Understanding Efficiency and Representation as Objectives of a Class Action

The author examines the legal nature of class actions using a teleological approach. The paper provides an overview of the prevailing ideas and discussions in the literature about the targeted orientation of a class action. In particular, the two most significant goals are described in detail: efficiency and representation. The author emphasizes that structurally they are two-component: the goal of efficiency is related to the recovery of compensation and monetary restraint; the goal of representation is related to the accessibility of justice and the adoption of new legal norms. Within the framework of the analysis of the provisions of the legal doctrine, the author substantiates that giving priority to a particular purpose of a class action significantly limits the understanding of its legal nature and does not contribute to its assessment as an integral procedural and legal instrument. In addition, the author draws attention to the economic aspect of a class action, which, by combining separate claims related to similar circumstances, makes the initiation of the process financially expedient for plaintiffs, whose court costs are evenly distributed among all members of the group. On the other hand, class actions contribute to reducing the costs of defendants who may oppose several claims in a single trial. The burden on the judicial system is also reduced due to a smaller number of initiated cases. The paper argues that the objectives of a class action should be considered in their unity. This approach allows us to turn to a broader understanding of the class action and to identifying its key features, some of which relate to efficiency, and some – to the goal of representation. The author concludes that only a coordinated understanding of the objectives of a class action can become the basis for a clearer understanding of its legal nature and improvement of procedural legislation.

1. Cabraser E. The Class Abides: Class Actions and the «Roberts Court.» Akron Law Review. 2015;48:4.

2. Coffee J. Reforming the Securities Class Action: An Essay on Deterrence and Its Implementation. Columbia Law Review. 2006;106:1.

3. Eizenga M. Class Actions Law and Practice. Markham; 1999.

4. Fiss O. The Political Theory ofthe Class Action. Washington and Lee Law Review. 1996;53:1.

5. Fitzpatrick B. An Empirical Look at Compensation in Consumer Class Actions. NYU Journal of Law & Business. 2015;7:1.

6. Fitzpatrick B. Do Class Action Lawyers Make Too Little? University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 2010;44:1.

7. Fitzpatrick B. The Cambridge Handbook of Class Actions: An International Survey. Cambridge; 2021.

8. Fitzpatrick B. The End of Class Actions? Arizona Law Review. 2015;57:1.

9. Gelbach J. What We Don’t Know About Class Actions but Hope to Know Soon. Fordham Law Review. 2018;87:1.

10. Gilles M. Exploding the Class Action Agency Costs Myth: The Social Utility of Entrepreneurial Lawyers. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 2006;155:1.

11. Harris E. Let’s Keep it Real: Judicial Management of Civil Costs. Law Institute Journal. 2013;87:6.

12. Issacharo S. Preclusion, Due Process, and the Right to Opt Out of Class Actions. Notre Dame Law Review. 2002;77:4.

13. Jones C. Theory of Class Actions. Toronto; 2003.

14. Lahav A. Are Class Actions Unconstitutional? Michigan Law Review. 2011;109:6.

15. Lahav A. The Political Justification for Group Litigation. Fordham Law Review. 2013;81:6.

16. Lahav A. Two Views of the Class Action. Fordham Law Review. 2011;79:5.

17. Marcus D. The History of the Modern Class Action, Part I: Sturm Und Drang, 1953–1980. Washington University Law Review. 2013;90:3.

18. Maureen C. Class Action Myopia. Duke Law Journal. 2016;65:5.

19. Mullenix L. Ending Class Actions as We Know Them: Rethinking the American Class Action. Emory Law Journal. 2014;64:2.

20. Redish M. Class Actions and the Democratic Difficulty: Rethinking the Intersection of Private Litigation and Public Goals. University of Chicago Legal Forum. 2003;1.

21. Redish M. Wholesale Justice: Constitutional Democracy and the Problem of the Class Action Lawsuit. Stanford; 2009.

22. Rubenstein W. Why Enable Litigation?: A Positive Externalities Theory of the Small Claims Class Action. UMKC Law Review. 2006;74:10.

23. Whalen-Bridge H. The Role of Lawyers in Access to Justice: Asian and Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge; 2022.