History of Class action in Timeline

A class action lawsuit allows a person or small group to sue on behalf of a larger group with similar interests. Originating in the US, it's primarily an American legal mechanism, though other countries like Canada and some in Europe are adopting similar measures, often to allow consumer organizations to represent consumer interests. This type of lawsuit enables a collective approach to legal redress for groups who have suffered similar harm, making it more efficient than individual lawsuits.

1912: Equity Rule 48 replaced with Equity Rule 38

In 1912, Equity Rule 48 was replaced with Equity Rule 38 as part of a major restructuring of the Equity Rules.

1925: Federal Arbitration Act Enacted

The Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 was mentioned in the context of the 2011 US Supreme Court ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which held that the act preempts state laws prohibiting contracts from disallowing class-action lawsuits.

1933: Liability for Misrepresentations

In securities class actions alleging violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, officers and directors are liable along with the corporation for material misrepresentations in the registration statement.

1933: Standing to Sue Under Section 11 of the 1933 Act

Under Section 11 of the 1933 Act, to have standing to sue in a class action, a plaintiff must prove they can trace their shares to the allegedly misrepresented registration statement. If tracing is impossible, such as with fungible bulk holdings, the claim may be barred.

1938: Equity Rule 38 Became Rule 23 of the FRCP

In 1938, federal courts merged their legal and equitable procedural systems, and Equity Rule 38 became Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).

1938: States Adopt Rules Similar to FRCP

Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), influencing the landscape of class actions at the state level.

1941: Suggestion of Class-Action Litigation by Shareholders

In 1941, Harry Kalven Jr. and Maurice Rosenfield suggested that class-action litigation by individual shareholders on behalf of all shareholders of a company could effectively supplement direct government regulation of securities markets and other similar markets.

1966: Van Gemert v. Boeing Co.

In 1966, Van Gemert v. Boeing Co. was cited as an example where a court might certify a case for class treatment in order to avoid different court rulings that could create "incompatible standards" of conduct for the defendant to follow.

1966: Major Revision of FRCP Radically Transformed Rule 23

In 1966, a major revision of the FRCP radically transformed Rule 23, making the opt-out class action the standard option, and giving birth to the modern class action.

1971: Milton Handler Published Law Review Article

In 1971, law professor Milton Handler published a law review article calling the class action a form of "legalized blackmail", articulating the extortion thesis.

1976: Landeros v. Flood Decision

In 1976, Landeros v. Flood, a landmark case decided by the California Supreme Court, aimed at purposefully changing the behavior of doctors, encouraging them to report suspected child abuse.

1978: Quebec Enacts Class Proceedings Legislation

In 1978, Quebec became the first province in Canada to enact class proceedings legislation, marking a significant step in allowing class actions within the province.

1978: Environmental Law Treatise Mentioned "Class Actions"

In 1978, an environmental law treatise reprinted the entire text of Rule 23 and mentioned "class actions" 14 times in its index, indicating the growing importance of class actions in environmental litigation.

1986: Jenkins v. Raymark Indus. Inc. Decision

In 1986, the court in Jenkins v. Raymark Indus. Inc. granted certification of a class action involving asbestos, highlighting how aggregation can increase the efficiency of the legal process.

1992: Ontario Enacts the Class Proceedings Act

In 1992, Ontario followed Quebec by enacting the Class Proceedings Act, further expanding the availability of class actions within Canada.

1992: Introduction of "Representative Proceedings" in Australia

In 1992, the Federal Parliament amended the Federal Court of Australia Act to introduce "representative proceedings", the equivalent of the American "class actions".

1995: Shareholder Class Actions and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 contains carve-outs for shareholder class actions covered by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, indicating its relevance to certain types of class action lawsuits.

1996: Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co. Decision

In 1996, the court in Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co. rejected a nationwide class action against tobacco companies, noting that mass torts frequently involve individualized issues.

