The UK’s collective actions regime was intended to deliver compensation to consumers harmed by anti-competitive conduct. Yet another high-profile case has ended with no compensation, no admission of liability, and millions spent on legal fees.

Last week, the Competition Appeal Tribunal approved a “drop hands” settlement in the £480 million collective action brought by Which? against Qualcomm. Under the agreement, Qualcomm pays nothing, both sides bear their own costs, and the estimated 29 million consumers represented in the claim receive no compensation.

The figures are striking. Claimant law firm Hausfeld had already received nearly £18 million in fees funded by litigation backers and has now written off a further £14 million in deferred fees. Counsel reportedly lost more than £1 million in unpaid fees, while Qualcomm’s defence costs were said to be around £44 million.

After years of litigation and a five-week trial, the parties agreed the claim no longer had a realistic prospect of success. The action was abandoned before any recovery was secured for consumers.

Big Claims Don’t Guarantee Big Results

The Qualcomm case highlights a point often overlooked in public debate – certification of a collective action does not mean the underlying claim has merit.

Large headline figures can create the impression that liability is likely or inevitable. In reality, claims can clear procedural hurdles, attract litigation funding and proceed to trial before ultimately failing.

For businesses, however, the consequences begin long before the merits are determined. Defending a collective action can require years of management attention, extensive disclosure exercises and substantial legal expenditure, regardless of the outcome.

Who Really Benefits?

The UK’s collective proceedings regime continues to expand, with claimant firms and litigation funders pursuing ever larger claims. But outcomes really matter.

A case involving an alleged £480 million loss, 29 million consumers and years of litigation has concluded with no compensation and tens of millions of pounds spent on legal costs.

That should prompt questions about whether the system is delivering meaningful benefits to the consumers it is designed to protect.

Access to justice remains an important objective. But the success of any collective actions regime should ultimately be measured by outcomes, not claim values, publicity or the volume of litigation generated.

The Qualcomm case is a reminder that headline-grabbing class actions do not always translate into successful claims—or compensation for those they purport to represent.