Short answer
EU law does not create one EU-wide class action. Directive (EU) 2020/1828 requires every Member State to provide at least one representative-action mechanism through which a designated qualified entity can seek injunctions and consumer redress. An entity designated in one Member State for cross-border actions can sue before the courts or administrative authorities of another Member State, and entities from several Member States can act together where consumers in different countries are affected.
The Directive protects natural persons acting outside their trade or profession. Businesses must find standing under national collective, assignment, joinder or test-case mechanisms, although specialist EU law may provide the underlying claim.
The procedural vehicle does not answer jurisdiction or governing law. Brussels I bis generally allocates jurisdiction and recognition; Rome I governs contractual questions; Rome II governs many non-contractual claims. National procedure controls admissibility, participation, funding, evidence and costs. Different laws may therefore govern different issues or groups.
The consumer mechanism operates through national law
The current consolidated text is dated 12 September 2025. Member States had to transpose the Directive by 25 December 2022 and apply their measures from 25 June 2023. Earlier actions remain under the previous regime and national transitional rules.
The claimant uses the forum Member State's mechanism. The Directive supplies minimum features and safeguards; national law determines much of the procedure.
Its material scope is limited. The trader infringement must concern EU consumer legislation listed in Annex I, including its national transposition, and harm or risk harming consumers' collective interests. The Annex is not an open-ended cause of action for every mass wrong.
Who can bring a cross-border representative action?
Consumers do not themselves become the claimant party under this mechanism. A consumer organisation or public body must be designated as a qualified entity by a Member State. For advance designation to bring cross-border actions, Article 4 requires, among other things, a legal personality, 12 months of public consumer-protection activity, a relevant statutory purpose, non-profit status, independence and funding transparency.
Article 6(1) then provides:
“Member States shall ensure that qualified entities designated in advance in another Member State for the purpose of bringing cross-border representative actions can bring such representative actions before their courts or administrative authorities.” —
Here, “cross-border” describes the relationship between the entity's designation and the forum. It does not itself decide which country's court has international jurisdiction. Where an infringement affects or is likely to affect consumers in different Member States, Article 6(2) also requires the possibility of an action by several qualified entities from different Member States.
The forum accepts the Commission's list as proof of standing, but may examine whether the entity's statutory purpose covers the action. Admissibility otherwise follows the Directive and national law; manifestly unfounded cases must be dismissible early.
Injunctions and redress have different participation rules
A qualified entity may seek an injunction, redress, or both where national procedure permits them together. For an injunction, individual consumers need not opt in, and the entity need not prove individual loss or the trader's intent or negligence.
Redress can include compensation, repair, replacement, price reduction, contract termination or reimbursement—but only as appropriate and available under EU or national law:
“A redress measure shall require a trader to provide consumers concerned with remedies such as compensation, repair, replacement, price reduction, contract termination or reimbursement of the price paid, as appropriate and as available under Union or national law.” —
Member States decide how consumers choose representation and whether to be bound. A consumer not habitually resident in the forum Member State must expressly opt in. National rules must prevent duplicate recovery. Covered consumers obtain ordered redress without a separate action, subject to national deadlines.
The Directive also safeguards funding, settlements and costs. Where third-party funding is allowed, conflicts must be controlled. Represented consumers generally bear no proceeding costs unless their conduct exceptionally caused them.
The Directive does not choose the court
Article 2(3) deliberately preserves the ordinary private-international-law system:
“This Directive is without prejudice to Union rules on private international law” —
International jurisdiction in court proceedings is generally assessed under Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, Brussels I bis. The defendant's domicile is the basic forum. Depending on how the action is classified, special jurisdiction may exist for the place of contractual performance or, in tort, where the harmful event occurred or may occur. Choice-of-court terms and multiple defendants may also matter.
In Case C-167/00, Henkel, the Court held under the predecessor Brussels Convention that a consumer organisation's preventive action against unfair terms related to tort, delict or quasi-delict. This supports the modern Article 7(2) analysis but does not classify every representative claim; the obligation invoked matters.
