ABSTRACT
The debate on how to full the goals of collective redress without also creating incentives for abuse mainly builds upon American experiences. While these experiences can obviously provide valuable information, caution is required given the difference between the legal systems and cultures in the USA and Europe. Therefore, it may be worthwhile shifting focus to the experience of a European jurisdiction with collective redress. Dutch law is a case in point. As the Dutch legislative framework seems to have opened a gateway to ef- cient and effective collective redress, useful material on the practical operation of the law can be collected from this jurisdiction. Notably, initiators with a more or less overt entrepreneurial objective have also entered the collective redress market in the last decade. To date, Dutch policy makers and courts have taken a rather liberal stance on the topic. So how has this approach shaped collective redress practice, and vice versa? This chapter maps the evolution of Dutch collective redress and the ensuing funding practices over recent years. In so doing, I aim to assess whether and to what extent entrepreneurial motives in collective redress have indeed – as some assume – fuelled a compensation culture. Is there an increase in the number of claims and, if so, is there evidence that entrepreneurial organizations cause this increase and/or bring frivolous claims?3 These questions are relevant in light of a recent draft legislative proposal to further extend the current Dutch collective action regulation for claims for damages. This proposal has met with heavy criticism, including claims that it would only further develop a compensation culture. The data this
chapter provides may help clarify the role of entrepreneurial motives in creating or sustaining a collective redress ‘compensation culture’.
