Views
Second Act in Dutch TikTok class action on privacy violation: court assesses Third Party Funding Agreements
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.
Is this a Conflicts Case?
In Sharp v Autorité des marchés financiers, 2023 SCC 29 (available here) the Supreme Court of Canada has held that a Quebec administrative tribunal, the Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal, can hear a proceeding brought by the administrative agency that regulates Quebec’s financial sector, the Autorité des marchés financiers, against four defendants who reside in British Columbia. The AMF alleged in the proceedings that the defendants had contravened the Quebec Securities Act.
The courts below, including a majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal, focused the analysis on s. 93 of the Act respecting the Autorité des marchés financiers, CQLR, c. A-33.2, which grants the FMAT jurisdiction to make determinations under the Securities Act. They interpreted and applied this provision in light of Unifund Assurance Co. v Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, 2003 SCC 40, a leading decision on the scope of application of provincial law, which held that a provincial regulatory scheme constitutionally applies to an out-of-province defendant when there is a “real and substantial connection”, also described as a “sufficient connection”, between the province and the defendant. This test was met on the facts [see para 22] and so the FMAT had jurisdiction. This analysis is not generally understood as being within the field of conflict of laws. Indeed, the majority of the Court of Appeal “saw no conflict of jurisdiction or any conflict of laws that would require the application of private international law rules to this case” [see para 29].
How to Criticize U.S. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (Part II)
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.
There are better and worse ways to criticize U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction. In Part I of this post, I discussed some shortcomings of a February 2023 report by China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “The U.S. Willful Practice of Long-arm Jurisdiction and its Perils.” I pointed out that the report’s use of the phrase “long-arm jurisdiction” confuses extraterritorial jurisdiction with personal jurisdiction. I noted that China applies its own laws extraterritorially on the same bases that it criticizes the United States for using. I argued that the report ignores significant constraints that U.S. courts impose on the extraterritorial application of U.S. laws. And I suggested that China had chosen to emphasize weak examples of U.S. extraterritoriality, such as the bribery prosecution of Frédéric Pierucci, which was not even extraterritorial.
In this post, I suggest some better ways of criticizing U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction. Specifically, I discuss three cases in which the extraterritorial application of U.S. law appears to violate customary international law rules on jurisdiction to prescribe: (1) the indictment of Huawei executive Wanzhou Meng; (2) the application of U.S. sanctions based solely on clearing dollar transactions through U.S. banks; and (3) the application of U.S. export controls to foreign companies abroad based on “Foreign Direct Product” Rules. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs report complains a lot about U.S. sanctions, but not about the kind of sanctions that most clearly violates international law. The report says much less about export controls and nothing about Meng’s indictment, which is odd given the tensions that both have caused between China and the United States. Read more
News
Mediating Across Borders: A Guide to Cross-Border Family Dispute Resolution by Costanza Honorati and Ester di Napoli
In response to the growing complexity of cross-border family disputes – driven by increasing mobility and evolving family configurations – the recently published Guida alla mediazione familiare internazionale in materia di responsabilita genitoriale e sottrazione internazionale di minori, authored by Costanza Honorati and Ester di Napoli (Pacini Editore, 2025; available online in open access, in Italian), offers a rigorous and thematically cohesive guide to the law and practice of cross-border family mediation. Grounded in both European and multilateral legal instruments, the volume brings together doctrinal precision, procedural clarity, and practical insight, establishing itself as an essential reference for legal practitioners, judges, mediators, and scholars navigating the intricate terrain of cross-border family justice. Read more
[OUT NOW] Yeshniyazov and Abdel Mottaleb on Kazakhstan, in International Encyclopaedia of Laws – Private International Law (Kluwer Law International)
Private international law in post-Soviet Central Asian countries is clearly underrepresented in the literature, despite the fact that countries such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have fairly detailed legislation on international jurisdiction, applicable law, and the enforcement of foreign judgments. (For a general overview of Kazakhstan, see the entry on the country in J. Basedow et al. (eds), Encyclopedia of Private International Law, Vol. III (Edward Elgar), p. 2229, and the English translation of the relevant provisions in Vol. IV, p. 3358.) Read more
Making private law resilient: The role of private litigation in a democracy – PhD scholarship at Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany
Axel Halfmeier (Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany) has kindly shared the following advertisement for a 3-year PhD scholarship with us, which will be part of a research project on ‘Making private law resilient: The role of private litigation in a democracy’.
The research project will investigate the role of private litigation in a democracy, in particular collective litigation, public interest actions or strategic litigation. There is an ongoing discussion about these phenomena and whether they support deliberative democracy by empowering citizens or are anti-democratic in the sense that they transfer excessive power to the judiciary in political questions. To answer this question, normative (legal doctrine, legal theory, political theory) but also empirical approaches are possible. The project can also focus on specific areas of private law, such as media and data protection law, climate litigation, capital markets or tort law in general. The exact study design will be discussed with a view to the interests and qualifications of the candidate.
Application deadline is October 1st, 2025.
Further information on the ‘Embracing Transformation’ scholarships can be found here.
Further information on the specific research project on ‘Democratic Resilience’ is available here.
Questions may be directed to Axel Halfmeier.