In April, the Aberdeen Centre for Private International Law and Transnational Governance will be relaunching its Crossroads in Private International Law research seminar series. It will feature both online and hybrid events.

For the upcoming term, six events have been scheduled:

23 April 2025 at 14:00 (UK time) | “Choice of Laws Revisited: Is it Time to Reintroduce Justice into the Rules?” by Prof Sharon Shakargy (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) | online and in-person

In 1933, Professor David Cavers argued for rethinking the choice of law process by prioritizing justice and party expectations over formal rules, sparking the American choice of law revolution. While this movement had some lasting impacts, it ultimately was mostly unsuccessful. Nearly 90 years later, the issue of justice in conflict of laws remains relevant, especially regarding power disparities between major tech companies and consumers. This paper calls for a renewed focus on justice within this context, outlining its implications for the existing legal framework.

24 April 2025 at 14:00 (UK time) | “Collisions and Autonomous Ships: A Challenge for the Collision Convention 1910” by Ms Luci Carey (University of Aberdeen) | online only

The introduction of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) whereby human crews are replaced by AI driven navigation systems raises novel legal questions. One of these relates to the liability of the vessel in the event of a collision. The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with respect to Collisions between Vessels 1910 (1910 Collision Convention) apportions liability between colliding ships based upon the degree of fault. The introduction of artificial intelligence is making the determination of fault or liability in negligence increasingly difficult. This seminar questions whether fault-based liability for collisions involving ships navigated without human control is appropriate, enquires if strict liability is the logical solution or if the 1910 Collision Convention is robust in its current form to accommodate technological developments.

30 April 2025 at 12:00 (UK time) | “A Skewed Bargain? Platforms get the King’s Protection for little or no Obedience or Allegiance” by Prof Uta Kohl (University of Southampton) | online only

Common law jurisprudence on civil jurisdiction over non-resident defendants has occasionally made explicit reference to the justification of jurisdiction as formulated in Calvin’s Case (1608): ‘when an alien in amity cometh into England, because so long as he is within England he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is here he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for the one (as it hath been said), draweth the other.’ This justification is powerful in so far as it demonstrates that territorially based jurisdiction (in civil and criminal cases) is one side of a two sided bargain: obedience and allegiance in exchange for protection. In this talk I will reflect on how this bargain has played out – or not played out – in the case of online platforms, and on how we might use Calvin’s Case to fundamentally rethink the treatment of platforms.

7 May 2025 at 11:00 (UK time) | “Should the Rules on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters Be Harmonised in Africa? A Comparative and Empirical Assessment” by Dr Chukwuma Okoli (University of Birmingham) | online only

This study examines 200 decided cases from 18 African legal systems, focusing on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters. It reveals significant disparities in outcomes and grounds for recognition and enforcement and refusal. It underscores the diversity of legal frameworks, procedural rules, and judicial interpretations across the continent. The findings highlight the challenges posed by this fragmentation and make a strong case for harmonisation. A more unified approach, the study argues, would not only streamline cross-border legal processes but also foster economic development and strengthen investor confidence across Africa.

14 May 2025 at 14:00 (UK time) | “Navigating Generative AI, Copyright Protection, and Private International Law in Europe” by Dr Michiel Poesen (University of Aberdeen) | online and in-person

Generative AI has an intellectual property problem. This seminar enquires whether the current framework of private international law in the European Union is fit to deal with cross-border copyright infringement litigation concerning (i) the use of copyrighted work to train and develop GenAI and (ii) AI-generated content (AIGC) which resembles protected work.

21 May 2025 at 10:00 (UK time) | “Platform Governance and Wikilegality” by Prof David Nelken (UCL) (Joint seminar with the Aberdeen Centre for Constitutional and Public International Law) | online and in-person

Registration for all events is possible here.

The second issue of 2024 of Giustizia consensuale (published by Editoriale Scientifica) has just been released, and it features:

Tommaso dalla Massara (Professor at Università Roma Tre), Per un’ermeneutica della certezza nel processo civile romano: tra regula iuris e determinazione pecuniaria (For a Hermeneutics of Certainty in the Roman Civil Process: Between Regula Iuris and Pecuniary Determination; in Italian).

This contribution offers a reflection on procedural certainty, starting from the Roman classical process. In particular, crucial is the idea that, in this procedural system, certainty is to be related to the rule of ‘condemnatio pecuniaria’. Thus, certainty is translated into the determinacy of the pecuniary sentence. What emerges is a peculiar way of understanding judicial activity, which is characterised by the alternativeness between the groundedness and groundlessness of the claim (si paret/si non paret oriented to a certum), as opposed to the hypothesis in which the assessment is left entirely to the judge.

Beatrice Ficcarelli (Associate Professor at the University of Florence), L’acquisizione di informazioni e «prove» nella negoziazione assistita da avvocati: la tessera che mancava (The Acquisition of Information and ‘Evidence’ in Negotiation Assisted by Lawyers: The Missing Piece of the Puzzle; in Italian).

The recent reform of ‘negoziazione assistita’ (attorney-assisted negotiation procedure) introduces within the procedure a so-called out-of-court instruction, through the acquisition of statements from third parties on facts relevant to the subject of the dispute and the request to the other party to declare in writing the truth of facts unfavorable and favorable to the requesting party. This is a striking innovation that opens up new scenarios in the establishment of facts also for the purpose of the possible future judgment in case of an unsuccessful negotiation. The absolute protagonists of the proceedings are the attorneys, on the unfailing prerequisite of the duties of good faith and loyalty incumbent on them to amicably resolve their clients’ dispute. The main purpose of the new rules is to enable them to acquire all the information that can lead, in the best way, to the settlement of the dispute.

Antonio Maria Marzocco (Associate Professor at the Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli), Tentativi obbligatori e facoltativi di conciliazione nell’ecosistema digitale regolato dall’AGCom (Mandatory and Optional Attempts at Conciliation in the Digital Ecosystem Regulated by AGCom; in Italian).

Technological developments have broadened the competences of the Communications Authority (AGCom) and the extent of its conciliatory function. This function is no longer limited to the electronic communications sector (in particular for disputes between users and operators), but extends to other sectors of the digital ecosystem, such as audiovisual media services and video-sharing platforms. The essay identifies the main sources that have assigned AGCom the task of regulating procedures for extrajudicial dispute resolution: the law establishing the AGCom (Law No. 249 of 1997), the electronic communications code (CCE) and the consolidated text on audiovisual media services (TUSMA). The Author points out that these sources represent the basis of several mandatory or voluntary conciliation attempts. Their regulatory discipline is converging in parallel with the technological convergence among the various sectors of the digital ecosystem.

Alessandro Fabbi (Associate Professor at the University of Catania), Contratto e processo nella nomina congiunta dell’esperto ex art. 473 bis.26 c.p.c. (Contract and Process for the Joint Appointment of an Expert Pursuant to Art. 473 bis (26)of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure; in Italian).

The article analyses the newly introduced joint-appointed expert, in the context of the proceedings for families and individuals, referred to in article 47 -bis(26) of the Italian Civil Procedure Code. The contribution deals with its operational aspects, particularly centered on the core of the agreement, as well as with – formulating proposals on – the dubious nature of the tool at issue, placed in the dynamical context of the civil process, but undoubtedly representing a private contract between the parties and the expert.

Observatory on Legislation and Regulations

Mauro Bove (Professor at the University of Perugia), La domanda di mediazione (The Petition for Mediation; in Italian).

The Author examines the content of the mediation request, comparing it with the content of the judicial application, to identify structural differences and differences in their legal ‘reading’. Starting from the exclusion of the paradigm of invalidity from the field of mediation, practical implications are drawn taking into account the different points of view that the crisis of cooperation entails: while mediation looks at the human relationship, seeking to mend its breakdown, judicial proceedings focus on the infringement of a substantive right and the respective ascertainment.

Edoardo Borselli (Research Fellow at the University of Florence), Mediazione e processo civile riformato: quando il giudice dispone l’invio? (Mediation and the Reformed Civil Procedure: When Does the Judge Order the Case to Be Sent to Mediation?; in Italian).

This article investigates the time frames in which a judge can order the referral to mediation, both when the parties have not satisfied the procedural condition required by law and when the judge intends to use court-ordered mediation. In particular, the article focuses on the possibility that such a referral takes place, within the procedure introduced by the Cartabia reform and amended by the Law No 164/2024, following the preliminary checks under Article 171-bis of the Italian Civil Procedure Code, when the judge finds that the procedural condition required by law has not been satisfied. The conclusion supports the admissibility of such a procedural approach, promoting a systematic and teleological interpretation of the introductory phase of the trial, in line with the decision No 96/2024 of the Constitutional Court, prevailing doctrinal orientations, and practices developed within judicial offices. Furthermore, the article analyzes the relationship between referral to mediation and opposition proceedings to injunction orders, and it concludes by discussing the stay of the trial during the extrajudicial process.

Observatory on Practices

Silvana Dalla Bontà (Professor at the University of Trento), Silvia Toniolo (Coordinator of German language courses at the University of Trento Language Centre) and Federica Simonelli (Accredited mediator at the Chamber of Commerce of Bolzano, JAMS Diversity Fellow), La mediazione come strumento di integrazione. Potenzialità e sfide dell’insegnamento interdisciplinare e bilingue della mediazione (Mediation as an Integration Tool. Potential and Challenges of Interdisciplinary and Bilingual Mediation Teaching; in Italian).

