What I stand for: access to justice
For me, it all starts with access to justice. At networking events and conferences, you often hear people in the Netherlands warn against 'American-style practices.' That says a great deal about how deeply rooted the perception is that collective actions are somehow impure, an unwanted development that we would rather keep at arm's length. I understand where that perception comes from. Stories about excessive damage claims, lawyers enriching themselves, and settlements in which the injured parties receive very little are exactly the kinds of examples the Dutch legal system seeks to avoid. But if you focus only on those stories, you miss what collective actions can actually achieve.
Collective actions exist for situations in which individual proceedings are simply not a realistic option, whether practically or financially. Someone affected by the diesel emissions scandal cannot realistically take on Volkswagen alone. A consumer who has overpaid because of a competition law violation is unlikely to recover those losses through an individual lawsuit. Not because the legal right does not exist, but because the barriers are simply too high. In situations like these, access to justice only becomes practical when claims are organized collectively.
That is where I see the true value of this work. And that is precisely why the way you organize a collective action matters. These cases involve large groups of people, complex interests, and substantial damages. Who takes on which role? Who bears which risks? Who gets paid, and when? And where might conflicting interests emerge?
The Netherlands has deliberately built safeguards into this system. Legislation, including the relatively recent WAMCA, sets clear requirements for how collective actions must be conducted. Organizations must be genuinely representative, have sound governance, and demonstrate that they safeguard the interests of the people they represent with due care. Not every foundation can simply file a claim on behalf of thousands of people. That is not an obstacle, but a prerequisite for ensuring that collective actions continue to provide meaningful access to justice.
Alongside those safeguards, collective actions depend on specialized parties, each with a clearly defined role. Law firms contribute legal expertise, claim foundations organize and represent the affected group, and litigation funders make proceedings possible that otherwise would never get off the ground. That may sound more controversial than it actually is. At its core, litigation funding is simply a form of risk-bearing financial support, much like legal expenses insurance. Litigation is uncertain, expensive, and often takes years. If a funder is willing to assume that risk, it is only reasonable that they receive a return if the case succeeds. Without that willingness, many collective actions would never be brought.
Catalyst's role is fundamentally different. We do not finance litigation, we do not act as legal counsel, and we do not represent the affected group. Our responsibility is to ensure that the organization surrounding a collective action functions effectively: the processes, the data, the communications, the administration, and the technology required to support it. That is why it is important to me that our own role remains clearly defined.
That is also why Catalyst works on a fixed monthly fee. We do not negotiate kickbacks, contingency fees, or success fees. Additional third-party services are passed on transparently at cost, without any markup. Not because other commercial models are inherently wrong, but because this structure best reflects our position as an independent service provider. If my compensation depends on the outcome of a case, I acquire a financial interest in that outcome myself. At that point, I am no longer purely a service provider, but also a stakeholder. For Catalyst, I do not believe that is the cleanest or most appropriate relationship.
Access to justice therefore does not begin in the courtroom. It begins with the way a collective action is organized: with professional parties, clearly defined roles, transparent costs, and as few hidden incentives as possible. Only then can a collective action remain what it is meant to be: a mechanism that makes access to justice possible for people who could never pursue it on their own.