Introduction

Antitrust litigation in the Netherlands continued to mature in 2025, with courts further refining both the procedural framework and substantive standards applicable to competition damages claims. As in previous years, long‑running claims moved into decisive procedural and substantive phases, while courts further consolidated their approach to jurisdiction, collective action architecture, limitation and damages methodology.

A consistent theme running through the 2025 follow‑on case law is the judiciary’s preference for procedural efficiency once complexity threatens effective adjudication. Dutch courts increasingly favour streamlined liability determinations, robust but pragmatic jurisdictional solutions and a clear functional separation between liability and damages. Against that background, the courts appear increasingly willing to allow cases to progress to the quantum phase, where economic assessment properly belongs.

This blog highlights three follow‑on‑specific developments that stood out in 2025 and considers their implications.

Key Themes

1. Procedural Efficiency and Case Manageability

Dutch courts have shown a continued preference for procedural solutions that promote efficient dispute resolution and limit fragmentation.

This is evident in several areas, including:

• Jurisdiction in cartel damages and collective actions. Courts adopted a pragmatic but disciplined approach to international and relative jurisdiction. The use of anchor defendants remains viable, but only where claims show a sufficiently close factual and legal connection and where it is reasonably foreseeable for foreign defendants to be sued in the Netherlands. The case law underscores that the mere presence of a Dutch group entity is not enough; coherence of the claims and unity of the alleged infringement remain decisive.
• Collective proceedings and procedural architecture. In WAMCA contexts, courts increasingly emphasised coordinated treatment of overlapping actions, relying on consolidation mechanisms and relative‑jurisdiction rules to prevent parallel proceedings and inconsistent outcomes. The emphasis is on one‑court, one‑case handling where possible.
• Functional separation between liability and quantum. Particularly in follow‑on cartel litigation, courts reaffirmed a  low threshold for referral to the damages phase. Once the infringement is established and at least one transaction within the infringement period is shown, issues such as passing‑on, the duration of participation, individualisation of harm and the precise magnitude of overcharge are deferred to the quantum phase.

2. Clarification of Limitation Rules and Knowledge Thresholds

Limitation periods continued to play a prominent role in 2025, with important guidance emerging from both Dutch courts and the Court of Justice of the EU.

Key points include:

• Different starting points for limitation, depending on whether a claim is based on a European Commission decision or a national competition authority decision. For the latter, finality and adequate publication are decisive.
• Entity‑specific interruption of limitation, confirming that interruption generally applies only to the legal entity concerned, rather than across a corporate group.
• Strict treatment of attributed knowledge. Knowledge held by competition authorities cannot be readily attributed to other entities, including other parts of the State, particularly where that information is subject to confidentiality and purpose‑limitation rules under EU competition law. This further limits the scope for defendants to argue early knowledge and early limitation based on enforcement proceedings alone.

3. Increased Focus on Economic Substantiation and Counterfactual Analysis

While procedural gateways are increasingly navigable, courts are applying a more demanding standard when it comes to the economic foundation of claims.

This is particularly apparent in:

• Stand‑alone competition claims. Dutch courts remained sceptical of stand‑alone allegations that lack rigorous economic underpinning. Claimants must clearly define relevant markets, substantiate dominance or coordination and plausibly demonstrate exclusionary or exploitative effects. Abstract references to competition law concepts or enforcement practice are insufficient without concrete factual and economic support.
• Damages assessment in abuse cases, where courts have favoured counterfactual scenarios that reflect a fully competitive market absent the infringement, rather than a “less unlawful” alternative.

These developments point to a growing emphasis on robust economic analysis, both for claimants and defendants.    

Looking Ahead

The 2025 case law suggests that Dutch civil competition litigation is entering a phase in which procedural structures are increasingly settled, allowing greater focus on substantive assessment.

Looking forward, several trends are likely to shape the landscape:

• Further guidance from the Court of Justice, particularly following pending preliminary rulings on issues such as single and continuous infringements, choice of law and collective redress mechanisms.
• Deeper engagement with damages and economic methodology, including issues such as participation periods, delayed effects, interest calculation and counterfactual modelling.
• Continued evolution of collective actions, with increased attention on governance, coordination between representative organisations and procedural discipline under the WAMCA.
• Ongoing scrutiny of disclosure requests, balancing effective access to evidence with safeguards against fishing expeditions.

As procedural barriers continue to recede, the focus of competition damages litigation is shifting towards substantive economic assessment and evidentiary quality. This reinforces the importance of early strategic planning, sound economic analysis and coordinated legal approaches in disputes involving competition law risk. Our team is ready to discuss about these developments.