The paper focuses on the ADR teaching experience hosted at the Istituto di Diritto Italiano/Institut für Italienisches Recht (Institute for Italian Law) of the Universität Innsbruck. Offered in a unique context – i.e, in the context of the European Region Tyrol-South Tyrol-Trentino, a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation with European legal personality – the course on Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism, with a specific focus on Mediation, is bilingual (Italian and German). By adopting an interdisciplinary and practice-oriented approach, the two teachers of the course – one, a full professor of Civil Procedure; the other, a translator in Italian/German and expert in cross-culture communication – walked students through the complexity conflict management with a view to reaching a sustainable solution via mutual agreement. Against this background, on the one hand, knowledge of effective communication fundamentals and soft skills has proven essential to deal with multi-linguistic and multi-cultural disputes. On the other hand, mediation has proven to be an effective method to foster cohesion and resilience in a society which is increasingly complex, multi-faceted and, thus, challenging.

Alessandro Triolo (Doctoral Candidate at the Università di Roma Tor Vergata), Tra decisione algoritmica e mediazione robotica (Between Algorithmic Decision and Robotic Mediation; in Italian).

By examining the theoretical applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in civil justice, in the two concepts of ‘artificially intelligent judgment’ and ‘intelligent organisation of judgment’, this paper assesses AI’s applicability to the field of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Starting with the hypothesis of a ‘robot mediator’ capable of facilitating conflict management among parties, the analysis leads to the irreconcilability of such a model with the typical function of mediation, thus highlighting the need for the re-humanization of dispute resolution methods. The potential extension of AI systems could be applied to evaluation tools, which, although currently underutilized in the Italian legal system, might – in a de iure condendo perspective – encourage parties to settle disputes extrajudicially based on a forecast of the dispute’s outcome, indirectly contributing to the deflation of litigation.

Conference Proceedings

Matteo Lupano (Associate Professor at the University of Turin), Il futuro della mediazione familiare (The Future of Family Mediation; in Italian).

This paper draws on the introductory remarks to the Conference ‘The Future of Family Mediation. The Mandatory Mediation in France and in Italy after the Cartabia reform of Civil Justice’, held at the University of Turin on 19 January 2024. The contribution highlights the effectiveness of family mediation in facilitating the consensual resolution of conflicts, particularly in cases of separation and divorce, by reducing conflict and safeguarding minors. The Author summarizes the key aspects of the debate on the mandatory nature of the process, emphasizing the need for proper training for lawyers and mediators and for ensuring the quality of the service.

Marc Juston (Magistrat honoraire; formateur et médiateur inscrit auprès des Cours d’Appel de Nîmes, Grenoble et Aix en Provence), La mediazione familiare in Francia: sullo slancio della giustizia del XXI secolo (Family Mediation in France: On the Momentum of 21st Century Justice; in Italian).

Drawing on the speech delivered at the Conference ‘The Future of Family Mediation. The Mandatory Mediation in France and in Italy after the Cartabia reform of Civil Justice’, held at the University of Turin on 19 January 2024, the paper analyses the importance and use of family mediation in France as part of 21st-century justice. It outlines the regulatory foundations of mediation, its voluntary nature, and, in some cases, its encouragement by the judge or obligatory implementation. The Author highlights the role of the Juge aux Affaires Familiales and the effectiveness of mediation in resolving family conflicts, reducing litigation, and promoting the well-being of children. The adoption of mediation is proposed as a fundamental step toward a more humane judicial system, focused on empowering the parties and promoting co-parenting.

Filippo Danovi (Professor at the University Milano Bicocca), Il presente e il futuro della mediazione familiare in Italia (The Present and Future of Family Mediation in Italy; in Italian).

Drawing on the speech delivered at the Conference ‘The Future of Family Mediation. The Mandatory Mediation in France and in Italy after the Cartabia reform of Civil Justice’, held at the University of Turin on 19 January 2024, the paper explores the present and future of family mediation in Italy, contextualising it within the framework of consensual justice. Following a legal analysis, including the measures introduced by the Cartabia reform, the Author highlights the role of mediation in resolving family disputes through interdisciplinary and dialogic approaches aimed at rebuilding strained relationships. The discussion delves into the limitations of mediation, such as its inadequacy in cases of domestic violence, and outlines prospects, emphasizing the need for structured training to ensure the effectiveness of this tool in family disputes.

Isabella Buzzi (Researcher in Psychology, Pedagogist, Consultant and Family Mediator), La mediazione familiare, come è diventata una professione (How Family Mediation Became a Profession; in Italian).

Drawing on the speech delivered at the Conference ‘The Future of Family Mediation. The Mandatory Mediation in France and in Italy after the Cartabia Reform of Civil Justice’, held at the University of Turin on 19 January 2024, this paper traces family mediation’s evolution as a profession in Italy. It analyses historical roots and international influences, particularly from North America and Europe. It highlights the role of key regulations in defining training standards, ethics, and skills. The Author emphasizes its complexity, which requires legal knowledge, psychological skills, and practical abilities, as well as the importance of integrated and interdisciplinary training programs, so as to ensure the needed professional support to families, in a mindful and respectful management of their own conflicts.

Chronicles

Elena Zucconi Galli Fonseca (Professor at the Alma Mater University of Bologna), Digitalisation of ADR: A New Category?

The paper analyses the impact of digitisation on alternative dispute resolution (ADR). It starts from the pre-existing fragmentation of the ADR category, highlighting the differences between autonomous and heteronomous methods. The advent of digital, initially seen as a category in its own right (ODR), is now seen as a cross-cutting element that modifies the use of ADR tools, but does not change their essence. New forms of ADR are then explored, such as blockchain-based ‘On-chain Dispute Resolution’, with its advantages and disadvantages, and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to improve the efficiency of ADR processes, while raising ethical and security issues. Finally, it concludes by reaffirming the importance of the human factor (‘Human Dispute Resolution’ or HDR) in dispute resolution, despite technological advancement.

Roberta Tiscini (Professor at the Università di Roma Sapienza), La dialettica verità/certezza alla prova della negozialità nel processo (The Truth/Certainty Dialectic Put to the Test of Negotiability in the Process; in Italian).

The Author addresses the objectives of the trial, in the perspective of the search for material truth, according to new (applicative and normative) experiences that increasingly place the negotiation in the dynamics of the trial itself. This happens not only in the framework of alternative dispute resolutions, but also through experiences, such as those of contractualised justice or differentiated jurisdictional protection, contexts in which it is not so much the achievement of the truth that constitutes the ultimate goal, but the pacification of the contenders.

Finally, this issue features the following Book Reviews

A book review by Antonia Menghini (Associate Professor at the University of Trento): Valentina BONINI (a cura di), La giustizia riparativa (d.lgs. n. 150/2022 – d.lgs. n. 31/2024), Giappichelli, Torino, 2024, I-XX, 1-335.

A book review by Rachele Beretta (Ph.D): William URY, Possible: How We Survive (and Thrive) in an Age of Conflict, Harper Business, New York, 2024, 1-368.

A book review by Pietro Ortolani (Professor at Radboud University): Elena D’ALESSANDRO and Davide CASTAGNO, Handbook on cross-border litigation, Wolters Kluwer, Milano, 2024, I-XXV 1-238.

Written by Jos Hoevenaars (Erasmus University Rotterdam) & Eduardo Silva de Freitas (Erasmus University Rotterdam), members of the Vici project Affordable Access to Justice, financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), www.euciviljustice.eu.

On 9 October, the District Court of Amsterdam issued its final judgment in a collective action against energy supplier Vattenfall. This judgment was eagerly awaited as it is the very first judgment in a mass damage claim under the Dutch WAMCA procedure. The new framework for collective redress, which became applicable on 1 January 2020 (see also our earlier blogpost), has received a lot of attention in international scholarship and by European legislators and policy makers due to its many innovations and making it easier for consumers and small businesses to litigate against large companies. The most notable change in the Dutch act compared to the old collective action regime is the possibility to request an award for damages, making such proceedings attractive for commercial litigation funders. A recent report commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security (published in an English book here) found that most collective actions seeking damages brought under the WAMCA have an international dimension, and that all of these claims for damages are brought with the help of third party litigation funding (TPLF).

Since this judgment is the first of its kind under the Dutch WAMCA, with a claim value of 400 million euros, it has gained a lot of (media) attention. This blogpost provides an update on this most recent judgment and discusses its impact on the current mass claims landscape and TPLF in the Netherlands.

 The Case

 The claim of Stichting NUON Claim, the claim foundation (‘the foundation’) established to represent a group of SMEs who are or have been clients of energy company Vattenfall, relates to alleged excessive energy costs imposed on specific customers. The foundation alleged that energy supplier NUON, which has since been acquired by Vattenfall, illegitimately charged a compensation for electrical capacity to its business customers and that no actual service or product was provided in exchange for this so-called kW charge. Furthermore, many other similar customers did not have to pay the kW charge. The foundation alleged that this illegitimate charge resulted in bills that were on average 80% higher than those of competing energy suppliers, in some cases resulting in tens of thousands of euros in excessive annual fees.

In short, the main question in this case is whether Vattenfall (formerly NUON) was allowed to charge business customers a fee based on contracted capacity as an electricity supplier. Vattenfall had charged these costs to business customers with a ‘small bulk consumer connection’ (more than 3 × 80 Ampère) on the electricity grid since the liberalisation of the Dutch electricity market in 2002. These included medium-sized enterprises, small enterprises and non-profit institutions. According to the foundation, Vattenfall was not allowed to charge these costs because there was no service or product in return for the kilowatt (kW) fee charged. The foundation therefore initiated collective proceedings against Vattenfall. The foundation based its claim on Article 6:194 Dutch Civil Code (DCC), which contains a prohibition against acquisition fraud within Dutch private law.

