Can Class Actions Deliver Effective Justice in the Digital Age?

In today’s digital economy, large-scale data processing, algorithmic decision-making, privacy violations, data breaches, online consumer fraud, and algorithmic discrimination affect millions of individuals all at once, raising significant concerns about access to justice. Although harm suffered by the individual is often minimal or difficult to quantify, its overall impact can be substantial. In this context, class actions have emerged as possible legal tools for restoring the balance of power between citizens and influential digital actors.

Yet a crucial question remains: are class actions truly effective in addressing digital harm?

A comparison between the United States and Italy, considered within the broader legal framework of the European Union, reveals two markedly different approaches to collective redress, each with its strengths and relative shortcomings.

Why Class Actions Matter in the Digital Economy

Class actions allow multiple claimants who have suffered similar situations to pursue a single legal action against a common defendant. Their function is to provide compensation where individual litigation would be impractical, and to deter unlawful conduct through the increase of legal and financial consequences of systemic wrongdoing.

These objectives are particularly relevant in digital markets. Data misuse, for example, rarely results in immediate or easily quantifiable losses for individual users. As a result, victims often lack sufficient incentive or resources to pursue individual claims. When aggregated across thousands or millions of users, however, such harms are shown to possess undeniable economic and social significance. Class actions may therefore transform dispersed, low-value injuries into meaningful legal claims, helping to address the power and information asymmetries that characterize the digital economy.

Private Enforcement at Scale: Why U.S. Class Actions Both Succeed and Struggle

The United States has the most developed jurisdiction for class actions, grounded in the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and a consolidated tradition of private enforcement. A defining feature of the U.S.’s class action model is its opt out structure: all individuals who fall

within the definition of the class in question are automatically included unless they explicitly choose to withdraw. This mechanism ensures broad participation, large class sizes, and strong deterrent effects.

The capacity of American class actions to address large-scale digital harm is illustrated by the Facebook – Cambridge Analytica litigation, which resulted in a $725 million settlement covering millions of users. Cases of this magnitude demonstrate how collective litigation can supplement public enforcement and generate accountability for powerful technology companies.

However, the system in place in the U.S. is not without serious shortcomings. One significant limitation stems from the constitutional standing requirements under Article III of the American Constitution. Recent Supreme Court decisions, such as Spokeo v. Robins and TransUnion v. Ramirez, have significantly narrowed standing in cases involving data related harms. Mere statutory violations, lacking proof of concrete and particularized injury, are insufficient to obtain damages.

The paradoxical effect of this jurisprudence is that it makes it increasingly difficult to secure redress for the precise kind of intangible harm, seen in the loss of privacy, the misuse of personal data, and the reduction of autonomy, that forms the characteristic challenge of the digital age.

In addition, the U.S.’s model has long been criticized for encouraging opportunistic litigation and so-called ‘blackmail settlements’, whereby defendants are pressured to settle due to the potentially catastrophic consequences of losing a class action, regardless of its merits. The prominence of contingency fees and attorney driven litigation further raises concerns about disproportionate legal costs and uneven distribution of benefits. This might involve lawyers occasionally receiving substantial fees while individual class members obtain modest compensation.

The Italian and European Approach: Legitimacy Without Impact?

In contrast to the U.S.’s model, Italy and the European Union have adopted a more cautious approach to collective redress. Italy’s class action, reformed in 2019 and now integrated into the Code of Civil Procedure (Codice di Procedura Civile), is based on an opt-in model. Potential claimants must actively join the action after a preliminary admissibility assessment by the court.

This design reflects a strong emphasis on judicial control, proportionality, and procedural legitimacy, but it also results in significantly lower participation rates. Without automatic inclusion and in the absence of strong financial incentives for lawyers, such as contingency fees, many collective actions struggle to attract sufficient claimants. This becomes rather problematic in those very cases involving low-value or intangible digital harms.

At the EU level, this cautious philosophy is reinforced by Directive 2020/1828 on representative actions, which prioritizes actions brought by qualified entities, such as consumer associations. The European model favors institutional representation and regulatory oversight.

Further, the GDPR introduced collective representation through Article 80, explicitly recognizing compensation for both material and non-material damage. While this was a significant step forwards in principle, practical enforcement has remained rather limited.

Two Models, No One Solution

When assessed side by side, neither the American. nor the Italian/European model appears fully satisfactory in addressing the realities of the digital economy. The U.S. ‘s system excels in terms of scale, deterrence, and speed, but struggles with legitimacy concerns and constitutional barriers to recognizing intangible harms. The European system prioritizes legal certainty, oversight, and proportionality, yet often fails to deliver effective compensation or meaningful deterrence.

This tension is notable in the digital context due to the damages which are diffuse, traverse borders, and are often non-economic in nature. Opt out mechanisms seem better suited to addressing low-value, high-volume claims typical of digital markets, but they raise concerns about over-deterrence and coercive settlements. Opt in systems ensure consent and representation but risk rendering collective redress practically ineffective.