In Case C-34/24, Stichting Right to Consumer Justice and Stichting App Stores Claims, the Grand Chamber applied Article 7(2) to alleged excessive platform commissions affecting the Netherlands market. Any Netherlands court with substantive jurisdiction under national law had international and territorial jurisdiction for all unidentified but identifiable users in the defined group. The entities exercised their own representative rights, not assigned claims. This fact-specific ruling creates no general EU-wide forum.
Once a court judgment falls within Brussels I bis, the Regulation governs recognition and enforcement in other Member States. Article 6 standing under the Directive cannot substitute for that jurisdictional analysis.
The law governing the remedy depends on the issue
Directive 2020/1828 does not create uniform compensation law. Article 2(2) preserves EU and national contractual and non-contractual remedies. The underlying law decides whether a remedy exists and how it is measured.
Rome II Article 6(1) generally applies the law of the country where competitive relations or consumers' collective interests are affected to non-contractual unfair-competition obligations. Competition claims have a separate affected-market rule in Article 6(3), with a restricted multi-country option. Parties cannot contract out of Article 6.
Rome I governs contractual issues, including the validity and effect of consumer contract terms and the protection retained despite a choice-of-law clause. In Case C-191/15, Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Amazon EU, the Court separated the two layers:
“the law applicable to the assessment of a particular contractual term must always be determined pursuant to Regulation No 593/2008, whether that assessment is made in an individual action or in a collective action.” —
The same operative point placed the consumer association's injunction action under Rome II Article 6(1). The collective form therefore did not merge the applicable-law questions. For a multi-state group, the connecting factors may produce different substantive laws for distinct consumers or heads of relief unless a specialist rule resolves them.
Businesses need another collective vehicle
Directive 2020/1828 defines consumers as natural persons acting outside their trade, business, craft or profession. A company harmed in its business is not a represented consumer under the Directive. It must rely on a national procedure that permits aggregation, assignment, group litigation or representative standing.
EU substantive law may still strengthen the underlying claims. Directive 2014/104/EU requires any natural or legal person harmed by a competition-law infringement to be able to obtain full compensation, but recital 13 expressly says it does not require Member States to introduce collective-redress mechanisms.
Aggregation also does not manufacture jurisdiction. In Case C-498/16, Schrems, the Court held under the predecessor jurisdiction regulation that a consumer could not use his own consumer forum for claims assigned by other consumers. It explained that concentrating claims in one applicant does not itself establish a new forum. A business assignee or claims vehicle must likewise identify an independent Brussels I bis basis for jurisdiction and test whether jurisdiction clauses bind the claims.
A cross-border claim checklist
- Identify each claimant group: consumers, businesses, or both.
- For consumers, confirm Annex I coverage and find a qualified entity with the necessary designation and statutory purpose.
- Select the forum under Brussels I bis; do not infer jurisdiction from cross-border standing.
- Separate injunction, redress and individual contractual issues.
- Map Rome I, Rome II and any specialist EU conflict rule to each issue and affected country.
- Check the forum's transposition rules on admissibility, opt-in or opt-out, funding, evidence, settlement, costs and limitation.
- For non-resident consumers, obtain the express participation required by Article 9(3).
- For businesses or assigned claims, identify the national aggregation mechanism and an independent jurisdictional basis.
- Plan recognition and enforcement under Brussels I bis and avoid duplicate recovery.
Conclusion
Consumers can pursue cross-border representative relief through qualified entities under national implementing laws. The Directive establishes standing, remedies and safeguards, but neither one EU court nor one substantive law.
Businesses receive no equivalent general EU procedure. Aggregation depends on national law and specialist EU rights. Every case requires separate answers on representation, jurisdiction, applicable law and judgment circulation.
Sources
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific matter. Laws, facts and procedural deadlines may change the result. Follow the linked primary sources and obtain local advice before acting.