The WAMCA and litigation finance

A first judgment in a mass damage case has been eagerly awaited as it could provide for a pivotal moment in which claimants would be awarded a multimillion euro claim and the commercial funder would reap the benefits of its investment. The WAMCA has sparked continuous debate due to the regime’s perceived claimant-friendly design, its attractiveness for international commercial litigation funders and its alleged risk of fostering an ‘American-style’ claim culture. The opt-out system, few restrictions on third-party funding, and the supposed risk of litigation abuse were the target of criticism by, most notably, the US Chamber of Commerce (see report here). This criticism was met with calls for a more nuanced approach (see earlier blogpost here) and the fears of fostering a claim culture have been dampened by the modest numbers of cases that have been brought under the WAMCA so far.

Among other discussions, the WAMCA has especially gotten attention due to the role played by commercial third party funders. (See our discussion on third party litigation funding and the WAMCA in this earlier blogpost.) In the case against Vattenfall too, there was some debate on the nature of the financing agreement between the claim foundation and international funder Bench Walk Guernsey PCC LTD. In an interim decision rendered in October 2023, the court reviewed such an agreement, which outlined the conditions under which the funder would receive a portion of any proceeds from the case. This included paying for legal costs and taking a share of any damages awarded to the claim foundation. It also detailed situations where additional funding might have been required and the rights of the claim foundation to manage the litigation and settlement discussions?.

The agreement also outlined the treatment of the litigation funder’s fees for different groups of claimants. The claim foundation stated that it would withhold 25% of the compensation from the class members, but in cases where the litigation funder’s agreed percentage (8-12%) was lower, it would not retain the difference. This meant, for example, that in case only 12% was due to the litigation funder, the additional 13% would not have been kept by the claim foundation. This 25% withholding would have only been relevant if the claim foundation could not claim compensation for all class members, limiting its representation to a smaller group. The court concluded that the explanation provided by the claim foundation on the reasonableness of the fees was sufficient. It emphasized that the uncertainty about the final amount of fees was acceptable because it depended on factors like the duration of the proceedings.

The Judgment

In its judgment the District Court of Amsterdam dismisses all claims of Stichting NUON-claim against Vattenfall. It rejects the foundation’s claim that Vattenfall concealed essential information about the kW compensation, since the compensation was easy to calculate based on Vattenfall’s offer. Furthermore, the explanation, which was included in the offer and the energy bills, made the price structure clear. According to the court, the customers were therefore not misled. Vattenfall also made it clear that the grid operator charges an amount for the transport of electricity and that this is not included in the price that Vattenfall charges these customers.

The foundation also stated that Vattenfall abused the inaction of some of its customers after a new annual offer. The court ruled that the kW customers in the liberalised market had the choice of which energy supplier they purchased energy from. They were therefore free to negotiate the contract terms and to switch to another supplier. In this situation, a kW customer cannot complain that they themselves did not do the comparative research, which other customers did do. Vattenfall has not exceeded any other standard of care and there is also no question of undue payment of the kW compensation.

The Amsterdam Court held that businesses ought to have exercised greater caution. It is reasonable to expect that ‘average, observant businesses’ will familiarize themselves with the energy prices on offer and will take the initiative to understand the information provided by suppliers. Additionally, the fact that a free market has been in place since 2002 implies that Vattenfall had no obligation whatsoever to inform its business customers about the existence of other customers with better contract terms and that contracts without the kW charge would probably be cheaper. The customers themselves were responsible for their choice of electricity supplier. The court also finds that it is incorrect to state that no product or service is provided in return for the kW fee. Electricity is provided, and including general cost components, such as personnel costs, in a tariff structure is permissible.

 The Impact

For those expecting this judgment to be the very first case in which a multimillion-euro damage claim would be awarded, and thus opening the door to many more mass damage claims, the result may be somewhat of an anticlimax. Since the claimants have not been successful and no damages have been awarded, the case does not provide much to go on for funders, mass claim lawyers and others following these developments with interest. At the same time, the claim foundation lost the case on substantive grounds, and nothing in the decision suggests an impairment in the WAMCA’s ability to provide access to justice for victims of mass harms.

From our perspective, there are two points that could be worthy of praise from a procedural point of view. The first is that, even after deeming 92% of the claims unfounded under Article 6:194 DCC, the court still refused Vattenfall’s claim that the remaining 8% would be too small of group to justify a ruling in a collective action, prioritizing the uniformity of the defendant’s conduct instead. This favours procedural expediency and guarantees that a minority of class members wouldn’t suffer from an eventual dismissing of the claim against the rest.

The second point is that the court took the perspective of the average user to rule on the sufficiency of the information provided by Vattenfall. This favours the groupability of class members in an abstract fashion, in contrast to the tendency other courts have shown to excessively scrutinize the similarity of the class members’ situations to consider them a group with acceptably similar claims. In a ruling on EU consumer law earlier this year, the CJEU favoured this approach for collective actions in such area (see Case C-450/22 Caixabank).

That said, this judgment shows that the supposed claimant-friendly design of the WAMCA does not guarantee success and may come as a disappointment to claimants and funders alike. Notably as well is the fact that this case took about 2,5 years from summons to judgement, which is a relatively short time for complex class action cases, as illustrated by the timelines of other cases that were filed well before this case and that have still some ways to go before a judgment can be expected.

The question remains how funders will look at this result and if it has any impact on their willingness to keep funding Dutch class actions. Given the outcome of this case, with a negative result for the claimants and a dismissal of all claims on substantive grounds, it seems both funders and ‘WAMCA-watchers’ will have to wait a bit longer for that first pivotal judgment.

This month the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico). For more information, click here. For some Private International Law implications, click here.

The petitioners are: Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc.; Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.; Beretta U.S.A. Corp; Glock, Inc.; Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.; Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc., d/b/a Interstate Arms; Century International Arms, Inc.; and Colt’s Manufacturing Company, LLC.

As previously reported, this is a much-politicized case initiated by Mexico against US gun manufacturers. Mexico alleges inter alia that defendants actively assist and facilitate trafficking of their guns to drug cartels in Mexico. Among the claims for relief are: Negligence, public nuisance, defective condition – unreasonably dangerous, negligence per se, gross negligence, unjust enrichment and restitution, violation of CUTPA [Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act], Violation of Mass. G.L. c. 93A [Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act], punitive damages.

At first, a US District Court dismissed the case, which we reported here. However, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed. See a recent official statement from the Mexican government here (in Spanish).

Some of the arguments of the Court of Appeals are (for the full judgment, click here):

[…] p. 38 et seq.

• “Instead, defendants contend that even for pleading purposes the complaint fails to allege facts plausibly supporting the theory that defendants have aided and abetted such unlawful sales.
• “We disagree, finding instead that Mexico’s complaint adequately alleges that defendants have been aiding and abetting the sale of firearms by dealers in knowing violation of relevant state and federal laws. “[T]he essence of aiding and abetting” is “participation in another’s wrongdoing that is both significant and culpable enough to justify attributing the principal wrongdoing to the aider and abettor.” Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471, 504 (2023).

[…]

• “It is therefore not implausible that, as the complaint alleges, defendants engage in all this conduct in order to maintain the unlawful market in Mexico, and not merely in spite of it.

[…]

• “We think it clear that by passing along guns knowing that the purchasers include unlawful buyers, and making design and marketing decisions targeted towards those exact individuals, the manufacturer is aiding and abetting illegal sales. And this scenario, in substance, is fairly analogous to what Mexico alleges.”

The Court of Appeals concludes:

• In sum, we conclude that the complaint adequately alleges that defendants aided and abetted the knowingly unlawful downstream trafficking of their guns into Mexico. Defendants’ arguments to the contrary are premised either on an inaccurate reading of the complaint or on a misapplication of the standard of review on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Whether plaintiffs will be able to support those allegations with evidence at summary judgment or at trial remains to be seen. At this stage, though, we must “accept all well-pleaded allegations of [Mexico] as true and afford all inferences in [Mexico’s] favor.” […]

As expected, Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al. were unsatisfied with the judgment and filed for certiorari before the US Supreme Court. The questions presented are:

1. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the “proximate cause” of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico.
2. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.

In particular, and among other allegations, Smith & Wesson argues that: “Mexico’s theory of liability reduces to this: ‘A manufacturer of a dangerous product is an accessory or co-conspirator to illicit conduct by downstream actors where it continues to supply, support, or assist the downstream parties and has knowledge—actual or constructive—of the illicit conduct.’” However, Smith & Wesson contends that that theory of aiding and abetting has been rejected in case law and emphasizes the distinction between active complicity and passive conduct. It alleges that even if a company has extensive commercial activity, it is a not an active participant in downstream criminal acts unless the company engages in some other “affirmative misconduct” in promoting those acts (p. 29 et seq. of the petition).

Amicus briefs have been filed by:

• Washington Legal Foundation
• Atlantic Legal Foundation
• Landmark Legal Foundation
• Montana
• National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.
• National Association of Manufacturers et al.
• The American Constitutional Rights Union et al.
• National Rifle Association of America and Independence Institute
• Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. and FPC Action Foundation
• The Buckeye Institute and Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms
• Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners
• National Association for Gun Rights and the National Foundation for Gun Rights
• S. Senator Ted Cruz, U.S. Representative Darrell Issa, and 25 Other Members of Congress
• The Second Amendment Foundation

If the Supreme Court affirms the Court of Appeals’ judgment,  this is only the beginning of a long and complex litigation. As stated by the Court of Appeals, it remains to be seen whether Mexico’s allegations can be proven at summary judgment or at trial. Any updates will be reported here.

By Zihao Fan (Ph.D. Candidate in Law, Peking University Law School)

The ‘Global Value Chains and Transnational Private Law’ workshop was successfully held at Edinburgh Law School in a hybrid format from June 23 to 25, 2024. This project is funded by the Law Schools Global League (LSGL), convened by Prof. Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (Edinburgh Law School) and Prof. Michael Nietsch (EBS Law School). The workshop attracted scholars and researchers from 15 universities and institutions worldwide. Over two days, participants shared inspiring work in progress and engaged in discussions on how transnational private law influences and shapes global supply chains. During the workshop plans for the upcoming publication and dissemination were discussed. This overview aims to briefly summarise the research outcomes presented during the workshop (following the sequence of the presentations).

