The Cartel Panel of the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH), in its judgment of 12 May 2026 (KZR 6/24 – “Sammelklage-Inkasso”), established important principles for collective actions brought by debt collection service providers in antitrust damages proceedings. The case arose from an appeal on points of law in proceedings before the Higher Regional Court of Munich. A debt collection company registered in the Legal Services Register had bundled potential antitrust damages claims from more than 3,000 assignors from 21 countries in connection with the acquisition of originally more than 85,000 trucks, and brought a collective action for damages against several truck manufacturers. The claims were based on the European Commission’s decision concerning the so-called trucks cartel, in which long-standing collusive arrangements regarding prices and emissions costs had been established.
The BGH first confirmed that antitrust damages claims may, in principle, be asserted collectively by way of the collective action debt collection model through a registered debt collection service provider. This also applies to complex claims in the field of antitrust damages law.
However, the BGH places limits on the bundling of claims where the manner in which the claims are bundled makes it practically impossible for the civil courts to properly examine and decide on the bundled claims within a reasonable period of time. In the case at hand, given that more than 70,000 procurement transactions in 21 countries remained at the relevant stage, some governed by foreign law and involving different contractual constellations — purchase, hire purchase and leasing — an orderly judicial review within a reasonable period of time was excluded.
For such constellations, the BGH emphasises the courts’ duty to actively structure the proceedings, in particular by separating proceedings and ordering the debt collection claimant to prepare the bundled claims according to criteria specified by the court, such as group affiliation, country of domicile, type of contract and market level, and to refile them in separate proceedings. If the debt collection claimant fails to comply with such a judicial order for the preparation of the separation of proceedings within a reasonable period — the BGH refers here to a maximum of six months — the collective action may be dismissed as inadmissible on the grounds of an abusive exploitation of procedural possibilities. The abuse of rights then lies in the use of procedural law in a manner that effectively prevents effective legal protection for all parties involved.
In addition, the BGH addresses potential conflicts of interest under Section 4 of the Legal Services Act. The mere bundling of different types of claims, for example those of direct and indirect purchasers from the cartel or those of lessors and lessees, does not automatically render the assignments invalid. The decisive question is whether the proper provision of the legal service is specifically jeopardised by a conflict of interest on the part of the legal services provider.
The “Sammelklage-Inkasso” decision therefore sets important guidelines for collective actions brought by debt collection service providers in antitrust damages law: collective actions by debt collection service providers remain expressly permissible as an instrument of collective legal enforcement. At the same time, debt collection service providers and civil courts are required to ensure, through appropriate structuring and, where necessary, the separation of proceedings, that the bundled claims can be processed within a reasonable period of time while safeguarding the procedural rights of all parties involved.
We have many years of experience in defending against and enforcing antitrust damages claims. Please do not hesitate to contact us. Dr. Daniel Petzold