Spain's Draft Law on Collective Actions to Transpose EU Directive 2020/1828

After a first failed attempt, on February 25, 2025, the Spanish Council of Ministers approved referring to Congress the Draft Bill on Collective Actions ("Draft Bill") for the protection and defense of the rights and interests of consumers and users. On March 11, 2025, the Bureau of Congress reviewed its text and agreed to process the Draft Bill through the urgency procedure (which shortens the deadlines by half), allowing parties to submit amendments. 

If the Draft Bill on Collective Actions is adopted, the long-awaited transposition of EU Directive 2020/1828 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers will be achieved. This would unify the currently fragmented and varied regulations on the matter, creating a specific judicial procedure within a single title—the Spanish Code of Civil Procedure. 

According to the bill's preamble, the reform seeks to strengthen the position of consumers and grants legal standing to both the Public Prosecutor's Office and "qualified entities" (consumer associations, bodies of the General State Administration, and autonomous communities or municipalities competent in consumer protection matters) to bring collective actions against any type of infringement that harms the collective interests of consumers and users. 

The default mechanism proposed for adherence to the collective redress action is the opt-out system, meaning that the proceedings will bind all persons who are holders of the rights or interests harmed, unless they express their willingness to withdraw from the action. Thus, Spain would adopt a system that deviates from the one prevailing in most EU countries. However, where the amount claimed per beneficiary exceeds €3,000, the court may establish an opt-in system, whereby only consumers who have expressly joined the action will be bound by the outcome of the judicial proceedings.  

Likewise, and in line with the previous draft bill, the Draft Bill validates third‑party funding with the sole limitation that the court will reject such funding if it determines that a conflict of interest exists or if the funding creates an economic interest in the pursuit or outcome of the action that diverts the collective action from its primary objective of protecting and defending the rights and interests of consumers and users. 

Several parliamentary groups already challenged these approaches, along with other provisions from the previous draft bill (which was withdrawn), including the default opt-out system and third-party funding. Therefore, it will be interesting to see whether these reactions remain in the forthcoming possible amendments in order to determine whether core components of the Draft Bill are likely to be modified.