Morning Session on 24 June

Dr. Catherine Pedamon (Westminster Law School) and Dr. Simone Lamont-Black (Edinburgh Law School) first introduced a previous related workshop held in Edinburgh Law School on ‘Sustainability in the Food Supply Chain: Challenges and the Role of Law & Policy’. This project consists of contributions from a variety of legal and policy areas at the UK, EU, and international levels, focusing on the role of law (including commercial law, contract law, competition law, and corporate law) in resolving regulatory difficulties and opportunities in food supply chains, with a particular emphasis on sustainability and food security, therefore highly connected to the current project.

Afterwards, Dr. Pedamon and Dr. Lamont-Black also presented their research titled ‘Responsible Contracting in Agri-Food Supply Chains: Mitigating Power Asymmetries on the Road Towards Sustainability’. They pointed out that recent events like the Covid-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, climate-related price instability, and inflation have severely impacted the global economy, creating an unprecedented food crisis. Complex food supply chains reveal power imbalances, with larger trading partners often imposing unfair practices on less powerful suppliers. This research aims to shed light on the issues surrounding governance gaps and the various challenges and opportunities that arise from private international law, examining UK domestic law pertaining to food supply relationships, taking the EU level regulation into account, and providing potential examples of its implementation.

Dr. Francesca Farrington (School of Law, University of Aberdeen) and Dr. Nevena Jevremovic (School of Law, University of Aberdeen) then presented their work titled ‘Private International Law and the Race to the Bottom in Labour Standards: The Case of Begum v Maran’, discussed the recent Court of Appeal case, Begum v Maran. They noted that the literature has generally focused on the unique arguments relating to duty of care, and the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the claim was not fanciful – it illustrates that the Rome II Regulation does little to prevent a ‘race to the bottom’ in labour standards especially given that corporate liability was a rapidly expanding field of law. They also discussed the different results when courts adopting different characterization methods on business-related human rights (BHR) claims.

Dr. Sara Sanchez Fernandez (IE Law School, Spain) shared her research on ‘Civil Liability under the CS3D: International Jurisdiction Rules and Access to an Effective Legal Remedy’. She first introduced the background: the EU recently enacted the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D), which establishes due diligence responsibilities and civil consequences for violations of such obligations. The CS3D establishes rules for organizations’ risk-based due diligence requirements across their entire value chain. Her research centred on the assurance of access to Member State courts for CS3D-related issues, scrutinizing the interaction between CS3D, international jurisdiction in the Brussels I bis Regulation, and the foreign jurisdiction rules of Member States. She also explored the potential solutions for cases where entities are non-EU domiciled.

First Afternoon Session on 24 June

Prof. Toshiyuki Kono (Faculty of Law, Kyushu University) and Prof. Ren Yatsunami (Faculty of Law, Kyushu University) presented their work on ‘The Global Value Chain & Network Responsibility: The New Possibilities of Private Ordering’. They pointed it out that in recent years, policymakers and scholars from numerous disciplines have concentrated on mapping the outlines of the modern global value chain, with the concept of ‘network’ emerging as a repeating theme. They investigate the relevance of viewing networks as lenses through which better understand the GVC and its regulation, particularly in terms of human rights and environmental issues. Besides, they also examine the failure of the network and related legal responses, suggesting that a mixture of public and private norms, hard laws and soft laws should be considered as alternatives.

Prof. Carlos Vasquez (Georgetown Law School, US) then discussed his research on ‘Applicable Law in BHR Cases’. He focused on the applicable substantive law in BHR suits brought in developed countries (usually the home state of the defendant corporation) for injuries suffered in developing countries (the host state). He centred on both vertical and horizontal choice-of-law inquiries: ‘vertical’ refers to the decision-making process that involves choosing between international law and national (or subnational) law as the primary source of relevant law, while ‘horizontal’ refers to the decision between applying the legal system of the host country or the legal system of the home State.

Dr. David Capper (School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast) presented his research next, on ‘Procedural Aspects of Transnational BHR-Litigation’. Continuing with BHR cases he discussed how victims of tortious conduct by multinational corporations are seeking remedy against the latter in a Global North jurisdiction, with a focus on the UK. He illustrated the procedural mechanisms in the UK that are available for mass tort litigation of this kind and suggested that the Group Litigation Order (GLO) would be the appropriate mechanism in the majority of cases of mass tort litigation. Then he elaborated on several aspects of GLO, including group registers, case management, and costs. Finally, he suggested examining the Okpabi case to see how GLOs work.

Second Afternoon Session on 24 June

Prof. Irene-Marie Esser (School of Law, University of Glasgow) and Dr. Christopher Riley (Durham Law School) presented their research on ‘Groups and Outsiders in the Context of Tort and Human Rights Violations’, examining the challenges that arise in protecting the interests of ‘outsiders’ from corporate groups’ misbehaviour. They argued that regulations applied to individual ‘stand-alone’ companies suffer weaknesses when applied to corporate groups. By using the UK’s experience of enforcing human rights norms against groups and of applying tort law, they demonstrate the implications of an ‘enterprise approach’ for regulation.

Dr. Catherine Pedamon (Westminster Law School) shared her work in progress on the French duty of vigilance. The French Loi de Vigilance has been enacted for seven years, yet its first decision was rendered on 5th December 2023. It still appears to be in the initial stages of development, not only due to its groundbreaking nature but also the obstacles to enforcement. She then shared some key preconditions on the applicability, the public availability of a vigilance liability plan, compensation for damages due to the companies’ failure to comply, etc. She also introduced the recent developments in the related cases in France.

Prof. Michael Nietsch discussed his research, ‘Corporate Accountability of Multinational Enterprises for Human Rights Abuses – Navigating Separate Legal Entity and Attribution under Delict’, elaborating the growing interest in corporate accountability for human rights violations in the German judicial system. In contrast to the UK, Germany has seen few incidents of damages lawsuit with the implementation of statutory due diligence procedures under the Supply Chain Due Diligence Act 2021 (Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz, LkSG). Nonetheless, legal academics continue to discuss the basis for corporate liability for human rights violations under German private law, as well as the proper standards of care that arise as a result. This is a fundamental issue in German delict law and the separation of legal entities. He argued that the LkSG has ruled out private liability based on a violation of the Act’s due diligence criteria while allowing such liability on other grounds, which adds to the complexity.

At the end of the day, Dr. Juan Manuel Amaya Castro (Faculty of Law, University of the Andes, Colombia) presented his work on ‘Global Value Chains with a Human Face’. He discussed the definition of social traceability from a legal perspective and its requirements, purpose, and reasons for tracing a particular good in the supply chain. He then explained how traceability is mandated in due diligence and reporting legislation, pointing out that practices including auditing and certification, feedback loops, administrative guidelines, and civil liability standards should be considered.

Morning Session on 25 June

Dr. Biset Sena Güne? (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Germany) started the day with her research, ‘Harmonisation of Private International Law Rules to Promote Sustainability in Global Value Chains?’. She elaborated that the role of private international law is frequently constrained concerning sustainability. In most cases, the ability to reach a truly sustainable outcome is dependent on the applicable private legislation. When this is the case, it is difficult to justify the need for harmonisation of current private international law standards without simultaneously focusing on uniform private law regulatory remedies. Nonetheless, she suggested that the need for harmonisation of private international law standards governing corporate social responsibility should be explored further and proposed a comparative approach for that further research.

The morning session on 25 June also discussed the plans for the upcoming publication and the dissemination conference to be held in Germany in 2025.

In summary, the workshop enabled fruitful discussion of work-in-progress and shared insights on the complexities of global value chains and the role of transnational private law. Key topics included sustainability, corporate accountability, and legal frameworks affecting global supply chains. The project successfully fosters international collaboration amongst and beyond LSGL researchers, nurturing comparative and interdisciplinary approaches. Participants gained a deeper understanding and ideas to take the research forward to address regulatory and coordination challenges in furthering sustainability in global commerce.

Collective actions and the financing of complex mass damage cases have been among the most debated and controversial topics in civil justice in Europe over the past decade. It doesn’t need much explanation that oftentimes these complex cases involving a multiplicity of parties and events or consequences taking place in different countries trigger private international law questions, as for instance the ongoing evaluation of the Brussels I-bis Regulation evidences (see among others the 2023 Study in support of the evaluation; a 2021 Working Paper by Burkhard Hess; a 2022 report by BEUC on PIL and Cross-border Collective Redress). Another key issue is the funding of these inherently costly litigations. The Representative Action Directive, applicable since June 2023, and the European Parliament Resolution on Responsible private funding of litigation, adopted in 2022, have proliferated discussions on the funding of collective actions. With the entry into force of the Dutch collective damages procedure (WAMCA) in 2020, enabling compensatory actions, the Netherlands has re-confirmed its reputation as one of the frontrunners in having a well-developed framework for collective actions and settlements in Europe. High stake cases involving privacy, environmental law, human rights and consumer law have found their way to the courts and have benefitted from third party funding.

These developments have triggered the Dutch Research and Documentation Centre of the Ministry of Justice and Security to commission a Study on the need for a procedural fund for collective actions, published in 2023 (in Dutch). The book Financing Collective Actions in the Netherlands: Towards a Litigation Fund?, based on this study and including updates, has just been published (Eleven International Publishing 2024) and is available open access. The book is authored by Xandra Kramer (Erasmus University Rotterdam/Utrecht University), Ianika Tzankova (Tilburg University), Jos Hoevenaars (Erasmus University Rotterdam, researcher Vici team) and Karlijn van Doorn (Tilburg University). It discusses developments in Dutch collective actions from a regulatory perspective, including the implementation of the RAD, and contains a quantitative and qualitative analysis of cases that have been brought under the WAMCA. It then examines funding aspects of collective actions from a regulatory, empirical and comparative perspective. It delves into different funding modes, including market developments in third party litigation funding, and  addresses the question of the necessity, feasibility, and design of a (revolving) litigation fund for collective actions.