1997: Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor Decision

In 1997, the Supreme Court case Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor discussed how class actions address the issue of small recoveries not providing incentive for individual lawsuits, quoting Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp.

1999: Civil Procedure Rules Came into Force

In 1999, the Civil Procedure Rules of the courts of England and Wales came into force, providing for group litigation orders in limited circumstances.

1999: Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp. Decision

In 1999, the Supreme Court case Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp. addressed "limited fund" cases, where a class action ensures all plaintiffs receive relief and prevents early-filing plaintiffs from depleting all assets before others can be compensated.

2001: Supreme Court Decision in Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. v. Dutton

In 2001, following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. v. Dutton, Prince Edward Island allowed class actions under a local rule of court, despite lacking comprehensive legislation.

2002: Collective Litigation Allowed Under Russian Law

Since 2002, collective litigation has been allowed under Russian law, with basic criteria including numerosity, commonality, and typicality, similar to those in the US.

2004: Chile Approves Class Actions

In 2004, Chile approved class actions, implementing a model that begins with an opt-out issue class action to determine general liability, followed by a collective or individual compensatory stage for damages.

January 4, 2005: President Chirac Urges Changes for Consumer Protection

On January 4, 2005, President Chirac urged changes to French law to provide greater consumer protection, indicating a push for reforms that could potentially lead to more effective class action mechanisms.

June 2005: Conference held in Vienna

In June 2005, the Austrian Ministry for Justice, along with the Austrian Ministry for Social Security, Generations and Consumer Protection, initiated discussions about new legislation for mass claims with a conference in Vienna.

September 2005: Justice Ministry began drafting new law

In September 2005, the Austrian Justice Ministry, supported by a group of experts, started drafting a new law to address mass claims, following discussions that began in June. However, differing opinions hindered political consensus.

2005: Class Action Fairness Act of 2005

In 2005, the Class Action Fairness Act was enacted to address concerns about class actions. The Act included provisions related to scrutiny of coupon settlements and attorney's fee awards.

2005: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland Sued

In 2005, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon was sued as part of the Catholic priest sex-abuse scandal, with all parishioners cited as a defendant class.

2005: Settlement in Canada's Residential School System Class Action

In 2005, the largest class action suit in Canada, initiated by Nora Bernard, resulted in a settlement of over $5 billion for approximately 79,000 survivors of Canada's residential school system suing the Canadian government.

2005: Filing of Class Action Cases in Chile

Since 2005, more than 100 class action cases have been filed in Chile, primarily by Servicio Nacional del Consumidor (SERNAC), the Chilean consumer protection agency. Some notable cases include Condecus v. BancoEstado and SERNAC v. La Polar.

2005: Statistics from US Bureau of Justice Statistics Civil Justice Survey of State Courts

The US Bureau of Justice Statistics Civil Justice Survey of State Courts offered statistics for the year 2005 regarding class action settlements.

April 2006: Draft Bill Proposed but Did Not Pass

In April 2006, a draft bill aimed at enhancing consumer protection was proposed in France, following President Chirac's urging in January 2005, but the bill ultimately did not pass.

2006: Swiss Government Rejected Class Actions

In 2006, when the Swiss government proposed a new federal code of civil procedure, it rejected the introduction of class actions, maintaining the country's stance against this type of legal mechanism.

2007: ABA Conference on Class Actions

In 2007, a paper presented at an ABA conference on class actions commented that "competing cases can also provide opportunities for collusive settlement discussions and reverse auctions by defendants anxious to resolve their new exposure at the most economic cost".

2008: Majority of Canadian Provinces Enact Class Actions Legislation

By 2008, 9 out of 10 provinces in Canada had enacted comprehensive class actions legislation, demonstrating a widespread adoption of this legal mechanism across the country.

July 2009: Class Action Regulation in Force

Since July 2009, class action in Italy is regulated by art. 140 bis of the Italian consumers' code.

2009: "Halabi" Leading Case (Supreme Court)

In 2009, class actions were recognized in the "Halabi" leading case by the Supreme Court.

