Charles River Associates experts Johannes Dittrich and Lars Wiethaus co-edited the latest issue of Competition Law & Policy Debate (Vol. 9, Issue 3–4) published by Edward Elgar Publishing, bringing together leading practitioners to examine the evolving landscape of European competition damages litigation.
A decade after the EU Damages Directive aimed to expand private enforcement, this collection highlights how the field is entering a new phase of complexity and divergence. Contributions explore how courts across jurisdictions approach evidential standards, particularly the role of economic and econometric analysis in establishing harm and quantifying damages. While some courts rely heavily on detailed econometric models, others adopt more qualitative or estimation-based approaches, reflecting ongoing debate around how best to balance accuracy, accessibility, and fairness in damages assessment.
The issue also examines the fragmented procedural landscape for collective redress in Europe. While the UK has emerged as a leading forum for class actions, developments across EU Member States remain uneven following the implementation of the Representative Actions Directive. Authors assess the implications of this divergence, including the continued reliance on alternative mechanisms such as assignment models, the role of litigation funding, and the influence of forum selection on case strategy.
Looking beyond traditional cartel enforcement, the issue explores the expanding scope of private damages claims, including cases involving abuse of dominance under Article 102 and emerging litigation tied to the Digital Markets Act (DMA). These areas present new challenges for causation and quantification, requiring frameworks that can address complex theories of harm and evolving market dynamics.
Together, the contributions provide a comprehensive view of a practice area at an inflection point—defined by shifting evidential standards, procedural fragmentation, and substantive expansion. As competition damages litigation continues to evolve, this issue offers valuable insights for practitioners navigating an increasingly dynamic and jurisdictionally diverse landscape.