The hardcover version of the book can be ordered from the publisher’s website, which also provides access to the free digital open access version through the publisher’s portal.

A launch event and webinar on ‘Financing Collective Actions: Current Debates in Europe and Beyond’ will take place on 3 July from 15-17.15 CET. Confirmed speakers include Jasminka Kalajdzic (University of Windsor) and Rachael Mulheron (Queen Mary University London). Registration for free here.

The fourth issue of 2023 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP, published by CEDAM) was just released. It features:

Cristina Campiglio, Professor at the University of Pavia, Giurisdizione e legge applicabile in materia di responsabilità medica (ovvero a proposito di conflitti di qualificazioni) [Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Matters of Medical Liability (Namely, on the Issue of Conflicts of Characterisation); in Italian]

An attempt has been made to give an account of the conflicts of qualification that characterise the healthcare sector, starting with the contractual or non-contractual nature of civil liability for malpractice. We then looked at the nature of the healthcare contract to assess whether patients can fall into the category of consumers and consequently enjoy the protection reserved to them. Finally, reference was made to the qualification of the patient’s self-determination as an expression of the right to privacy rather than the right to physical integrity. Research on the nature of civil liability in a field – the health sector, as said – where many activities are potentially harmful to the physical integrity of the patient so that the health-care operator might be held accountable of culpable personal injury or even of manslaughter, provided an opportunity to analyse the practice of the Court of Justice relating to the qualification of “contractual matters” and indirectly of the non-contractual matter of culpable “tort”; and to note how the Court, in recent years, on the one hand has openly espoused an extensive interpretation of “contractual matters”, and on the other hand has missed the chance to speak out on hypotheses of non-contractual liability in contractual contexts, or of concurrence of contractual and non-contractual liability. It is to be hoped that the European Union will become aware of the need to provide ad hoc rules on the liability of healthcare personnel who engage in activities that are intrinsically hazardous to patients’ health: if not substantive rules or guidelines, at least rules on jurisdictional competence and applicable law.

Olivia Lopes Pegna, Professor at the University of Florence, Continuità interpretativa e novità funzionali alla tutela dell’interesse del minore nel regolamento Bruxelles II-ter (Continuity in Interpretation and Novelties Functional to the Protection of the Interest of the Child in the Brussels IIb Regulation; in Italian)

This article aims at illustrating the main innovations introduced in the Brussels regime on parental responsibility and protection of children with the Recast: i.e., Regulation (EU) No 2019/1111 (“Brussels II-ter”). While, on the one side, interpretation and application of the Recast Regulation mandate continuity with the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, on the other side the novelties introduced with the Recast show an increased penchant towards flexibility in order to achieve the protection of the actual and concrete best interests of the child.

Edoardo Benvenuti, Research Fellow at the University of Milan, Climate change litigation e diritto internazionale privato dell’Unione europea: quale spazio per la tutela collettiva? (Climate Change Litigation and EU Private International Law: Is There Room for Collective Redress?; in Italian)

With the worsening of the climate crisis, the EU is adopting a number of measures – both in the public and private sector – in order to counter such phenomenon. The layering of substantive norms and standards goes hand in hand with the growing interest towards procedural tools suitable to make the application of such rules effective through private enforcement. Against this background, and given the collective and the ubiquitous dimension of the consequences of climate change, the present article explores the phenomenon of collective redress in the field of climate change litigation. After introducing the definitions and the characteristic features of climate change litigation and collective redress, the article examines the role of Regulations (EU) No 1215/2012 and (CE) No 864/2007, in order to evaluate their ability to address the private international law issues arising from collective and climate change litigation. In doing so, the article focuses on the relevant case-law (both national and of the CJEU), as well as on Directive (EU) 2020/1828 on consumers’ representative actions, which provides a number of propositions that can be applied also in the context of climate change litigation. Once the main critical aspects have been identified, the article puts forth some reform suggestions to strengthen EU private international law mechanisms in the context of environmental mass torts.

This issue also comprises the following comment:

Ginevra Greco, Researcher at the University of Milan, Il c.d. uso alternativo del rinvio pregiudiziale di interpretazione (The So-Called Alternative Use of the Referral for a Preliminary Ruling on Interpretation; in Italian)

This article endeavours to show that, contrary to popular opinion, the interpretative judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which use the terms “precludes” or “does not preclude”, are genuine judgments on the conformity of a national act or measure with EU law. This article also aims to illustrate the compatibility of those judgments with the model of Article 267 TFEU. This conclusion is supported not by the fact that such judgments are devoid of application profiles, but because they remain within the scope of the interpretative function of the Court of Justice, understood not as abstract interpretation, but as an interpretation which contributes to the resolution of the concrete case pending before the referring court.

Furthermore, in the Chronicles section, this issue includes:

Anna Facchinetti, Researcher at the University of Milan, Immunità degli Stati ed exequatur di sentenze straniere in materia di terrorismo: una recente pronuncia della Corte di Cassazione francese (State Immunity and Exequatur of Foreign Judgments on Terrorism: A Recent Ruling by the French Court of Cassation; in Italian).

Finally, the following book review by Fausto Pocar, Emeritus Professor at the University of Milan, is featured: Albert Venn DICEY, John Humphrey Carlile MORRIS, Lawrence COLLINS, Dicey, Morris & Collins on The Conflict of Laws, 16th ed., Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2022, 2 voll., pp. cdxli-2476-LXXI; Companion vol., EU Withdrawal Transition Issues, pp. li-162.

Written by Eduardo Silva de Freitas (Erasmus University Rotterdam), member of the Vici project Affordable Access to Justice, financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), www.euciviljustice.eu.  

Introduction

In the final weeks leading up to Christmas in 2023, the District Court of Amsterdam referred a set of questions to the CJEU (DC Amsterdam, 20 December 2023, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:8330; in Dutch). These questions, if comprehensively addressed, have the potential to bring clarity to longstanding debates regarding jurisdictional conflicts in collective actions. Despite being rooted in competition law with its unique intricacies, the issues surrounding the determination of online damage locations hold the promise of illuminating pertinent questions. Moreover, the forthcoming judgment is expected to provide insights into the centralization of jurisdiction in collective actions within a specific Member State, an aspect currently unclear. Recalling our previous discussion on the Dutch class action under the WAMCA in this blog, it is crucial to emphasize that, under the WAMCA, only one representative action can be allowed to proceed for the same event. In instances where multiple representative foundations seek to bring proceedings for the same event without reaching a settlement up to a certain point during the proceedings, the court will appoint an exclusive representative. This procedural detail adds an additional layer of complexity to the dynamics of collective actions under the WAMCA.

Following a brief overview of the case against Apple, we will delve into the rationale behind the court’s decision to refer the questions.

The claim against Apple

The claim revolves around Apple’s alleged anticompetitive behavior in the market for the distribution of apps and in-app products on iOS devices, such as iPhones, iPads, and iPod Touch. The foundations argue that Apple holds a monopoly in this market, as users are dependent on the App Store for downloading and using apps.

According to the foundations, Apple’s anticompetitive actions include controlling which apps are included in the App Store and imposing conditions for their inclusion. Furthermore, Apple is accused of having a monopoly on payment processing services for apps and digital in-app products, with the App Store payment system being the sole method for transactions.

The foundations argue that Apple charges an excessive commission of 30% for paid apps and digital in-app products, creating an unfair advantage and disrupting competition. They assert that Apple’s dominant position in the market and its behavior constitute an abuse of power. Users are said to be harmed by being forced to use the App Store and pay high commissions, leading to the claim that Apple has acted unlawfully. The legal bases of the claim are therefore abuse of economic dominance in the market (Article 102 TFEU) and prohibited vertical price fixing (Article 101 TFEU).

The jurisdictional conundrum

Apple Ireland functions as the subsidiary tasked with representing app suppliers within the EU. The international nature of the dispute stems from the users purportedly affected being located in the Netherlands, while the case is lodged against the subsidiary established in Ireland. The District Court of Amsterdam has opted to scrutinize the jurisdiction of Dutch courts under Article 7(2) Brussels I-bis Regulation. This provision grants jurisdiction to the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur, encompassing both prongs of the Bier paradigm. However, Apple contends that, within the Netherlands, the court would only possess jurisdiction under Article 7(2) Brussels I-bis Regulation with regard to users residing specifically in Amsterdam.

In the court’s view, the ascertainment of the Handlungsort should pertain only to allegations under Article 102 TFEU. In relation to Article 101 TFEU, the Netherlands was not considered the Handlungsort. This is due to the necessity of identifying a specific incident causing harm to ascertain the Handlungsort, and the absence of concrete facts renders it challenging to pinpoint such an event.

The court’s jurisdictional analysis commences with a reference to Case C?27/17 flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines (ECLI:EU:C:2018:533), in which the CJEU established that the location of the harmful event in cases involving the abuse of a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU is closely linked to the actual implementation of such abuse. In the present case, the court observes that Apple’s actions, conducted through the Dutch storefront of the App Store tailored for the Dutch market, involve facilitating app and in-app product purchases. Acting as the exclusive distributor for third-party apps, Apple Ireland exerts control over the offered content.

Applying the criteria from flyLAL, the court concludes that the Handlungsort is situated in the Netherlands. However, the court agreed that the specific court within the Netherlands responsible for adjudicating the matter remains unspecified.

