-
Do you have a class action or collective redress mechanism? If so, please describe the mechanism.
Yes, Law No. 19,496 on the Protection of Consumers’ Rights (“LPC” for its Spanish acronym) contemplates a mechanism for the “protection of the collective or diffuse interest of consumers” (hereinafter, “class actions”). This mechanism is regulated in Title IV, third paragraph of the LPC (article 51 and subsequent articles of the LPC).
Class actions may only be initiated by a party entitled to do so (see point 2 below).
The class action is filed before the competent ordinary court, which conducts an admissibility examination (article 52, first paragraph of the LPC). Once admissibility has been declared, the defendant supplier has ten days to reply (article 52, second paragraph of the LPC). In addition, the court will order the publication of a notice in the media so that consumers who may have been affected by the conduct in question may take part in the class action (article 53 of the LPC).
Once the claim has been answered, the parties are summoned to a conciliation hearing (article 52, ninth paragraph of the LPC). If no agreement is reached, the court issues a resolution with the substantial, pertinent, and disputed facts, and an evidentiary period of twenty days is opened (article 52, twelfth paragraph of the LPC).
At the end of the evidentiary period, the court must issue its judgement, accepting or rejecting the class action. The judgement accepting the class action must comply with a series of requirements (article 53 C of the LPC, in accordance with article 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
An appeal may be filed against such judgement (article 53 C, third paragraph of the LPC).
-
Who may bring class action or collective redress proceeding? (e.g. qualified entities, consumers etc)
Class actions may only be initiated by a party entitled to do so: (a) the National Consumer Service (SERNAC); (b) a Consumer Association constituted at least six months prior to the filing of the class action, and which as to have the due authorization of its board of directors to do so; or (c) a group of consumers affected in the same interest, in a number no less than 50 people, properly identified (article 51, first paragraph, No.1 of the LPC).
-
Which courts deal with class actions or collective redress proceedings?
Class actions are heard by the ordinary courts of justice, in accordance with the general rules (article 50 A, first paragraph of the LPC). That is, the court with civil jurisdiction (article 134 and subsequent articles of the Organic Code of Courts).
Exceptionally, class actions for damages for violations of Decree Law No. 211 on the Defence of Competition must be brought before the Antitrust Court (“TDLC” per its Spanish acronym) (article 51, second paragraph of the LPC).
-
What types of conduct and causes of action can be relied upon as the basis for a class action or collective redress mechanism?
Collective actions are brought against acts, omissions or conduct that affect the exercise of the rights consumers, and in particular, when there is a breach of the rules of the LPC (article 50, first and second paragraphs of the LPC).
They may also apply to activities of production, manufacture, importation, construction, distribution and marketing of goods or provision of services regulated by special laws (article 2 bis letter b) of the LPC), and with respect to the personal data of consumers, within the framework of consumer relations (article 15 bis of the LPC).
Finally, the LPC establishes that the rights of all consumers are those established by laws, regulations and other rules containing provisions relating to the protection of their rights (article 3, final paragraph of the LPC). Therefore, the infringement of these rights would also give rise to the filing of a class action.
-
Are there any limitations of types of claims that may be brought on a collective basis?
There are generally no limitations.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, it should be noted that: (a) class actions must comply with the admissibility requirements set forth in article 52 of the LPC; (b) class actions may not affect the right of the consumer or user to appeal individually, in accordance with the procedure established by this law, before the corresponding court, in order to be indemnified for any damage originating from the breach of an obligation contracted by suppliers, provided that there are no indemnification procedures in such special laws (second article bis letter b) of the LPC); and (c) class actions may not be brought against suppliers that are subject to a Voluntary Collective Proceeding (“PVC”) before SERNAC (article 54 H, fourth paragraph of the LPC) (on PVC, see point 17 below).
-
How frequently are class actions brought?
Class actions were incorporated into the LPC on July 14, 2004 (Law No. 19,955). Since then, it is possible to distinguish four major periods.
