Key Takeaway: Over the past few years, the Dutch class action landscape has evolved at remarkable speed. With the WAMCA now firmly embedded in the legal system, new case law, funding dynamics, and procedural developments are reshaping how collective claims are initiated and defended. From my practice here in the Netherlands, I see firsthand how these shifts influence companies, consumers, and litigation strategy. Below are the developments that matter most. 

Dutch Court Orders State To Protect Bonaire in Landmark Climate and Human Rights Ruling 

The District Court of The Hague has delivered a historic judgment confirming that the Dutch state has violated the human rights of Bonaire’s roughly 26,000 residents by failing to adequately protect the island from the accelerating impacts of climate change. The case, brought by Greenpeace Netherlands and local residents, highlighted Bonaire’s acute exposure to sea level rise, coastal erosion, and increasingly severe storms. 

The court agreed, finding that the Netherlands has fallen short on both mitigation and adaptation, and has unjustifiably treated Bonaire differently from the European Netherlands. It held that the state’s current climate policy does not meet internationally accepted minimum standards and therefore breaches the European Convention on Human Rights. Climate inaction in a vulnerable overseas territory, the court said, amounts to discrimination against the state’s own citizens. 

The ruling imposes one of the most far-reaching judicial mandates seen in European climate litigation. Within 18 months, the Netherlands must adopt stricter, binding greenhouse gas reduction targets through 2050 and develop a dedicated climate adaptation plan tailored to Bonaire’s needs. 

More broadly, the decision sets a powerful precedent: wealthy states cannot treat their overseas territories as peripheral in climate protection. Bonaire’s residents are entitled to the same level of safety and preparedness as citizens in the European Netherlands, and the court has now made that a legal obligation rather than a policy choice. 

Dutch TikTok Ruling Sets the Stage for a Surge in Nonmaterial Damage Class Actions 

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s TikTok ruling marks a major turning point for collective redress in the Netherlands. By confirming that an entire class can claim non‑material damage, including stress, discomfort, and loss of control over personal data, the Court has opened the door to a significant rise in mass claims, particularly in data protection, consumer protection, and cases targeting big tech. 

The Court overturned the District Court’s earlier conclusion that each user would need to prove non‑material harm individually. It held instead that individual differences do not prevent such damages from being assessed collectively under the Act on Redress of Mass Damages in Collective Action (WAMCA). This removes a major procedural barrier and strengthens the position of the millions of Dutch users seeking compensation for TikTok’s alleged misuse of their data. 

TikTok’s attempt to limit the Amsterdam District Court’s jurisdiction to harms occurring within Amsterdam was firmly rejected. The court held that fragmenting the case would undermine the purpose of the WAMCA. One case, one court, and no unnecessary detours. 

The Court also cleared away a handful of procedural hurdles. All users’ claims, material and nonmaterial, come from the same alleged misconduct, so they can be handled together, even if people differ in age or how they use the app. In short, the case is now broader, simpler, and stronger. And with this ruling, the Netherlands reinforces its position as Europe’s go-to venue for largescale privacy and consumer class actions especially those involving nonmaterial harm. 

Oracle and Salesforce: The Wake-Up Call That’s Still Echoing in 2026 

At its heart, this case is really about the data-hungry engine powering online advertising. The claim says Oracle and Salesforce quietly built huge user profiles through the BlueKai marketplace, tracking people across the internet, piecing together their behaviour, and feeding it all into the programmatic ad world. In other words, the kind of large-scale profiling that sits right on the edge of what the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is meant to allow. 

And that’s exactly why the Dutch courts’ decision to let the case move forward still matters in 2026. 

The Amsterdam District Court brushed aside arguments that the claims were too broad or that the foundation wasn’t representative enough. Instead, it leaned into a relatively low threshold for privacy‑driven collective actions and highlighted the public interest in enforcing data‑protection rights. Put simply: if your business depends on big data pipelines, the Netherlands just became a place you need to keep on your radar. 