The court initiated its analysis of the Erfolgsort based on the established premise in CJEU case law which posits that there is no distinction between individual and collective actions when determining the location of the damage. The court clarified that the concept of the place where the damage occurs does not encompass any location where the consequences of the event may be felt; rather, only the damage directly resulting from the committed harm should be considered. Moreover, the court emphasized that when determining the Erfolgsort, there is no distinction based on whether the legal basis for the accusation of anticompetitive practices is grounded in Article 101 or Article 102 TFEU.

The court reiterated that the App Store with Dutch storefront is a targeted online sales platform for the Dutch market. Functioning as an exclusive distributor, Apple Ireland handles third-party apps and in-app products, contributing to an alleged influence of anticompetitive behavior in the Dutch market. It’s acknowledged that the majority of users making purchases reside in the Netherlands, paying through Dutch bank accounts, thus placing the Erfolgsort within the Netherlands for this user group. Nevertheless, the court reiterated that the particular court within the Netherlands tasked with adjudicating this case remains unspecified.

The questions referred

Despite the court having its perspective on establishing jurisdiction under Article 7(2) Brussels I-bis Regulation, it opted to seek clarification from the CJEU for the following reasons.

First, the court expresses reservations regarding the complete applicability of the flyLAL precedent to the current case. It emphasizes that the flyLAL case involved a precise location where the damage could be pinpointed. In contrast, the present case involves anticompetitive practices unfolding through an online platform accessible simultaneously in every location within a particular Member State and globally. The court is uncertain whether the nature of this online distribution makes a significant difference in this context, especially when considering whether the case involves a collective action.

Second, as mentioned above, the WAMCA stipulates that only a single representative action can be allowed to proceed for a given event. In situations where multiple representative foundations aim to commence legal proceedings for the same event without reaching a settlement by a specific stage in the proceedings, the court will designate an exclusive representative. In addition to that, Article 220 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure offers the opportunity to consolidate cases awaiting resolution before judges in various districts and involving identical subject matter and parties, allowing for a unified hearing of these cases.

Nevertheless, the court has reservations about the compatibility of relocating from the Erfolgsort within a Member State under the consolidation of proceedings, as Article 7(2) Brussels I-bis Regulation impacts the establishment of jurisdiction within that Member State. In questioning whether such relocation would run contrary to EU law, the court highlights the Brussels I-bis Regulation’s overarching objective of preventing parallel proceedings. This triggers a skepticism towards the interpretation that each District Court within the Netherlands would have competence to adjudicate a collective action pertaining to users situated in the specific Erfolgsort within their jurisdiction.

However, the court finds it necessary to refer these questions to the CJEU, considering that, in its assessment, the CJEU’s rationale in Case C?30/20 Volvo (ECLI:EU:C:2021:604) is not easily transposable to the current case. In Volvo, the CJEU permitted the concentration of proceedings in antitrust matters within a specialized court. This is not applicable here, as the consolidation of proceedings under the described framework arises from the efficiency in conducting the proceedings, not from specialization.

These are, in a nutshell, the reasons why the District Court of Amsterdam decided to refer the following questions to the CJEU:

 Question 1

1. What should be considered as the place of the damaging action in a case like this, where the alleged abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU has been implemented in a Member State through sales via an online platform managed by Apple that is aimed at the entire Member State, with Apple Ireland acting as the exclusive distributor and as the developer’s commission agent and deducting commission on the purchase price, within the meaning of Article 7, point 2, Brussels I bis? Is it important that the online platform is in principle accessible worldwide?
2. Does it matter that in this case it concerns claims that have been instituted on the basis of Article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code by a legal entity whose purpose is to represent the collective interests of multiple users who have their seat in different jurisdictions (in the Netherlands: districts) within a Member State under its own right?
3. If on the basis of question 1a (and/or 1b) not only one but several internally competent judges in the relevant Member State are designated, does Article 7, point 2, Brussels I bis then oppose the application of national (procedural) law that allows referral to one court within that Member State?

 Question 2

1. Can in a case like this, where the alleged damage has occurred as a result of purchases of apps and digital in-app products via an online platform managed by Apple (the App Store) where Apple Ireland acts as the exclusive distributor and commission agent of the developers and deducts commission on the purchase price (and where both alleged abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU has taken place and an alleged infringement of the cartel prohibition within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU), and where the place where these purchases have taken place cannot be determined, only the seat of the user serve as a reference point for the place where the damage has occurred within the meaning of Article 7, point 2, Brussels I bis? Or are there other points of connection in this situation to designate a competent judge?
2. Does it matter that in this case it concerns claims that have been instituted on the basis of Article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code by a legal entity whose purpose is to represent the collective interests of multiple users who have their seat in different jurisdictions (in the Netherlands: districts) within a Member State under its own right?
3. If on the basis of question 2a (and/or 2b) an internally competent judge in the relevant Member State is designated who is only competent for the claims on behalf of a part of the users in that Member State, while for the claims on behalf of another part of the users other judges in the same Member State are competent, does Article 7, point 2, Brussels I bis then oppose the application of national (procedural) law that allows referral to one court within that Member State?

 [Translation from Dutch by the author, with support of ChatGPT]

Discussion

The CJEU possesses case law that could be construed in a manner conducive to allowing the case to proceed in the Netherlands. Notably, Case C?251/20 Gtflix Tv (ECLI:EU:C:2021:1036) appears to be most closely aligned with this possibility, wherein the eDate rule was applied to a case involving French competition law, albeit the CJEU did not explicitly address this aspect (though AG Hogan did). Viewed from this angle, the Netherlands could be deemed the centre of interests for the affected users, making it a potential Erfolgsort.

Regarding the distinction between individual and collective proceedings, the CJEU, in Cases C-352/13 CDC (ECLI:EU:C:2015:335) and C-709/19 VEB v. BP (ECLI:EU:C:2021:377), declined to differentiate for the purpose of determining the locus of damage. We find no compelling reason for the CJEU to deviate from this precedent in the current case.

The truly intricate question centers on the feasibility of consolidating proceedings in a single court. In Case C-381/14 Sales Sinués (ECLI:EU:C:2016:252), the CJEU established that national law must not hinder consumers from pursuing individual claims under the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (UCTD – 93/13) by employing rules on the suspension of proceedings during the pendency of parallel collective actions. However, it is unclear whether this rationale can be extrapolated to parallel concurrent collective actions.

Conclusion

This referral arrives at a good time, coinciding with the recent coming into force of the Representative Actions Directive (RAD – 2020/1828) last summer. Seeking clarification on the feasibility of initiating collective actions within the jurisdictions of affected users for damages incurred in the online sphere holds significant added value. Notably, the inclusion of both the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act within the purview of the RAD amplifies the pertinence of these questions.

Moreover, this case may offer insights into potential avenues for collective actions grounded in the GDPR. Such actions, permitted to proceed under Article 7(2) Brussels I-bis Regulation, as exemplified in our earlier analysis of the TikTok case in Amsterdam, share a parallel rationale. The convergence of these legal frameworks could yield valuable precedents and solutions in navigating the complex landscape of online damages and collective redress.

Written by Eduardo Silva de Freitas (Erasmus University Rotterdam),  Xandra Kramer (Erasmus University Rotterdam/Utrecht University) & Jos Hoevenaars (Erasmus University Rotterdam), members of the Vici project Affordable Access to Justice, financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), www.euciviljustice.eu.  

Introduction

Third Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) has been one of the key topics of discussion in European civil litigation over the past years, and has been the topic of earlier posts on this forum. Especially in the international practice of collective actions, TPLF has gained popularity for its ability to provide the financial means needed for these typically complex and very costly procedures. The Netherlands is a jurisdiction generally considered one of the frontrunners in having a well-developed framework for collective actions and settlements, particularly since the Mass Damage Settlement in Collective Actions Act (WAMCA) became applicable on 1 January 2020 (see also our earlier blogpost). A recent report commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security found that most collective actions seeking damages brought under the (WAMCA) have an international dimension, and that all of these claims for damages are brought with the help of TPLF.

This blogpost provides an update of the latest developments in the Dutch collective action field focusing on a recent interim judgment by the Amsterdam District Court in a collective action against TikTok c.s in which the Dutch court assessed the admissibility of the claimant organisations based, among other criteria, on their funding agreements. This is the second interim judgment in this case, following the first one year ago which dealt with the question of international jurisdiction (see here). After a brief recap of the case and an overview of the WAMCA rules on TPLF, we will discuss how the court assessed the question of compatibility of the TPLF agreements with such rules. Also in view of the EU Representative Action Directive for consumers, which became applicable on 25 June 2023, and ongoing discussions on TPLF in Europe, developments in one of the Member States in this area are of interest.

Recap

In the summer of 2021, three Dutch representative foundations – the Foundation for Market Information Research (Stichting Onderzoek Marktinformatie, SOMI), the Foundation Take Back Your Privacy (TBYP) and the Foundation on Mass Damage and Consumers (Stichting Massaschade en Consument, SMC) – initiated a collective action against, in total, seven TikTok entities, including parent company Bytedance Ltd. The claims concern the alleged infringement of privacy rights of children (all foundations) and adults and children (Foundation on Mass Damage and Consumers). The claims include, inter alia, the compensation of (im)material damages, the destruction of unlawfully obtained personal data, and the claimants request the court to order that an effective system is implemented for age registration, parental permission and control, and measures to ensure that TikTok complies with the Code of Conduct of the Dutch Media Act and the GDPR.

In a its second interim judgment in this case, rendered on 25 October 2023, the District Court of Amsterdam assessed the admissibility of the three representative organisations (DC Amsterdam, 25 October 2023, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:6694; in Dutch), and deemed SOMI admissible and conditioned the admissibility of TBYP and SMC on amendments to their TPLF agreements. This judgment follows the District Court’s acceptance of international jurisdiction in this collective action in its first interim judgment, which we discussed on this blog in an earlier blogpost.

