Two foundations each brought a collective action under the WAMCA regime against Google about the way in which Google collects and processes personal user data. In its interim judgment from January 15, 2025, the District Court of Amsterdam ruled that both foundations as well as their litigation funding are admissible within the meaning of the WAMCA.[1]
Background of the dispute
The Stichting Bescherming Privacybelangen (“SBP“) and Stichting Massaschade & Consument (“SMC“) have both filed collective lawsuits against Google, alleging violations of privacy and consumer laws in the Netherlands.
The class represented by SBP includes all users of Google services and products living in the Netherlands, amounting to about 15 million Dutch people, whose privacy has been or is at risk of being violated due to Google’s data processing practices. SBP’s lawsuit is funded by the U.S. law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP (“LCHB“) and has an exclusive partnership with the Dutch Consumers’ Association. Meanwhile, SMC represents Dutch consumers and small businesses, stating that it stands up for all people residing the Netherlands and using an Android smartphone, estimating 9 million Dutch people. SMC receives financial backing from Eaton Hall Funding LLC (“Eaton Hall“), which is affiliated with U.S. law firm Grant & Eisenhofer.
Grounds brought forward with the collective action
SBP accuses Google of unlawfully collecting, processing, and selling excessive personal data, violating the fundamental right to privacy, Dutch and EU data protection law and consumer law and making Google unjustly enriched. The foundation divides Google’s accusingly unlawful data processing in five categories:
- combining excessive data obtained from different products and services
- processing of location data
- continuous monitoring of the online behavior of all Google service users
- sharing the personal data with third parties in Real-Time Bidding auctions
- transferring personal data to the USA
SMC’s lawsuit focuses on Android users, alleging that Google collects excessive data through Google Play Services and Firebase SDK, even when devices are not in use. It claims that Google processes and collects personal data from users, often without necessity or good reason, and mainly for the purpose of collecting personal data to advertisers, violating data protection law and the Dutch Telecommunicationsact.
Google’s position on SBP’s and SMC’s allegations
Google denies these allegations and challenges the admissibility of both SBP’s and SMC’s lawsuits. It argues that the two lawsuits do not lend themselves to bundling, meaning that there are no similar interests. Google further states that a collective action is not more effective and efficient. With regards to SBP specifically, Google argues that SBP lacks independence from its litigation funder (LCHB) and does thus not meet the guarantee requirement, particularly because the substantive knowledge and expertise required in this procedure comes entirely from its funder LCHB. Following Google’s defenses, the court ordered SBP and SMC to produce their funding agreements.This scrutiny focused on whether SBP and SMC retained sufficient control over this legal action and properly safeguarded the interests of the represented parties.
Google also argued that the funding agreement SBP entered intolimited its independence by requiring the funder’s approval for key decisions, permitting the funder to engage third parties to assist with SBP’s activities, and mandating payments to the funder even in cases of non-monetary settlements. Google also contended that SBP’s lack of transparency about its financial backing and its funder’s connections to other collective actions undermined its credibility. Additionally, Google objected to the funder’s access to case information, claiming that it could be used in unrelated litigation.
Dutch Court backed the Litigation funding with the U.S. based law firms
The court rejected the arguments against the litigation funding agreements, concluding that SBP retained control over its legal claims and that the interests of the affected individuals were adequately protected. The court found no evidence that SBP was required to follow the funder’s instructions or that its financial structure compromised its independence. Furthermore, it dismissed concerns about the use of case information, emphasizing that Google’s objections were self-serving and not relevant to the admissibility requirements under the WAMCA. While aspects of the funding arrangement, such as remuneration to the funder, may be examined further, the court confirmed that SBP met the legal standards for sufficient control over its legal action.
Google argued that SMC should also be declared inadmissible due to issues with its litigation funding. It claimed SMC misrepresented the timing of its financing agreement, relied on a study funded by a company related to the funder, and that the latter two were too closely connected, raising concerns about SMC’s independence. Google also questioned whether SMC had control over its legal claims, citing provisions in the litigation funding agreement that required settlement consultation and directed awarded funds to an account managed by the company that produced the study.
The court rejected these arguments, ruling that SMC retained control over its claims and that Google failed to demonstrate any harm to the interests of the represented parties. While some funding provisions—such as the distribution of damages and the payments—could be further scrutinized in later proceedings, they did not justify declaring SMC inadmissible.
Editors’ conclusions
The court’s ruling represents an important step in collective actions in the Netherlands, affirming the admissibility of both entities despite Google’s challenges. By rejecting concerns over litigation funding and independence, the decision underscores the growing role funders in collective redress mechanisms. While aspects of the litigation funding agreements may face further scrutiny, the ruling paves the way for continued legal proceedings, potentially shaping the landscape of collective redress in the Netherlands and improve access to justice in collective redress cases.
Eduardo Silva de Freitas[2]and Linus Bättig[3]
[1] Rechtbank Amsterdam, January 15, 2025, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:313.
[2] PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlandsas part of the NWO-funded Vici project‘Affordable Access to Justice: Towards Sustainable Cost and Funding Mechanisms for Civil Litigation inEurope’ (No. VI.C.191.082).
[3] Junior Associate at Niederer Kraft Frey Ltd., Switzerland.
