If you’ve tried to watch the recent Jake Paul-Mike Tyson fight, chances are you weren’t happy with the experience.
This highly anticipated boxing match faced significant technical issues, resulting in poor streaming quality and constant glitches. Despite these challenges, Netflix revealed that the event attracted 108 million viewers worldwide, setting a record as the most-streamed sports event ever.
Let’s break down the numbers: Netflix reported that the live broadcast from AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, reached about 65 million households in the United States. During the fight, 56% of all U.S. television viewership was tuned in. For comparison, the co-main event—a rematch between Taylor and Serrano— drew 74 million viewers globally.
It’s no surprise that viewers were frustrated. Thousands of Netflix users expressed disappointment as they struggled to watch the fight without interruptions.
A lawsuit in the ring
Shortly after the event, U.S. media reported that Ronald “Blue” Denton, a Florida resident, had filed a lawsuit against Netflix. The lawsuit filed three days after the fight and in some media characterized as a class action, claims that many users faced severe streaming issues, including lack of access, constant buffering, and persistent glitches. Netflix now faces allegations of breach of contract and other claims.
More legal trouble?
Around the same time, another lawsuit emerged, seeking class-action status against both Meta and Netflix. This antitrust case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges that the two companies colluded after Facebook entered the streaming market with Facebook Watch.
According to the plaintiffs—who are also Netflix subscribers—documents from a prior lawsuit against Meta suggest that this alleged collusion reduced competition in the video streaming market and compromised consumer data privacy. A similar lawsuit has reportedly been filed in the Central District of California.
What’s next?
All of these lawsuits are still in their early stages. Courts will first determine whether these cases can proceed as class actions. While the legal battles unfold, let’s shift our focus from the media buzz to the legal framework behind class-action lawsuits.
What is a class action lawsuit?
You’ve likely heard the term ‘class action lawsuit’ multiple times or seen movies and TV shows where, for example, a large group of people band together to sue a major corporation over rights violations, seeking millions in damages. Often, these cases end in settlements.
In our country, this legal instrument is known as a collective lawsuit (kolektivna tužba), in the U.S. it’s referred to as a class action, and in the European Union, it’s called collective redress.
The logic is simple: when a large number of people are affected by the actions or omissions of a defendant, rather than filing numerous individual claims, a collective lawsuit allows a single court to address all claims in one proceeding.
The concept of class action originates from the practice of English courts in the Middle Ages, often involving communities such as towns and villages. In the U.S., class actions were first introduced in the 1820 case of West v. Randall. Later, in 1842, the U.S. Supreme Court established the Federal Equity Rules, which preceded the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, introducing Rule 48 to allow representative lawsuits when there were too many parties involved. Over time, Rule 48 was replaced in 1912 by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, marking the beginning of the modern class action system.
Today, Rule 23 outlines four criteria that must be met for a lawsuit to function as a class action: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy.
First, the class must be so numerous that filing individual claims would be impractical and inefficient. The second one is commonality- there must be common legal or factual questions on which the lawsuit is based. The claims of the class representative must align with and be typical of the claims of the entire class. Finally, to fulfill the adequacy requirement, the class representatives must fairly and adequately protect the interests of the entire class.
To initiate a class action, a complaint is filed with the relevant court, specifying the proposed class of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs’ counsel then requests the court to certify the lawsuit as a class action (as noted earlier with the lawsuits against Netflix). If the court determines that the case meets the Rule 23 criteria, it issues an order certifying the class action.
Another critical characteristic of class actions is the effect of the judgment—it is binding on all class members. Class actions are also frequently resolved through settlements, which are governed by Rule 23(e).
Class action lawsuits in European Union Law
The concept of class action lawsuits is not unfamiliar to European legal traditions, but it has developed much more slowly compared to other jurisdictions, such as the U.S. The European Union did not have a unified approach to this legal mechanism, so member states developed the concept independently.
In the early 2000s, the European Commission began exploring the possibility of a unified framework for class action lawsuits and, in 2008, published a Green Paper on collective redress, focusing on the need to establish effective mechanisms for consumer protection. Three years later, the Commission issued a White Paper that presented its proposals for the development of collective redress mechanisms in the Union. Based on the 2013 document, the Commission issued a recommendation urging member states to establish collective legal mechanisms, and four years later, it conducted a review and evaluation of how member states had implemented the guidelines from the recommendation.
The situation finally changed with the adoption of Directive (EU) 2020/1828 on representative actions for the protection of collective consumer interests in 2020. The main objectives of this Directive are consumer protection, ensuring access to justice, preventing abuse in legal proceedings, and creating a harmonized legal framework across the EU.
Although the inspiration for the Directive came from other class action systems, such as the U.S. model, the European Directive established a unique regime tailored to its cultural and legal context.
Four years later…
According to this Directive, member states were required to establish at least one procedural mechanism by June 2023 that meets the minimum standards set out in the Directive, enabling consumers to obtain collective legal protection in cases of violations of EU consumer protection laws.
The main requirements established by the Directive concern the submission of claims by so-called independent qualified entities, which each member state must designate (in practice, these are typically consumer protection organizations or public bodies), and these entities must be able to represent consumers and seek legal remedies on their behalf. Member states were given flexibility regarding procedural issues, such as whether class actions should operate on an opt-in or opt-out basis, which entities qualify as qualified bodies, as well as rules on document discovery and other matters.
Forum Shopping: What about the choice of jurisdiction?
When considering the situation where consumer class actions are typically aimed at businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions, the question of jurisdictional choice arises.
This Directive has indeed recognized the need for cross-border collective action procedures and has specified that the possibility of initiating proceedings depends on the application of the rules set out in Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012.
However, there is debate about the potential existence of multiple jurisdictions in which proceedings could be initiated. Hypothetically, if a claim could be filed in several countries, qualified entities would likely consider the specific regime for collective actions and the areas where flexibility is allowed, such as, for example, the certification procedure and the availability of third-party litigation funding.
Collective action in Serbia?
In 2013, the Constitutional Court ruled that the provisions of Articles 494 to 505 of the Civil Procedure Code were unconstitutional because, in short, they did not clearly define the concepts of collective rights and interests. The discussion about introducing collective actions in Serbia remains very active.
While collective actions are an effective tool for improving consumer protection, resolving mass litigation, and relieving court burdens, as we can see from the example of the European Union, it is not easy to introduce a new legal institution and ensure its effective implementation.
Note: This text does not constitute legal advice but represents the personal opinion of the author.
