Vulnerable to Inadequate Representation?

Abstract Collective redress mechanisms pose manifold challenges for the individualistic two-party paradigm of civil procedure. The EU Representative Actions Directive – transposed into German law with the Consumer Rights Enforcement Act (Verbraucherrechtedurchsetzungsgesetz – VDuG) – is built on a representative mechanism: Qualified entities (ie mostly consumer organisations) may bring actions on behalf of consumers for injunctive or redress measures against traders infringing consumer protection law. An often-neglected facet of collective redress is the vulnerability of absent plaintiffs, if collective judgments bind absent plaintiffs regardless of the adequacy of their representation. Consumers relying on their representatives could lose their actually well-founded claims as a result of inadequate representation by the representative consumer organisation and its attorneys. This article considers post-judgment safeguards against inadequate representation: As a procedural remedy, so-called collateral attacks would allow consumers to negate the binding effect of the collective judgment in cases of inadequate representation. Complementarily, the analysis turns to remedies in substantive law and considers the viability of liability actions against the representative consumer organisation or its attorneys.