{"id":272644,"date":"2025-12-05T10:02:02","date_gmt":"2025-12-05T10:02:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/?p=272644"},"modified":"2025-12-05T10:02:02","modified_gmt":"2025-12-05T10:02:02","slug":"public-appetite-for-corporate-accountability-surges-as-class-action-awareness-reaches-new-high","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/public-appetite-for-corporate-accountability-surges-as-class-action-awareness-reaches-new-high\/","title":{"rendered":"Public appetite for corporate accountability surges as class action awareness reaches new high"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Public<\/p>\n


\nPublic support for class actions has reached a five-year high, with Portland\u2019s latest report showin…
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Public support for class actions has reached a five-year high, with Portland\u2019s latest report showing rising demand for corporate accountability, stronger ESG litigation and greater transparency from litigation funders.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Public awareness of class actions in the UK<\/a> has reached its highest level since 2020, with growing expectations that litigation \u2013 particularly ESG-related claims \u2013 should be used to hold companies to account. That is the central finding of Portland\u2019s 2025 Reputation and Accountability<\/em> report, published a week after this year\u2019s Global Class Actions Symposium<\/em><\/a> and which suggests that both consumer sentiment and shareholder activism are now exerting significant pressure on corporate conduct.<\/p>\n

The annual study, based on a nationally representative poll of 1,999 UK adults, records a steady rise in public recognition of collective proceedings, with 27% of respondents reporting \u201chigh awareness\u201d of class actions, up from 24% last year. As the report notes, \u201cthe public is starting to notice\u201d the growth of major claims, even though filings at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) dipped slightly in 2024.<\/p>\n

ACCOUNTABILITY OVER COMPENSATION<\/strong><\/p>\n

Although compensation remains an important factor, Portland finds that it is no longer the predominant motive for participation. According to the report, \u201cthe possibility of compensation is only the third-ranking reason\u201d for joining a claim, whereas the top factor is \u201cthinking the company did something wrong\u201d. \u00a0Nearly two-thirds of the public (65%) say they would sign up to a class action if given the opportunity, while 35% would be more likely to join after a regulatory finding of wrongdoing. The data also indicates that 69% of the public would consider boycotting a company if they felt wronged, and 70% would switch utility providers under similar circumstances.<\/p>\n

The findings come as political debate intensifies following the Civil Justice Council\u2019s recommendations on litigation funding and transparency. Public sentiment appears broadly aligned with calls for clearer disclosure, with 65% agreeing that class representatives should tell the court and others \u201cif they have a funder, who the funder is and where the money comes from\u201d. However, scepticism about the motives behind the litigation system persists. The report highlights \u201ca paradox\u201d in public opinion: while most people believe class actions hold companies to account, \u201ca striking 68% of the public now believe that class actions often, or very often, make money for lawyers and funders\u201d.<\/p>\n

HEALTH CARE, FINANCE AND ENERGY <\/strong><\/p>\n

The survey also identifies the sectors where the public most strongly favours legal action. Health care (54%), finance (53%) and energy (50%) top the list, with technology close behind at 45%. Despite this, health care is also the sector the public is most likely to forgive if wrongdoing is acknowledged and a redress scheme is offered. That being said, voluntary redress remains a risky strategy for corporates, with 54% of respondents saying they would not believe a company that offered compensation \u201cto avoid going to court\u201d while denying wrongdoing. As the report observes, \u201cperformative gestures without genuine accountability may backfire\u201d.<\/p>\n

LITIGATION FUNDING UNDER SCRUTINY<\/strong><\/p>\n

Awareness of litigation funders has improved markedly \u2013 though from a low base \u2013 with 51% reporting low or no awareness, down from 62% last year. Public views on funder remuneration are nuanced: 71% prefer percentage-based funding over upfront fees, and 44% consider it fair if a funder \u201cmight double their investment\u201d, provided claimants receive meaningful compensation. But the public shows a clear preference for law-firm-funded actions over those financed by third-party funders, with 53% more likely to participate if the claim is backed by a law firm. The report\u2019s authors argue this reflects \u201cgreater trust in established legal institutions and \u2018no win no fee\u2019 models\u201d.<\/p>\n

LOW AWARENESS DESPITE MEDIA COVERAGE<\/strong><\/p>\n

Despite substantial media attention around major proceedings in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), many potential class members remain unaware of their eligibility. For example, only 40% of respondents identified themselves as eligible for Gormsen v Meta<\/em>, despite it generating \u201cthe highest volume of media coverage of any CAT class action\u201d. Eligibility recognition for other high-profile claims \u2013 such as Which? v Qualcomm<\/em> and Kent v Apple<\/em> hovered between 28% and 41%.<\/p>\n

This disconnect, Portland warns, underscores \u201cthe challenge for claimant teams in converting media attention and broad public support for accountability into actual claimant engagement\u201d.<\/p>\n

ESG LITIGATION<\/strong><\/p>\n

One of the most striking trends in this year\u2019s report is the continued strength of public appetite for ESG-related claims. Nearly three-quarters (72%) say a CEO \u201cowes a duty to ensure their organisation properly manages climate risks\u201d \u2013 a figure which, interestingly and perhaps counter-intuitively, rises to 85% among business leaders.<\/p>\n

Scepticism about environmental marketing also remains high: 62% say they \u201cnever or only sometimes trust\u201d sustainability claims made by businesses. And when presented with a hypothetical case of greenwashing, 54% say they would join a class action if they had purchased a product based on misleading assertions. The report concludes that, despite political debate in the UK and the US about so-called ESG \u201cbacklash\u201d, there is \u201cno statistically significant difference in sentiment\u201d from last year. Public expectations for corporate environmental and social responsibility remain steady and high.<\/p>\n

SHAREHOLDER ACTIVISM INTENSIFIES<\/strong><\/p>\n

Investor behaviour is also evolving. Among those who own shares directly or via funds, 68% express a positive attitude toward shareholder activism \u2013 up from 53% last year. More than half (55%) would consider divesting from a company found to have disproportionately contributed to climate change, and 72% believe shareholders should be able to sue if companies fail to provide accurate information on issues such as climate impact or human rights.<\/p>\n

As Portland summarises in its report: \u201cPeople trust the legal system to deliver outcomes\u201d and see litigation \u2013 including shareholder actions \u2013 as a \u201clegitimate\u201d route to accountability.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

Source link <\/a>
\n\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n