This case cuts right to the core of AdTech. Tracking, profiling, and third-party data sharing, basically the whole engine behind targeted ads, is now squarely in the sights of Dutch collective actions. ‘Compliant enough’ just doesn’t cut it anymore. Companies need to be able to show that their consent flows, data sharing chains, and profiling practices can hold up under courtroom scrutiny. 

If the foundation ends up winning a declaratory judgment, a follow-on damages phase is pretty much a given. That’s why this case still feels like a warning shot. Dutch courts are wide open to GDPR class actions, and they’re getting more comfortable digging into the guts of the AdTech ecosystem. 

For anyone working in programmatic advertising or data brokerage, this isn’t yesterday’s news, it’s an ongoing risk signal. The Netherlands is actively testing how far GDPR enforcement can go at scale, and the industry has been put on notice. 

Dutch Court Can Hear Apple Class Action Nationwide, Says Court of Justice of the European Union 

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has handed Dutch consumers a major win. In its Apple ruling (C34/24), the Court confirmed that the WAMCA class action against Apple can proceed in Amsterdam for every Dutch app store user, not just those living within the court’s district. It is a striking departure from earlier case law and from the Advocate General’s advice, and it significantly strengthens the hand of collective claimants in competition cases. 

The key question was whether Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation (1215/2012), normally used to pinpoint where ‘the harmful event occurred’ could anchor a nationwide class action in a single Dutch court. Apple argued no: either the case belonged in Ireland, its home base, or it had to be split across 11 Dutch district courts. The CJEU disagreed. Because Apple created a dedicated app store for the Dutch market, the ‘place where the damage occurred’ was the Netherlands as a whole a virtual market with a clear geographic footprint. 

That finding unlocked both international and territorial jurisdiction for the Amsterdam District Court. Under the WAMCA, the claim vehicles represent the collective interests of all Dutch app store users, most of whom are domiciled in the Netherlands. The Court held that it is neither necessary nor realistic to pinpoint the exact location of each individual user’s harm. What matters is that the anticompetitive conduct targeted a national market, and that market is the Netherlands. 

The CJEU also stressed the practical benefits of centralising complex competition damages claims. Fragmenting the case across multiple courts would undermine efficiency and legal certainty, while a single forum supports coherent factfinding and strengthens victims’ access to compensation. 

The judgment is clearly tailored to competition law and the structure of the WAMCA regime, so its reach beyond this context remains uncertain. But for now, the message is unmistakable: the Amsterdam District Court can hear the Apple class action in full, on behalf of all Dutch clients, without restarting the case abroad or slicing it into regional pieces. 

Dutch Courts Ground Investor Lawsuit Against Airbus and the Shockwave Still Matters in 2026 

The investor fight against Airbus has hit real turbulence. Stichting Investor Loss Compensation (SILC), the group accusing Airbus of hiding fraud‑related risks and inflating its share price, has now been knocked out by both the District Court and the Court of Appeal. Parts of the case can continue, just not with SILC at the wheel. 

The Court of Appeal said the Netherlands is a fair place to sue Airbus: it’s based there, files its financials there, and the alleged disclosure failures happened there. But the CFOs dodged Dutch jurisdiction, as they worked from France and Germany and weren’t ultimately responsible for Airbus’s financial policy under Dutch law. 

What really grounded SILC was governance. The court saw a setup driven by funder interests, not investors. Most work was outsourced, and funder Therium could take up to €35 million or 25% of any payout. With funders holding key rights over strategy and settlement, SILC didn’t have real control and investors didn’t have real protection. 

SILC also tried to pull individual officers into the case. The court allowed it, though it noted other courts have criticised similar moves as pressure tactics when the company itself is solvent. 

And here’s the bigger picture: by 2026, Airbus has become the clearest example of how tough Dutch courts have become on governance and funding in investor class actions. AIRS collapsed. AIRL failed on the merits. SILC is now out. Not one Airbus‑related mass claim has delivered compensation. 

The message is loud and clear: Dutch courts are open for investor litigation, but only if the foundation is genuinely independent, investor‑focused, and structurally sound. 