July 19, 2010: Class Action Allowed Under Polish Law

Since July 19, 2010, 'pozew zbiorowy' or class action has been allowed under Polish law, requiring a minimum of 10 persons suing based on the same law.

2010: Lack of Publicly Maintained List of Nonsecurities Class-Action Settlements

As of 2010, there was no publicly maintained list of nonsecurities class-action settlements, although a securities class-action database exists in the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.

2011: Wal-Mart v. Dukes Supreme Court Ruling

In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 against certification of a class action in Wal-Mart v. Dukes due to differences in each individual members' circumstances.

2011: AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion Decision

In 2011, the US Supreme Court ruled in a 5–4 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class-action lawsuits, making it more difficult for consumers to file such lawsuits.

2012: New Government Proposed Class Actions

In 2012, following a change of majority in France, the new government proposed introducing class actions into French law, signaling a shift towards allowing collective redress mechanisms.

May 2013: Project of loi Hamon

In May 2013, the French government proposed the 'projet de loi Hamon', which aimed to limit class actions to consumer and competition disputes.

2013: Comcast Corp. v. Behrend Supreme Court Ruling

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 against certification of a class action in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend due to differences in each individual members' circumstances.

March 1, 2014: Class Action Law Passed

On March 1, 2014, France passed a law allowing class actions, building on the 'projet de loi Hamon' from May 2013, but limited to consumer and competition disputes.

October 1, 2015: Consumer Rights Act Sectoral Mechanism

Taking effect on October 1, 2015, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 adopted a sectoral mechanism, allowing for opt-in or opt-out collective procedures for breaches of competition law in England and Wales, acting as the closest mechanism to a class action.

November 2016: Legislation Change for Monetary Damages Claims

In November 2016, changes in Dutch law allowed associations and foundations to bring collective actions for monetary damages, provided the event occurred after this date.

2017: Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court Opinion

In 2017, the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, holding that over five hundred plaintiffs from other states could not bring a consolidated mass action against the pharmaceutical giant in the State of California.

November 1, 2018: Model Declaratory Action Introduced in Germany

Effective November 1, 2018, Germany's Code of Civil Procedure introduced the Model Declaratory Action (§ 606 ZPO), enabling the efficient bundling of similar claims from many affected parties into one proceeding.

2018: Group Proceedings Under Scottish Law

In 2018, Scotland introduced a similar approach to group proceedings under Part 4 of the Civil Litigation (Expenses and Group Proceedings) (Scotland) Act 2018.

2018: Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis Decision

In 2018, the Supreme Court, in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, enabled the use of class action waivers, citing its deference to freedom to contract principles. This decision potentially limits employment and consumer class actions.

April 18, 2019: Law n. 31 published

In Italy, Law n. 31/2019 was published on April 18, 2019, outlining new rules for class actions.

January 2020: New Legislation Entered into Force

On January 1, 2020, new legislation in the Netherlands came into force which allows associations and foundations to bring a claim for monetary damages on behalf of other persons, provided the event occurred after 15 November 2016.

April 19, 2020: Intended Effective Date of New Rules

April 19, 2020, was the initially intended effective date of the new class action rules in Italy, as designed by Law n. 31/2019, but it was delayed.

2020: 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Incentive Awards Impermissible

In 2020, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that incentive awards, which are payments made to class representatives as part of a class settlement, are impermissible.

May 19, 2021: New Class Action Rules Enter into Force in Italy

On May 19, 2021, the reform of the Italian legal framework on class actions finally entered into force; the new rules are now included in the Italian Civil Procedure Code (ICPC).

March 2024: State Class Action Availability

As of March 2024, only Virginia and Massachusetts do not provide for any class actions, while others like New York limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions.

January 2025: 124 Group Litigation Orders Granted

As of January 2025, HM Courts and Tribunals Service had granted 124 group litigation orders under the Civil Procedure Rules of England and Wales, which came into force in 1999.