Mass litigation myths debunked: Hausfeld chair slams £18bn cost claim

Anthony Maton pushes back against think tank report on class action costs, calling it flawed, misleading, and biased toward corporate interests

Hausfeld’s global co-chair Anthony Maton has strongly rebutted claims that mass litigation poses a growing risk to the UK economy, dismissing a recent report from the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE) as fundamentally flawed and “simply wrong.”

Writing in response to the ECIPE’s June report, which suggested mass litigation could cost the UK £18bn, Maton argued that collective redress—particularly in the area of competition law—was not only justified but vital for accountability and market fairness. He described the figure as attention-grabbing but unsubstantiated, questioning both the methodology and intent behind the claims.

He defended the legal framework established by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, calling it the result of years of careful parliamentary scrutiny and judicial oversight. “The idea that this is an unchecked rise in mass litigation is simply wrong,” Maton said. “It was a very considered, deliberate legal reform with court safeguards firmly in place.”

He also took aim at the report’s suggestion that mass claims discourage investment, pointing out the many other factors that influence capital flows—from tax policy and infrastructure to regulatory stability and post-Brexit market access. “The legal and financial sectors are themselves vital UK exports,” he noted.

Responding to concerns that litigation funders and lawyers disproportionately benefit from group actions, Maton argued that funders are essential for enabling justice in high-cost, high-risk environments. “They invest based on rigorous due diligence and back only strong cases,” he said. “Without them, most claimants would never get through the courtroom door.”

Maton further challenged the report’s assumptions around the transferability of US-style litigation costs to the UK. “The UK’s ‘loser pays’ rule, certification process and case types differ markedly from the US model,” he said, noting that cost recovery, ATE insurance and funder indemnities all act as natural deterrents to weak or speculative claims.

He also emphasised the social value of collective redress. “Some of the gains made by breaking the law should find their way back into the pockets of those harmed,” Maton argued. “We don’t say the police should stop chasing stolen goods just because they only recover half—it’s justice.”

Finally, he pointed out the institutional bias underpinning the ECIPE report. Fair Civil Justice, the group promoting the findings, is tied to the US Chamber of Commerce and other large business lobby groups historically resistant to collective redress. “Let’s be honest about who benefits here,” Maton concluded. “The best way to stop the so-called costs of mass litigation is simple: stop breaking the law.”