German Federal Court of Justice Sets Boundaries for Mass Antitrust Claims Collection
The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof or "BGH") has provided important guidance on how to initiate class action-type private antitrust litigation.
The Decision at a Glance
On May 12, 2026, the Cartel Division (Kartellsenat) of the BGH handed down a landmark ruling on the limits of bundled cartel damages claims brought by claims collection vehicles.
The proceedings arose out of the EU Truck Cartel, in respect of which the European Commission imposed fines of approximately US$3.45 billion (today) in 2016. A registered claims collection entity (Inkassounternehmen, "Claims Vehicle"), backed by a third-party funder, pursued bundled damages claims on behalf of more than 3,000 assignors from 21 countries relating to more than 70,000 truck acquisitions, with an aggregate claim of approximately US$590 million (today).
The Ruling
The BGH confirmed that cartel damages claims may, as a rule, be bundled and pursued collectively by a registered Claims Vehicle. This is a significant endorsement of the mass claims model that has become central to private antitrust enforcement in Germany.
However, the BGH drew two clear lines. First, lower courts need to ensure that the litigation financing agreement does not give rise to obligations of the Claims Vehicle vis-à-vis the third-party funder that lead to a structural conflict of interests with the obligations assumed by the Claims Vehicle vis-à-vis the assignors. Second, where bundling makes it practically impossible for courts to assess the claims properly, the Claims Vehicle abuses its powers under the German Legal Services Act (Rechtsdienstleistungsgesetz). In such cases, the courts may order the Claims Vehicle to separate the bundled claims into distinct proceedings. Noncompliance results in dismissal for abuse of process.
Next Steps: Key Issues Remitted
The BGH vacated the appellate judgment and remanded the case to the lower court on two grounds.
- The appellate court must determine whether the litigation funding agreement creates a structural conflict of interest—i.e., whether the third-party funder wields sufficient influence to undermine the Claims Vehicle's duty to act solely in the assignors' interests. If so, the underlying assignments may be void.
- Should the assignments be upheld, the appellate court must order the Claims Vehicle to prepare for a separation of the proceedings within no more than six months.
This Alert is based on the official press release of the German Federal Court of Justice dated May 12, 2026 (No. 080/2026). The decision itself has not yet been published. A more detailed analysis—including the broader implications for private antitrust enforcement, claims aggregation models, and the regulation of litigation funding in Germany and across Europe—will follow once the reasoning becomes available.