Dutch Court to Meta: Your Non‑Profiling Feed Must Be Real, and it Must Stick 

A Dutch court just told Meta to stop playing games with its ‘chronological feed’ and give users a real, persistent non‑profiling option. This piece breaks down what the ruling means, why it matters, and how it could shape the enforcement of the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) across Europe. 

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal just handed Meta a serious reality check. Dutch users must get a clear, easy to use non‑profiling feed on Facebook and Instagram, and once they switch it on, Meta can’t quietly shove them back to the algorithmic feed. The court said Meta’s so‑called ‘chronological feed’ was basically a technical illusion, not a real choice. 

Meta introduced the non‑profiling option last year to comply with the DSA. But Bits of Freedom showed how flimsy it was: hidden deep in the app, instantly reset when you navigated away, and full of nudges pushing users back to the profiling feed. Classic dark patterns, and exactly what the DSA bans. The court agreed and gave Meta two weeks to fix it or face fines of up to €10 million. 

The message could not be clearer: the non-profiling feed must be easy to find, must stay on until the user turns it off, and must work everywhere in the app. Anything less risks penalties and sets a strong precedent for DSA enforcement. 

This is one of the first major court rulings interpreting the DSA’s rules on recommender systems and dark patterns. It also shows how national courts can move faster than EU regulators. Bits of Freedom first went to Ireland, Meta’s lead DSA regulator, but after months of silence, the Dutch courts stepped in and delivered a ruling that could ripple across Europe. 

It still matters in quarter one of 2026 because the decision set one of the first hard judicial standards for DSA enforcement, and it continues to shape how platforms design feeds, consent flows, and recommender systems 

For Dutch users, the outcome is simple: a chronological, non-profiling feed that is easy to switch on, stays on, and cuts out the manipulative design tricks. In short, the feed you choose should finally be the feed you get. 

Five‑Year Evaluation of the Dutch WAMCA: A System That’s Working, and Speeding Up 

It’s been five years since the WAMCA came into force, and it’s safe to say it’s reshaped Dutch collective actions in a big way. The new evaluation report, put together by several Dutch universities, is surprisingly upbeat: the system is doing what it promised. No US-style claim culture, no flood of cases, and courts haven’t rejected a single action for lacking a Dutch connection. The gateway is working, and it’s working as intended. 

But the report also points to the main pain point: the preliminary phase. It’s long, technical, and can feel like a maze. Even experienced organisations must keep proving they meet governance and transparency rules, and the mandatory settlement phase often arrives before anyone’s ready. That slows things down and keeps the system from running at full speed. 

Still, the outlook is optimistic. Courts are steadily building a body of case law, and upcoming Supreme Court and CJEU rulings will bring even more clarity. The report suggests a few smart tweaks, like letting repeat organisations rely on earlier assessments and giving courts more flexibility on when to push settlement talks that could make the whole process smoother. 

Litigation funding is another area to watch. Because the early phase is expensive, funders mostly back high‑value claims, which risks narrowing access. And since no WAMCA case has reached the damages‑distribution stage yet, key safeguards like caps on funder returns haven’t been tested. The authors call for clearer standards to give everyone more certainty. 

Overall, the first five years paint a promising picture. Public interest and ideological cases are moving fastest, and the system is clearly maturing. As jurisprudence settles and procedures get fine-tuned, the WAMCA is on track to become more predictable, more efficient, and even closer to what lawmakers envisioned back in 2020. 

Learn more about Epiq Class Action and Mass Tort Services. 



Philippa Roubaud, EU Legal Operation and Administrative Support Specialist, Class Action Solutions, Netherlands 

Philippa brings over a decade of experience in translations, commercial and general law, debt recovery, and intellectual property consulting to her role at Epiq. She is a graduate of the Catholic University of Portugal and a member of the Portuguese Bar Association. Before joining the team, she specialised in multilingual and multilevel eDiscovery projects for international law firms in London.  

Philippa is currently based in the Netherlands, where she works closely with Dutch clients and has gained practical insight into the local legal landscape.