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
New Editor
We are delighted to announce another addition to our Editorial Board: Elsabe Schoeman.
Elsabe has long been one of the leading scholars of private international law in South Africa, having authored countless publications in the areas of jurisdiction in cross-border commercial litigation and choice of law in contract, delict/tort and selected areas of family law, with a recent focus on access to justice for victims of human rights infringements and environmental torts. She has also advised a variety of law commissions and private law firms on these topics.
Elsabe has just left the office of Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Pretoria and will be focusing her work for the blog on legal developments in South Africa.
Case note on Oilchart International v. Bunker Nederland BV
Vesna Lazic (Asser Institute, Utrecht University) has published an interesting case note on the complex case of CJEU Judgment C-394/22 Oilchart International NV v O.W. Bunker Nederland BV, ING Bank NV in Revue de Droit Commercial Belge. This case dealt with the interaction between the Brussels I-bis Regulation and the Insolvency Regulation. You can read it here: 2025 Note rdc_tbh2025_2p308 .
In this case, the Court held that:
Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be interpreted as not applying to an action brought in a Member State against a company seeking payment for goods delivered which does not mention either the insolvency proceedings opened previously against that company in another Member State or the fact that the claim was already declared in the insolvency estate.
Asser Institute Conference: Adapting Private International Law in an Era of Uncertainty
Announcement prepared by Eduardo Silva de Freitas (Asser Institute and Erasmus University Rotterdam)
The T.M.C. Asser Institute is organising the conference “Adapting Private International Law in an Era of Uncertainty” as part of its 60 Years Series. The event will take place in The Hague (The Netherlands) on Friday, 24 October 2025, and will gather academics, practitioners, and early career researchers who will address current topics in Private International Law, including developments in the digital age and the protection of weaker parties.
The programme is available by clicking here: asser-institute-60-years-series_final.pdf
To register for the conference, please visit: T.M.C. Asser Instituut Registration Form
For more information you can contact the organisers at: E.Silva.de.Freitas@asser.nl or V.Lazic@asser.nl