Between 2004 and 2010, less than 40 class actions were filed, mainly against suppliers in the financial sector. During this period, only one final judgement was issued.
Between 2011 and 2013, there was an increase in the filing of class actions and the introduction of legal reforms that eliminated certain admissibility requirements to facilitate their filing and expedite their processing (Law No. 20,543 of October 21, 2011).
Between 2014 and 2018, the filing of class actions against service providers regulated by special laws, and actions for antitrust offenses, among others, stand out. Also noteworthy are the following amendments to the LPC: (a) Law No. 20,945 of August 30, 2016, which, among others, amends article 51 of the LPC and provides that class actions for damages for antitrust offenses will be processed before the TDLC; and (b) Law No. 21,081 of July 13, 2018, called Strengthening of the SERNAC, which, among others, significantly increased fines, and introduced the PVC (article 54 H and subsequent articles of the LPC).
Finally, between 2019 and this date, there has been a considerable increase in the number of class actions filed, especially as a result of sanctions imposed on service providers regulated by special laws, and in the context of e-commerce. Also noteworthy is the reform of the LPC by No. 21.398 of December 24, 2021, called Pro-Consumer. During this period, more than 140 class actions have been filed.
-
What are the top three emerging business risks that are the focus of class action or collective redress litigation?
As indicated in point 6 above, class actions originally focused on financial services because, according to the SERNAC statistics, this sector was the one in which the largest number of consumer complaints were concentrated.
Since then, class actions have been extended to multiple services, depending on the legislative modifications, the variation in the number of claims, or the communicational impact or media repercussion of an eventual affectation to consumers’ rights.
It is worth mentioning, for example, that due to the explosive increase in e-commerce during the Covid-19 pandemic, there was also an increase in claims associated with delays in the delivery of products, which resulted in the opening of PVCs and class actions.
-
Is your jurisdiction an “opt in” or “opt out” jurisdiction?
The enforceable judgment declaring the liability of the defendant or defendants will produce erga omnes effect, with the exception, among others, of the cases in which the reservation of rights allowed by article 53 of the LPC is made (article 54, first paragraph of the LPC). The interested parties may reserve their rights to pursue civil liability, both for pecuniary and moral damages, derived from the infringement in a different lawsuit, without it being possible to dispute the existence of the infringement already declared (article 54 C, second paragraph of the LPC). In view of the above, it could be said that the system is of the opt out type.
-
What is required (i.e. procedural formalities) in order to start a class action or collective redress claim?
As indicated in point 2 above, class actions can only be brought by the party entitled to do so (article 51, first paragraph No. 1 of the LPC).
In addition, class actions must comply with the following admissibility requirements: (a) the claim must have been filed by a party entitled to do so; and (b) the claim must comply with the requirements set forth in article 254 of the Code of Civil Procedure (article 52 of the LPC).
Article 254 of the Code of Civil Procedure states: “The complaint must contain: 1) The designation of the court before which it is filed; 2) The name, address and profession or trade of the plaintiff and of the persons representing him, and the nature of the representation, as well as a means of electronic notification of the sponsoring attorney and of the legal representative if not designated; 3) The name, address and profession or trade of the defendant; 4) A clear statement of the facts and legal grounds on which it is based; and 5) The precise and clear statement, consigned in the conclusion of the petitions that are submitted to the court’s decision”.
-
What remedies are available to claimants in class action or collective redress proceedings?
First, violations of the LPC are punishable by fines of up to 300 Monthly Tax Units (“UTM”) (USD 23,637), unless a different sanction has been established (article 24, first paragraph of the LPC). For example, false or misleading advertising will incur a fine of up to 1,500 UTM (USD 118,184) (article 24, second paragraph of the LPC). Failure to comply with the obligations established with respect to products whose use is potentially dangerous, or the provision of high-risk services will be sanctioned with a fine of up to 2,250 UTM (USD 177,276) (article 45, final paragraph of the LPC).