TPLF under the WAMCA

The idea of TPLF refers essentially to the practice of financing litigation in which the funder has no direct involvement with the underlying claim, as explained by Adrian Cordina in an earlier post on this blog. The basic TPLF contract entails the funder agreeing to bear the costs of litigation on a non-recourse basis in exchange for a share of the proceeds of the claim. Collective actions tend to attract this type of funding for two reasons. Firstly, these claims are expensive for several reasons such as the need for specialised legal expertise and complex evidence gathering, thereby creating a need for external financing through TPLF. Secondly, considering that these proceedings seek damages for mass harm, the potential return on investment for a funder can be substantial. This makes it an appealing prospect for funders who may be interested in investing with the possibility of sharing in these proceeds.

The WAMCA has put in place some rules on the practice of TPLF in the context of collective actions. These rules are inserted in the revised Article 3:305a Dutch Civil Code (DCC), which concerns the admissibility requirements for representative organisations to file such actions. Among other requirements, these rules stipulate that claimant organisations must provide evidence of their financial capacity to pursue the action while maintaining adequate control over the proceedings. This provision aims to ensure the enforceability of potential adverse cost orders and to prevent conflicts of interest between the funding entity and the claimant organisation (Tzankova and Kramer, 2021). This requirement can be waived if the collective action pursues an “idealistic” public interest and does not seek damages or only a very low amount, commonly referred to as the “light” WAMCA regime (Article 305a, paragraph 6, DCC). However, foll0wing the implementation of the Representative Actions Directive (Directive (EU) 2020/1828, or RAD) in the Netherlands, the stipulations related to financial capacity and procedural control persist when the collective action derives its legal basis from any of the EU legislative instruments enumerated in Annex I of the RAD, irrespectively of whether or not the collective action pursues an “idealistic” public interest.

Additionally, within the framework of the Dutch implementation of the RAD, it is stipulated that the financing for the collective action cannot come from a funder who is in competition with the defendant against whom the action is being pursued (Article 3:305a, paragraph 2, paragraph f, DCC).

Additional rules on TPLF can also be found in the Dutch Claim Code, a soft-law instrument governing the work of ad hoc foundations in collective proceedings. The latest version of the Claim Code (2019) mandates organisations to scrutinise both the capitalisation and reputation of the litigation funder. The Claim Code also stipulates that TPLF agreements should adopt Dutch contract law as the governing law and designate the Netherlands as the forum for resolving potential disputes. Most importantly, it emphasises that the control of the litigation should remain exclusively with the claimant organisation. Moreover, it prohibits the funder from withdrawing funding prior to the issuance of a first instance judgment. This Claim Code is non-binding, but plays an important role in Dutch practice.

The District Court’s assessment of the TPLF agreements

In the most recent interim judgment, the District Court of Amsterdam assessed the admissibility requirements concerning financial capacity and control over the proceedings for each of the organisations separately. In its first interim judgment the court had determined that, with a view to assessing the admissibility of each of the claimants and also with a view to the appointment of an exclusive representative, the financing agreement the claimants had reached with their respective funders should be submitted to the court.

After the review of these agreements all three organisations were deemed to have sufficient resources and expertise to conduct the proceedings since they are all backed by TPLF agreements (SMC and TBYP) and donation endowments (SOMI). However, the court ordered amendments to the TPLF agreements of both SMC and TBYP due to concerns related to control over the proceedings. The District Court also acknowledged concerns about potential excessiveness in compensation, particularly if calculated as a fixed percentage irrespective of awarded amounts and the number of eligible class members. Notably, the court considered the proportionality of compensation to the invested amount and emphasised the need to align it with the potential risks faced by litigation funders.

In this sense, the court indicated that the acceptable percentage of compensation for litigation funders should be contingent on the awarded amount and the expected number of class members. While a maximum of 25% accepted in case law (for example, in the Vattenfall case, DC Amsterdam 25 October 2023) could play a role, the court indicates it will use a five-times-investment maximum as a more practical approach. The court stressed the importance of adjusting compensation rates based on damages to be assessed, ensuring appropriate remuneration for funders without exceeding the established maximum.

In light of these considerations, the District Court also outlined preconditions for future approval of settlement agreements, limiting the amount deducted from the compensation of the class members to a percentage that will be established by the court and capping litigation funder fees.

 Assessment of each organisation’s control over the proceedings

The three claimant organisations have entered into different financial agreements to pursue this collective action. SOMI is financed by donations from another organisation, which does not require repayment of the amount invested. The District Court assessed the independence of SOMI’s decision-making, given that the sole shareholder of the donating organisation is also the director of SOMI. The court concluded that appropriate safeguards are in place, as the donation agreement contains clauses stipulating that this person should refrain from taking any decisions in case of a conflict of interest. It was also stressed that the donating organisation declared to be independent from SOMI’s directors and lawyers, as well as from TikTok.

On the other hand, TBYP and SMC have entered into TPLF agreements. The District Court highlighted some provisions of TPLF agreement of TBYF that were deemed dubious under the WAMCA. One clause required that no actions could be taken that could potentially harm the funder’s interests, with an exception made if such actions were legally necessary to protect the interests of the class members. The court decided that this clause compromised TBYP’s independence in controlling the claim. Another clause stipulated that TBYP could not make, accept, or reject an offer of partial or full settlement in the proceedings without first receiving advice from the lawyers that such a step was reasonable. The court viewed this clause as further compromising TBYP’s control over the proceedings.

Similarly, the District Court had reservations about some clauses in the TPLF agreement SMC had entered into. One clause stipulated that if the lawyers were dismissed, the funder could inform SMC of the replacing lawyers they would like to appoint, subject to SMC’s approval. Also, if the funder wanted to dismiss the lawyers and SMC disagreed, the dispute should be resolved by arbitration. The court decided that this gave power to the funder to disproportionately influence the proceedings. Another clause stipulated that if the chance of winning significantly decreased, the parties would need to discuss whether to continue or terminate the agreement. The court rejected this clause, stressing that terminating the TPLF agreement prematurely is unacceptable. Finally, the agreement contained a clause allowing the funder to transfer its rights, benefits, and obligations under the agreement, even without SMC’s consent. The court also rejected this clause, emphasising that SMC should not be involuntarily associated with another funder.

In view of all these considerations the District Court decided that these provisions in the TPLF agreements could compromise the independence of TBYP and SMC from their respective litigation funders. In principle, the presence of these contractual provisions should lead to TBYP and SMC being deemed inadmissible. However, considering the overall intent of the TPLF agreements and the novelty of such agreements being reviewed, the court has given TBYP and SMC the opportunity to amend their TPLF agreements to remove the contentious clauses.

Outlook

In its decision, the District Court repeatedly stressed that it was ‘entering new territory’ with this detailed assessment of the funding agreements. This is also reflected in the careful consideration the court has for the various, potentially problematic, aspects of TPLF in collective actions and the fact that it chooses to formulate a number of preconditions that it intends to apply when determining what will count as reasonable compensation in the event of future approval of a settlement agreement. It thereby forms the second act in this TikTok case, but also the firsts steps in clarifying some uncertainties in the practical implementation of the WAMCA.

The challenges collective actions and TPLF face are not unique to The Netherlands, as for instance also the PACCAR judgment by the UK Supreme Court 0f earlier this year showed (see also this recent blogpost by Demarco and Olivares-Caminal on OBLB). In this ruling, the Supreme Court considered whether Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) should be regarded as Damages-Based Agreements (DBAs) within the context of ‘claims management services’. The court concluded that the natural meaning of ‘claims management services’ in the Compensation Act 2006 (CA 2006) encompassed LFAs. The court dismissed arguments suggesting a narrower interpretation of ‘claims management services’, stating it would be contrary to the CA 2006’s purpose. As a result of this ruling, these agreements could potentially be deemed unenforceable if they fail to adhere to the regulations applicable to DBAs.

This second interim judgment in the TikTok case is a novelty in the Dutch practice of collective actions in terms of the detailed review of funding agreements. While generally being a collective action-friendly jurisdiction, this judgment and other (interim) judgments under the WAMCA so far, show that bringing international collective actions for damages is a long road, or what some may consider to be an uphill battle. The rather stringent requirements of the WAMCA are subject to rigorous judicial review, which has also resulted in the inadmissibility of claimant organisations and their funding agreements in other cases (notably, in the Airbus case, DC The Hague 20 September 2023, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:14036). Almost four years after the WAMCA became applicable no final judgment rewarding damage claims has been rendered yet. But in the TikTok case the claimant organisations got a second chance. This open trial-and-error approach is perhaps the only way to further shape the collective action practice both in The Neterlands and other European countries.

To be continued.

Written by Bill Dodge, the John D. Ayer Chair in Business Law and Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at UC Davis School of Law.

China has been critical of U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction. In February, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a report entitled “The U.S. Willful Practice of Long-arm Jurisdiction and its Perils.” In the report, the Ministry complained about U.S. secondary sanctions, the discovery of evidence abroad, the Helms-Burton Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, and the use of extraterritorial jurisdiction in criminal cases. The report claimed that U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction has caused “severe harm … to the international political and economic order and the international rule of law.”

There are better and worse ways to criticize U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs report pursues some of the worse ways and neglects some better ones. In this post, I discuss a few of the report’s shortcoming. In a second post, I discuss stronger arguments that one could make against U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Confusing Extraterritorial Jurisdiction with Personal Jurisdiction

One problem with the report is terminology. The report repeatedly uses the phrase “long-arm jurisdiction” to refer to the extraterritorial application of U.S. law. The United States, the report says, has “expand[ed] the scope of its long-arm jurisdiction to exert disproportionate and unwarranted jurisdiction over extraterritorial persons or entities, enforcing U.S. domestic laws on extraterritorial non-US persons or entities, and wantonly penalizing or threatening foreign companies by exploiting their reliance on dollar-denominated businesses, the U.S. market or U.S. technologies.”

