Clifford Chance

On 9 July 2025, the District Court of Amsterdam declared the claims in two separate collective actions inadmissible. In one case, the claim vehicle was not considered to be sufficiently representative, while in the other case the claim vehicle did not represent sufficiently similar interests. ¹

The 2020 Dutch Act on redress of mass damages in collective action (WAMCA) introduced stricter admissibility requirements for representative organisations, particularly regarding the requirements that claim vehicles are (i) sufficiently representative and (ii) represent sufficiently similar interests. In two recent judgments, the Amsterdam court denied admissibility of two class actions for failing to meet these requirements. ²

These two cases add to the body of case law that clarifies and shapes the admissibility requirements under the WAMCA. In the case of Stichting Farma ter Verantwoording against Abbvie, the claim vehicle was considered not to be sufficiently representative. In the case of Stichting Massaschade & Consument against ABN AMRO, the represented interests were ruled to be insufficiently similar for collective redress

Stichting Farma ter Verantwoording/AbbVie

In the first case, the claim foundation alleged that AbbVie, a drug manufacturer, had acted unlawfully and had misused its market position by charging excessive prices and making disproportionate profits on the Humira drug, thereby restricting access to necessary healthcare. The claim foundation requested a declaratory judgment confirming this.

The court found the claim foundation's claims inadmissible due to insufficient established interest of the group it claimed to represent ("all persons who are entitled to legally insured basic care in the Netherlands").

A request for declaratory relief requires sufficient interest, such as the ability to claim damages after the declaratory judgment or to obtain satisfaction from a finding of unlawful conduct. The court held that neither apply, as only health insurers and hospitals – not the represented group – could seek damages from AbbVie.

The court concluded that the claim foundation essentially sought to establish general standards for drug pricing, without concrete consequences for the parties involved. This does not meet the sufficient interest requirement under Article 3:303 DCC.

Stichting Massaschade & Consument /ABN AMRO

In the second case, Stichting Massaschade & Consument brought a collective action against ABN AMRO Bank N.V. ("ABN AMRO"), alleging the bank should have but did not reduce variable interest rates on (small) business loans to keep them in line with market rates, causing borrowers to overpay. The claim foundation based its claim on two grounds: (i) attributable failure by ABN AMRO, invoking the supplementing effect of reasonableness and fairness (Article 6:248(1) Dutch Civil Code ("DCC")), and (ii) undue payment by the borrowers, based on the derogating effect of reasonableness and fairness (Article 6:248(2) DCC).

The court declared the claims inadmissible, finding that the borrowers' interests were insufficiently similar for collective redress under the WAMCA. According to the court, assessment of the claim depends on interpretation of individual credit agreements. Under Dutch law, not only the wording of the contract is determinative, but all circumstances and communication between the bank and the borrower.

The court emphasises that each case must be examined individually, taking into account the manner in which the agreements were concluded, the communication between the parties, the borrower's level of financial knowledge, and the manner in which the credit was offered and concluded. It is therefore not possible to impose a uniform standard on all cases because the circumstances are too diverse. Even with standardised contracts, the circumstances varied per borrower.

The court emphasised that claims with a basis in contractual liability are more challenging to bundle than claims on the basis of tort. With a claim based on tort, the interested parties all face the same tortious conduct, allowing for an easier uniform assessment irrespective of individual circumstances of claimants. In the case at hand, the court considered that the claims of the borrowers were insufficiently homogenous for redress under the WAMCA.

Conclusion

Both proceedings were dismissed before reaching the assessment on the merits. Parties may appeal the rulings. Critics argue that the stricter admissibility requirements cause procedural delays, but data from the central register for collective actions show no significant increase in claimants being declared inadmissible under WAMCA. Therefore, the stricter admissibility requirements do not seem to have substantially changed practice. The Dutch government is currently evaluating the WAMCA with results expected later this year. For more information, see our blog "Five years of the Dutch class action act "WAMCA": first experiences and forthcoming evaluation results, published on 6 February 2025. ³

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¹ District Court of Amsterdam 9 July 2025, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:4766 and ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:4738.
² We also refer to district Court of Amsterdam 4 June 2025, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:3973, where (in a non-WAMCA group litigation case) the court held it had no jurisdiction over persons residing abroad. The Dutch defendants were not accused and summoned only to establish jurisdiction, which constitutes abuse of procedural law and renders the claims inadmissible.