Toward Hybrid Models of Collective Redress

There is a growing scholarly and institutional consensus suggesting that the future of collective redress lies in hybrid enforcement models. Such models would combine the flexibility and deterrent power of private litigation with the legitimacy and accountability of public oversight. Instruments like third party litigation funding, stronger coordination between courts and regulatory authorities, and the integration of collective redress into broader digital governance frameworks, like the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act, may help bridge existing gaps.

Moreover, technological innovation itself could play a role in making justice more accessible. Digital tools for case management and coordination across borders could bring down barriers surrounding participation and make collective litigation easier, particularly in transnational disputes involving digital platforms.

Conclusion

Class action remains a crucial yet imperfect instrument for addressing collective harm in the digital era. The U.S. model demonstrates the ability of private enforcement in generating large-scale accountability, but often at the cost of proportionality and doctrinal coherence. The Italian and European approach emphasizes legitimacy and regulatory integration, but struggles to produce tangible outcomes for affected individuals.

As digital harms continue to expand in scale and complexity, relying solely on traditional, nationally bound models of collective litigation is no longer sufficient. Ensuring genuine access to justice in the digital economy requires rethinking collective redress mechanisms in ways that reflect the transnational, intangible, and systemic nature of contemporary harm. Hybrid approaches that blend deterrence, oversight, and technological innovation may offer the most promising path forward.

Bibliography

• Canty MP, ‘Record-Breaking $650 Million Settlement of Biometric Privacy Lawsuit Reached by Labaton Keller Sucharow, Edelson, Robbins Geller and Facebook | News & Insights | Labaton Keller Sucharow’ (Labaton.com2020) <https://www.labaton.com/news-insights/record-breaking-650-million-settlement-of-biometric-p

• rivacy-lawsuit-reached-by-labaton-keller-sucharow-edelson-robbins-geller-and-facebook> accessed 19 November 2025

• Caputo L and Caputo M, La Nuova Class Action (Lefebvre Giuffrè 2019) <https://bibliotecavolumi.lefebvregiuffre.it/#/details?cod_vol=024206789&fromSearch=la%20n uova%20class%20action&entities=false&from=Tutto%20il%20Catalogo&fromResults=true> accessed 10 November 2025

• Chamberlains, ‘Chamberlains’ (Chamberlains27 January 2025) <https://chamberlains.com.au/the-role-of-class-action-lawsuits-in-employment-disputes/> accessed 12 November 2025

• Coffee JC, Entrepreneurial Litigation: Its Rise, Fall, and Future (Harvard University Press 2015)

• Congressional Research Service, ‘Https://Www.congress.gov/Crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12763/IF12763.1.Pdf’ (congress.gov12 September 2024)

• <https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12763/IF12763.1.pdf> accessed 12 November 2025

• Creutzfeldt N and others, Access to Justice, Digitalization and Vulnerability (Policy Press 2024) <https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/access-to-justice-digitalization-and-vulnerability/legal-n eeds-and-access-to-justice/B07DC4DF9BABF6E50A90656948BB1DDA> accessed 9 November 2025

• ‘Cross-Border Qualified Entities | EC-REACT’ (Europa.eu2020) <https://representative-actions-collaboration.ec.europa.eu/cross-border-qualified-entities> accessed 20 November 2025

• European Commission, ‘Commission Presents Strategy to Transform and Digitalise Justice Systems across the EU’ (European Commission - European Commission2025) <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_2754> accessed 21 November 2025

• EZMarketing, ‘May Herr & Grosh LLP’ (Mhglawfirm.com13 December 2024) <https://www.mhglawfirm.com/blog/understanding-equitable-remedies/> accessed 12 November 2025

• Ghezzi P, ‘Class Actions in Italy’ (Cms.law3 February 2022) <https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/cms-expert-guide-to-european-class-actions/italy> accessed 19 November 2025

• Harvard Law School, ‘Litigation: Class Action’ (Harvard Law School2022) <https://hls.harvard.edu/bernard-koteen-office-of-public-interest-advising/about-opia/what-is-pu blic-interest-law/public-interest-work-types/litigation-class-action/> accessed 10 November 2025

• Herbert Smith Freemills Kramer, ‘Class Actions in Italy: A Second Wave of Reform | Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer | Global Law Firm’ (Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer | Global law firm19 October 2024)

• <https://www.hsfkramer.com/insights/2020-12/class-actions-in-italy-a-second-wave-of-reform> accessed 19 November 2025

• Hodges C, Law and Corporate Behaviour Integrating Theories of Regulation, Enforcement, Compliance and Ethics (Oxford Hart Publishing Ltd Published In The United Kingdom By 2015)

• Hornkohl L and Ribera Martinez A, ‘Collective Actions and the DMA: A Bird without Wings’ (Kluwer Competition Law Blog2023) <https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/competition-blog/collective-actions-and-the-dma-a-bird-w ithout-wings> accessed 21 November 2025

• International Monetary Fund, ‘Annex A: Measuring the Digital Economy’ <https://www.elibrary.imf.org> accessed 10 November 2025

• Intersoft consulting, ‘Art. 80 GDPR – Representation of Data Subjects’ (General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)) <https://gdpr-info.eu/art-80-gdpr/> accessed 20 November 2025

