The WAMCA act and collective actions in the Netherlands.

The WAMCA act, in force in the Netherlands since 1 January 2020, allows a foundation or an association to claim damages on behalf of a group Source [1] Source [2]. The court first reviews its representativeness, its governance and its funding Source [3] Source [4]. Residents of the Netherlands are represented unless they opt out, while others must, as a rule, opt in Source [4]. According to the official evaluation sent to Parliament on 19 November 2025, no group had yet obtained compensation under the act Source [5].

The WAMCA texts.

The Act of 20 March 2019 on the collective settlement of mass damages (Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie) was published in the Staatsblad on 1 April 2019 Source [1]. A decree brought it into force on 1 January 2020 Source [2]. It rewrote article 3:305a of the Civil Code and created articles 1018b to 1018m of the Code of Civil Procedure (Rv) Source [1]. The regime applies to actions brought since then over events that occurred on or after 15 November 2016 Source [1].

Before 2020, a collective action could only seek an injunction, a prohibition or a declaratory judgment, and the WAMCA added damages Source [6]. An act that came into force on 25 June 2023 amended it to transpose Directive (EU) 2020/1828 on consumer representative actions Source [3] Source [7].

The foundation or association bringing the claim.

Under article 3:305a, a foundation (stichting) or an association (vereniging) with full legal capacity may go to court to protect the similar interests of other people Source [3]. Its statutes must entrust it with that task, with sufficient safeguards for those it represents. The act requires it to be “voldoende representatief” (“sufficiently representative”, our translation), having regard to its supporters and the size of the claims. It must also have a supervisory body, involve the people represented in its decisions, show sufficient experience and run a public website. On funding, the text requires “voldoende middelen om de kosten voor het instellen van een rechtsvordering te dragen, waarbij de zeggenschap over de rechtsvordering in voldoende mate bij de rechtspersoon ligt” (“sufficient means to bear the costs of bringing the claim, with control over the claim resting to a sufficient extent with the legal entity”, our translation) Source [3].

For a consumer claim within the meaning of the 2020 directive, the funder may be neither a competitor of the defendant nor dependent on it. Founding directors may not pursue any profit motive through the organisation. The dispute must have a sufficiently close connection with the Netherlands, and the entity must have attempted consultation with the defendant Source [3]. The court may exempt a claim with an idealistic purpose and a very limited financial interest, known as a paragraph 6 action (lid 6), from some of these requirements Source [3] Source [6]. It then excludes any demand for damages in money.

The stages of a WAMCA action.

Title 14A of the Rv divides the proceedings into phases, and the defendant may confine its defence to admissibility until the court has ruled on it Source [4].

The central register of collective actions.

Article 3:305a provides for a central register Source [3]. A decree of 20 November 2019 entrusts it to the Raad voor de rechtspraak, and its explanatory note states that it is open to everyone Source [8]. Online, it shows the extract of each summons, the designation of the exclusive representative, the approved settlement and the compensation set Source [9]. Its first purpose is to alert other organisations, which may in turn bring a claim over the same events.

On 21 October 2026, we counted 103 entries there among actions brought (“Ingediende collectieve vorderingen”) and 28 among concluded actions (“Afgedane collectieve vorderingen”) Source [9]. The list mixes damages claims, paragraph 6 proceedings, which exclude damages, and summary proceedings Source [6].

The court’s review of funding.

According to the case‑law analysis in the evaluation report, the court asks for the funding agreement when the parties dispute the entity’s means and control Source [6]. The funder’s fee sometimes plays a part in its assessment. A rate of 10% to 25% of the compensation obtained appears in decisions as sufficiently protective of the people represented.

The Amsterdam District Court gave an example on 25 October 2023, in the action brought by the Nuon‑claim foundation against Vattenfall Source [10]. The claimant had produced its funding agreement, partly redacted, and the maximum budget was disclosed to the judges alone, with the defendant’s consent. The judgment finds that the funder would receive at most 12% if all the injured parties obtained compensation. It sets out this test: “Van belang is dat de gedupeerden weten welk deel van de verhaalde som uiteindelijk naar de procesfinancier gaat en welk deel aan hen kan worden uitgekeerd” (“what matters is that the injured parties know what share of the sum recovered ultimately goes to the funder and what share can be paid out to them”, our translation) Source [10]. On control over the claim, the court confines itself to a “marginale toets” (a limited review), which rules out, for example, a funder deciding alone whether to accept a settlement Source [10].

On 17 July 2026, the Hoge Raad recalled that, according to the legislative history, a judge may let the entity cure a defect, “bijvoorbeeld door aanpassing van de afspraken met de financier” (“for example by adjusting the arrangements with the funder”, our translation) Source [7].

