- How do Central Authorities facilitate the ongoing enforcement of maintenance decisions?
- What are the conditions for children to be exempted from costs?
The meeting aims to review the international legal framework and provide an overview of the various national enforcement systems. Finally, the advantages and disadvantages of the different systems from a legal policy perspective shall be discussed.
The participation is free of charge but registration is required.
To register, click here.
Online Book Launch – Legal Challenges of China’s One Belt One Road Initiative: Private International Law Considerations
Following the successful release of Legal Challenges of China’s One Belt One Road Initiative: Private International Law Considerations late last year, as previously announced on this blog, co-editors Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit (University of Tasmania) and Dr Sai Ramani Gariimella (South Asian University) are pleased to invite you to an upcoming online book launch.
This virtual event will feature insights from three distinguished contributors:
- Dr Jie (Jeanne) Huang (University of Sydney)
- Dr Nobumichi Teramura (Keio University Law School)
- Professor Beligh Elbalti (The University of Osaka)
Presentations will be followed by a moderated Q & A and discussion session.
This event is open to the public; please refer to the attached flyer to scan the QR Code for Zoom access.
Supreme Court of Canada to Hear Jurisdiction Appeal
Canada’s highest court does not grant leave to appeal in many cases involving private international law. In November 2025 it granted leave to appeal from NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v Cheung, 2024 BCCA 236, in which the British Columbia Court of Appeal agreed with the court below in holding that it had jurisdiction to hear a price fixing class action. The action is interesting because it involves what could be described as a “foreign” conspiracy that had effects within Canada.
The defendants are Japanese entities and the claim alleges that they conspired to fix the price of “suspension assemblies” which are a component of hard disk drives which are in turn a component of things like computers. The claim alleges that Canadians purchased products that contained these assemblies and because of the price fixing they paid more than they otherwise would have done.