For more than a decade, Britain’s class action regime has expanded with remarkably little resistance. Backed by litigation funders, claimant law firms and professional class representatives, collective proceedings have grown into a thriving commercial industry, with ever larger claims promoted as victories for consumer justice.

Recent decisions by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), highlighted in a Pinsent Masons analysis, suggest that era may be coming to an end.

The Tribunal is signalling that size alone is no longer enough. Collective proceedings must demonstrate a genuine public benefit, not simply the promise of another headline-grabbing lawsuit.

That is an important correction.

The UK’s opt-out regime was introduced to give consumers access to justice where individual claims would never be worth pursuing. It was never intended to create a market in litigation.

Yet that is precisely what has emerged. Collective actions have become increasingly driven by commercial incentives, with litigation funding attracting investment, claimant firms competing for market share and professional class representatives building businesses around bringing mass claims. As the industry has grown, the interests of consumers have too often become secondary to the economics of the litigation itself.

The CAT’s refusal to certify the proposed salmon price-fixing claim against Mowi illustrates the change in judicial thinking. Although the claim sought to represent more than 35 million consumers, the Tribunal concluded that the likely benefits failed to justify the extraordinary cost and complexity of the proceedings. It was a reminder that access to justice is not measured by the number of claimants on a court document or the size of the damages claimed.

The Tribunal has also shown a greater willingness to scrutinise litigation funding arrangements and the governance of collective proceedings. That matters because the commercial relationships underpinning modern class actions have become increasingly complex, while the consumers supposedly represented often have little visibility of who is making decisions or where the financial incentives lie.

This more rigorous approach should be welcomed. Courts exist to protect the public interest, not to facilitate an expanding litigation industry. Judicial scepticism is long overdue after years in which collective proceedings appeared to gather momentum with relatively little consideration of whether they delivered meaningful outcomes for consumers.

The broader lesson is that Britain’s class action regime has drifted from its original purpose. Instead of serving as an exceptional mechanism for delivering justice where no realistic alternative exists, it risks becoming a business model sustained by funders, lawyers and claims entrepreneurs. The larger the industry becomes, the greater the pressure to generate the next collective claim.

That is not a sustainable foundation for consumer protection.

The UK should resist the temptation to emulate jurisdictions where mass litigation has become an industry in its own right. Consumers are best protected through effective regulation, robust enforcement and early intervention that prevents harm before it occurs—not through an ever-expanding pipeline of commercially funded lawsuits.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal deserves credit for recognising that distinction. Its recent decisions suggest the courts are no longer willing to treat every proposed class action as a public good simply because it is brought in the name of consumers.

That may prove to be the most significant development in UK collective litigation for years.