The Claim Code 2019.

The Claim Code, created on private initiative in 2011 and revised in 2019, is a code of conduct with no force of law, which the evaluation report calls “a soft law instrument” Source [6]. It sets governance and transparency rules under the “pas toe of leg uit” principle (comply or explain). The WAMCA wrote a large part of them into statute. The private text remains useful mainly for the notion of profit and costs, external funding and directors’ pay Source [6]. Courts still refer to it: in 2023, the Amsterdam District Court found a provision of Nuon‑claim’s articles consistent with Principle II of the Claim Code 2019 Source [10].

The official review of 2025.

Article IV of the act provided for its evaluation five years after it came into force Source [1]. The report “Vijf jaar WAMCA”, dated September 2025, was carried out for the WODC by Utrecht University, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Radboud University Nijmegen Source [6]. The State Secretary for Justice and Security sent it to the House of Representatives on 19 November 2025 Source [5].

The report analyses 95 proceedings entered in the register under the WAMCA, from 1 January 2020 to 30 April 2025 Source [6]. Over that period, the courts held 25 paragraph 6 actions and 10 regular actions admissible. At the date of the report, no judge had yet set collective compensation. The only court that ordered a defendant to compensate the group referred the assessment of the amount to separate proceedings.

The professionals surveyed approve of the existence of this damages action and of its governance, funding and representativeness requirements Source [6]. They criticise, however, the length of the phase before the merits. The report notes uncertainty about the test of sufficient means and control, particularly where a third party funds the proceedings, and concludes: “Provide clarity about the control test” Source [6]. Guidelines or a model financing agreement could address it, and a socially acceptable fee for a funder deserves study. Given these conclusions and the caretaker status of the government, the State Secretary sees no reason to legislate at this stage Source [5].

The Hoge Raad ruling of 17 July 2026.

On 17 July 2026, the Hoge Raad, which hears appeals in cassation, ruled in the action brought by The Privacy Collective foundation against Oracle and Salesforce Source [7]. The Amsterdam District Court had declared it inadmissible for lack of representativeness, and the court of appeal had been satisfied with a non‑negligible number of supporters. The Hoge Raad holds this threshold too low: “het bij de toetsing aan het representativiteitsvereiste erom gaat of de belangenorganisatie de steun heeft van een voldoende groot deel van de totale groep personen voor wie zij opkomt” (“the test of representativeness turns on whether the organisation has the support of a sufficiently large part of the whole group for which it acts”, our translation) Source [7].

The act contains no numerical criterion. The number of members or registrations gives an indication, and the support of other organisations may count. The court of appeal should also have checked whether the “likes” on the foundation’s website were anonymous and came from people in the group. At second instance, admissibility is assessed as at the date of the decision. The Hoge Raad refers the case to the Court of Appeal of The Hague, and this recent case law remains liable to change Source [7].

The WAMCA action and the French group action.

France recast its group action through article 16 of Act no. 2025-391 of 30 April 2025, which transposes the same directive Source [11]. The table draws on these texts and on our guide to the French regime.

The Dutch court reviews funding at the admissibility stage, before any debate on the merits Source [3] Source [4]. In France, a decree has organised the disclosure of such financing since 1 January 2026 Source [12].

The Act of 30 April 2025 refers expressly to the third‑party funder only for group actions Source [11]. A single claimant’s case falls under the framework described on our investors page. A dispute that affects many people can also be handled as individual cases in series, where each person keeps their own lawyer, agreement and judgment.

Hello Justice, the first French company dedicated to mid‑market litigation funding, from €100,000 at stake, funds this kind of serial litigation. Lawyers can submit their clients’ cases, and a specialised partner lawyer analyses their eligibility. Not every case is accepted.

Frequently asked questions.

What is the WAMCA act?

It is the Dutch act of 20 March 2019 on collective actions, in force since 1 January 2020 Source [1] Source [2]. A foundation or an association can use it to claim damages for a group, if the court finds it admissible Source [3] Source [4].

Can someone in France join a Dutch collective action?

A person with no domicile or residence in the Netherlands is bound only if they opt in in writing with the registry (opt‑in) Source [4]. The period, set by the judge, lasts at least one month. At a party’s request, the court may apply the opt‑out rule to them, except in a consumer action under Directive (EU) 2020/1828. In that case, they also declare to the registry that their interests are not represented over the same events in another State of the European Economic Area.

Does the Dutch court review the funding of a collective action?

Yes. It checks that the entity has the means to bear the cost of the claim and keeps control of it Source [3]. It may ask for the funding agreement, and the funder’s fee may form part of its assessment Source [6] Source [10].