In the United States, however, “long-arm jurisdiction” refers to the exercise of personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants based on contacts with the forum state. The report seems to recognize this, referring in its second paragraph to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) and the requirement of “minimum contacts.” But the report goes on use “long-arm jurisdiction” to refer the extraterritorial application of U.S. law. This is more than an academic quibble. Jurisdiction to prescribe (the authority to make law) and jurisdiction to adjudicate (the authority to apply law) are very different things and are governed by different rules of domestic and international law.

The report’s confusion on this score runs deeper than terminology. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs seems to think that the United States uses the concept of “minimum contacts” to expand the extraterritorial application of U.S. law. The United States “exercises long-arm jurisdiction on the basis of the ‘minimum contacts’ rule, constantly lowering the threshold for application,” the report states. “Even the flimsiest connection with the United States, such as having a branch in the United States, using [the] U.S. dollar for clearing or other financial services, or using the U.S. mail system, constitutes ‘minimum contacts.’”

In fact, the requirement of “minimum contacts” for personal jurisdiction is quite stringent. Moreover, as I have recently noted, this requirement serves to limit the extraterritorial application of U.S. law rather than expand it. When foreign defendants lack minimum contacts with the United States, U.S. courts cannot exercise personal jurisdiction and thus cannot apply U.S. laws extraterritorially even when Congress wants them to. The Helms-Burton Act (one of the laws about which China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs complains) is an example of this. Congress clearly intended its cause of action for trafficking in confiscated property to discourage non-U.S. companies from investing in Cuba. But U.S. courts have been unable to apply the law to foreign companies because they have concluded that those companies lack “minimum contacts” with the United States.

China’s complaint is not against U.S. rules of personal jurisdiction or the requirement of “minimum contacts.” It is rather with the extraterritorial application of U.S. law. Using the phrase “long-arm jurisdiction” confuses the two issues.

Criticizing Extraterritorial Jurisdiction that China Exercises Too

The report also criticizes the United States for applying its law extraterritorially based on effects: “the United States has further developed the ‘effects doctrine,’ meaning that jurisdiction may be exercised whenever an act occurring abroad produces ‘effects’ in the United States, regardless of whether the actor has U.S. citizenship or residency, and regardless of whether the act complies with the law of the place where it occurred.” This is true. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that U.S. antitrust law “applies to foreign conduct that was meant to produce and did in fact produce some substantial effect in the United States.”

But China also applies its law extraterritorially based on effects. China’s Anti-Monopoly Law provides in Article 2 that it applies not only to monopolistic practices in the mainland territory of the People’s Republic of China but also “to monopolistic practices outside the mainland territory of the People’s Republic of China that eliminate or restrict competition in China’s domestic market.” In 2014, China blocked an alliance of three European shipping company because of possible effects on Chinese markets.

China regulates extraterritorially on other bases too. Although the Ministry of Foreign Affairs characterizes the extraterritorial application of U.S. criminal law as “an extreme abuse,” China applies its criminal law extraterritorially on all the bases that the United States employs. The Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China asserts jurisdiction based not just on territory (Article 6), but also on effects (Article 6), nationality (Article 7), passive personality (Article 8), the protective principle (Article 8), and universal jurisdiction (Article 9). Each of these bases for jurisdiction to prescribe is consistent with customary international law, and China has the right to extend its criminal law extraterritorially like this. But so does the United States.

In their excellent article Extraterritoriality of Chinese Law: Myths, Realities and the Future, Zhengxin Huo and Man Yip provide a detailed discussion of the extraterritorial application of Chinese law. “China’s messaging to the international community is,” they note, “somewhat confusing: it opposes the US practice of ‘long-arm jurisdiction,’ yet it has decided to build its own legal system of extraterritoriality.” By criticizing the United States for exercising jurisdiction on the same bases that China itself uses, China opens itself to charges of hypocrisy.

Ignoring Constraints on U.S. Extraterritoriality

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs report also ignores important constraints on the extraterritorial application of U.S. law. It says the United States has “developed a massive, mutually reinforcing and interlocking legal system for long-arm jurisdiction” and has “put in place a whole-of-government system to practice long-arm jurisdiction.”

In fact, U.S. courts limit the extraterritorial application of U.S. law in significant ways. First, as noted above, U.S. rules on personal jurisdiction (including “minimum contacts”) limit the practical ability of the United States to apply its laws abroad. As I have written before, “Congress cannot effectively extend its laws extraterritorially if courts lack personal jurisdiction to apply those laws.”

Second, U.S. courts apply a presumption against extraterritoriality to limit the reach of federal statutes. Most recently, in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hectronic International, Inc. (2023), the Supreme Court held that federal statutes should be presumed to apply only to conduct in the United States unless those statutes clearly indicate that they apply extraterritorially. At issue in Abitron was the federal trademark statute, which prohibits use of a U.S. trademark that is likely to cause confusion in the United States. The defendants put U.S. trademarks on products in Europe, some of which were ultimately sold to the United States. The dissent argued that the statute should apply to foreign conduct as long as the focus of Congress’s concern—consumer confusion—occurred in the United States. But the majority disagreed, holding that there must also be conduct in the United States. As I have noted previously, this version of the presumption has the potential to frustrate congressional intent when Congress focuses on something other than conduct.

Third, some lower courts in the United States impose additional limits on the extraterritorial application of U.S. law when foreign conduct is compelled by foreign law. In 2005, U.S. buyers sued Chinese sellers of vitamin C for fixing the prices of vitamins sold to the United States. The U.S. court found the Chinese sellers liable for violating U.S. antitrust law and awarded $147 million in damages. Although the anticompetitive conduct occurred in China, it had effects in the United States because vitamins were sold at higher than market prices in the United States.

The Chinese companies appealed, arguing that they were required by Chinese law to agree on export prices. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court on the question of how much deference to give the Chinese government’s interpretation of its own law. Ultimately, in 2021, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that Chinese law did indeed require the anticompetitive conduct and that the case should therefore be dismissed on grounds of international comity because China had a stronger interest in applying its law than the United States did. This is a remarkable decision. Although Congress clearly intended U.S. antitrust law to apply to foreign conduct that causes anticompetitive effects in the United States, and although applying U.S. law based on effects would not violate international law, the U.S. court held that the case should be dismissed in deference to Chinese law.

To be clear, I disagree with these constraints on the extraterritorial application of U.S. laws. I think Congress should have more authority to define rules of personal jurisdiction, particularly when it wants its laws to apply outside the United States. I disagree with Abitron’s conduct-based version of the presumption against extraterritoriality. And I filed two separate amicus briefs (with Paul Stephan) urging the Supreme Court to take up the international comity question and make clear that lower courts have no authority to dismiss claims like those in Vitamin C that fall within the scope of U.S. antitrust law. But whether these constraints are wise or not, ignoring them provides a distorted picture of U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Weak Examples

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also weakens its case by relying on examples that do not support its arguments. The report singles out the indictment of French executive Frédéric Pierucci for violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a story he recounts in his 2019 book The American Trap. Here is how the report describes what happened:

In 2013, in order to beat Alstom in their business competition, the United States applied the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to arrest and detain Frédéric Pierucci on charges of bribing foreign officials. He was further induced to sign a plea deal and provide more evidence and information against his company, leaving Alstom no choice but to accept General Electric’s acquisition, vanishing ever since from the Fortune 500 list. The U.S. long-arm jurisdiction has become a tool for its public power to suppress competitors and meddle in normal international business activities, announcing the United States’ complete departure from its long-standing self-proclaimed champion of liberal market economy.

I have read Pierucci’s book, and his story is harrowing. But the book does not show what the report claims.

First, and perhaps most significantly, application of the FCPA in this case was not extraterritorial. Pierucci was indicted for approving bribes paid to Indonesian officials to secure a contract for Alstrom from his office in Windsor, Connecticut (p. 65). He seems to acknowledge that the bribes violated the FCPA but counters that the statute was “very poorly enforced” at the time (p. 67) and that he “received no personal gain whatsoever” (p. 71). These are not valid defenses under U.S. law.

Second, Pierucci was not arrested to facilitate GE’s acquisition of Alstom. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) began investigating Alstom’s payment of bribes in late 2009 (p. 54), and Pierucci was arrested in April 2013 (p. 1). Alstom’s takeover discussions with GE began during the summer of 2013 (p. 162), and the deal was made public in April 2014 (p. 155). Pierucci plausibly claims that GE took advantage of Alstom’s weakened position, noting that “Alstom is the fifth company to be swallowed up by GE after being accused of corruption by the DOJ” (p. 164). But I saw no claim in the book that DOJ’s investigation of Alstom was intended to bring about its acquisition by a U.S. competitor.

Finally, it is hard to credit the report’s assertion that prosecuting bribery constitutes “meddl[ing] in normal international business activities.” China has joined the U.N. Convention Against Corruption. In 2014, China fined British company GlaxoSmithKline 3 billion yuan (U.S.$489 million) for bribing Chinese doctors. Earlier this year, China launched an unprecedented campaign against corruption in its health care industry. And, of course, fighting corruption remains a top priority of President Xi Jinping.

Conclusion

Perhaps it seems unfair to criticize a report from a foreign ministry for making mistakes about law. Perhaps the report should be seen merely as a political document. But the report itself discusses legal matters in detail and charges the United States with “violat[ing] international law.” Whether the report is a political document or not, the shortcomings that I have discussed here weaken its credibility and undermine its arguments.

There are better ways to criticize U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction. In Part II of this post, I will offer some examples.

[This post also appears at Transnational Litigation Blog (TLB)]