• Justitia - U.S. Supreme Court, ‘Phillips Petroleum Co. V. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985)’ (Justia Law2023) <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/472/797/> accessed 19 November 2025

• ——, ‘Spokeo, Inc. V. Robins, 578 U.S. ___ (2016)’ (Justia Law) <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/578/13-1339/> accessed 19 November 2025

• Laine E and others, ‘Mapping Third Party Litigation Funding in the European Union’ [2020] European Commission DG Justice and Consumers

• Legal Information Institute, ‘Rule 23. Class Actions’ (Cornell Law School2009) <https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_23> accessed 12 November 2025

• ——, ‘Standing Requirement: Overview’ (LII / Legal Information Institute) <https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/standing-requireme nt-overview#fn2art3> accessed 19 November 2025

• Levin AK, Wellington K and Yates J, ‘Supreme Court to Address Class Certification and Article III Standing’ (Lexology10 February 2025) <https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=34b0a276-19d7-4ed1-89a4-be376f123565> accessed 19 November 2025

• Marcin R, ‘Searching for the Origin of Class Action’ (1974) <https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1885&context=scholar#:~:text=Page%2 04,of%20our%20own%20judicial%20system.> accessed 10 November 2025

• Maruffi F, ‘Class Action in Italy’ (Global Litigation News3 June 2019) <https://globallitigationnews.bakermckenzie.com/2019/06/03/class-action-in-italy/> accessed 19 November 2025

• McCallum S, ‘Meta Settles Cambridge Analytica Scandal Case for $725m’ BBC News (24 December 2022) <https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-64075067> accessed 19 November 2025

• Morgan&Morgan, ‘What Is the Difference between Opting in and Opting out of a Class Action Lawsuit?’ (Forthepeople.com2025) <https://www.forthepeople.com/blog/what-difference-between-opting-and-opting-out-class-actio n-lawsuit/> accessed 19 November 2025

• Normattiva, ‘Legge 12 Aprile 2019, N. 31’ (Normattiva.it2025) <https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2019-04-12> accessed 19 November 2025

• O’Lachtnain A, ‘The Power of Class and Mass Action for Digital Rights – Page 9 – Digital Freedom Fund’ (Digital Freedom Fund27 July 2020) <https://digitalfreedomfund.org/the-power-of-class-and-mass-action-for-digital-rights/9/> accessed 12 November 2025

• Official Journal of the European Union, ‘Directive - 2020/1828 - EN - EUR-Lex’ (Europa.eu2020) <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2020/1828/oj/eng> accessed 20 November 2025

• Osborne Clark, ‘Class Actions – an Imminent Disruptor | Osborne Clarke’ (Osborneclarke.com2025)

• <https://wave.osborneclarke.com/class-actions-an-imminent-disruptor-in-european-digital-marke ts> accessed 12 November 2025

• Rabitti M, ‘Il Consumatore Vulnerabile E La Fragilità Del Diritto. Brevi Considerazioni. Dialoghi Di Diritto Dell’Economia ARTICOLI’ (2023) <https://www.dirittobancario.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-Rabitti-Il-consumatore-vulner abile.pdf> accessed 9 January 2026

• Redazione Altalex, ‘Art. 140-Bis D.Lgs. N. 206/2005’ (Altalex29 November 2011) <https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2011/11/29/art-140-bis-d-lgs-n-206-2005> accessed 19 November 2025

• Reuters, ‘Volkswagen Reaches $54 Million “Dieselgate” Settlement with Italian Owners’ (Reuters15 May 2024) <https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/volkswagen-reaches-54-million-dieselga te-settlement-with-italian-owners-2024-05-15/> accessed 20 November 2025

• Reuters Staff, ‘Italy Court Orders Facebook to Pay $5 Mln in Damages for Copying App’ Reuters (5 January 2021) <https://www.reuters.com/business/italy-court-orders-facebook-pay-5-mln-damages-copying-app -2021-01-05/> accessed 20 November 2025

• Silver CM, ‘We’re Scared to Death: Does Class Certification Subject Defendants to Blackmail?’ (2002) 78:1357 SSRN Electronic Journal <https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/1_0.pdf> accessed 19 November 2025

• Simmons & Simmons, ‘The European Class Action Is Born! ’ (Simmons-simmons.com30 November 2020) <https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/cki4syckr167r0a79vxfdi6yh/the-european class-action-is-born-> accessed 10 November 2025

• Slater Gordon Lawyers, ‘Class Actions 101’ (Slater and Gordon2025) <https://www.slatergordon.com.au/class-actions/class-actions-101> accessed 12 November 2025

• Supreme Court of the United States, ‘Supreme Court of the United States’ (2018) <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf> accessed 19 November 2025

• United States Courts, ‘Class Action’ (United States Courts2025) <https://www.uscourts.gov/glossary-legal-terms/class-action> accessed 10 November 2025

• Wagstaffe J, ‘Class Action Rule 23(A) Prerequisites Standards Chart (2d Cir.)’ (Community3 November 2018) <https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/practical-guidance-journal/b/pa/posts/cla ss-action-rule-23-a-prerequisites-standards-chart-2d-cir> accessed 10 November 2025