In the case of violations that, due to their nature, occur with regards to each of the consumers, the court may apply a fine for each consumer affected (article 24 A, second paragraph of the LPC and article 53 C, first paragraph, letter b) of the LPC), but it may not exceed 45,000 Annual Tax Units (USD 42,546,231).
Secondly, class actions may request compensation for damages including pecuniary damage and may also extend to moral damage provided that the physical or psychological integrity or dignity of consumers has been affected (article 51 No. 2, second paragraph of the LPC).
Finally, the LPC provides, among others, the following remedies: (a) the suspension of advertising broadcasts (article 31, first paragraph of the LPC); (b) the declaration of annulment of clauses that have been qualified as abusive (articles 16 and 16 A of the LPC); and (c) in accordance with the provisions of Title V of Book II of the Code of Civil Procedure, in qualified cases and only once the lawsuit has been admitted for processing, the judge may order as a precautionary measure that the supplier provisionally cease the collection of charges whose origin is being disputed in court (article 51, first paragraph No. 10 of the LPC).
-
Are punitive or exemplary damages available for class actions or collective redress proceedings?
In those cases, in which aggravating circumstances are present, the court may increase the amount of the corresponding compensation by 25% (article 53 C, first paragraph, letter c) of the LPC). The following are considered aggravating circumstances: (a) having been previously sanctioned for the same infraction; (b) having caused serious economic damage to consumers; (c) having seriously damaged the physical or psychological integrity of consumers or, in a serious manner, their dignity; or, (d) having endangered the safety of consumers or the community, even if no damage was caused (article 24, fifth paragraph of the LPC).
In cases of suspension, discontinuance or unjustified non-provision of drinking water, gas, sewage, electricity, telecommunications, telephone or garbage collection services, waste or toxic elements, the supplier must directly and automatically compensate the affected consumer for each day without supply, in an amount equivalent to 10 times the average daily value of the billed amount (article 25 A of the LPC).
-
Are class actions or collective redress proceedings subject to juries? If so, what is the role of juries?
As indicated in point 3 above, class actions are heard by the ordinary courts, in accordance with the general rules (article 50 A, first paragraph of the LPC). In the first instance, the ordinary courts are unipersonal. The hearing of these actions in the second instance corresponds to a collegiate chamber of the respective Court of Appeals.
Exceptionally, as indicated in point 3 above, class actions for damages for antitrust offenses are heard by the TDLC (collegiate court).
-
What is the measure of damages for class actions or collective redress proceedings?
Our legislation governs the principle of full reparation of damages.
By virtue of this principle, only the damages suffered and that can be proven in the corresponding judicial proceeding can be compensated. Therefore, the extent of the damages that will be compensated in the scope of a class action, which is heard by the ordinary courts of justice, will be determined by the proof of the damage suffered by the consumers. This includes both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
This principle of full reparation of damage, in consumer protection matters, derives from the inalienable right of all consumers “to adequate and timely reparation and compensation for all material and moral damages in the event of breach of any of the obligations assumed by the supplier” (article 3 letter e) of the LPC).
In the case of non-pecuniary damage, the above conclusion is confirmed by the provisions of article 51 No. 2 of the LPC which states: “The compensations determined in this procedure may be extended to moral damage whenever the physical or psychological integrity or dignity of consumers has been affected. If the facts invoked have caused such affectation, it will be a substantial, pertinent, and controversial fact in the resolution that receives the case to evidence”.
In the case of PVCs, since it is not a judicial proceeding, the rule that establishes the need for proof of damage is not applicable. Therefore, the measure of the damage to be compensated will be determined by the agreement reached by the parties.
In any case, Decree No. 56 approving the Regulation establishing the Voluntary Procedure for the Protection of the Collective or Diffuse Interest of Consumers (“PVC Regulation”) establishes the principle of consumer indemnity, according to which “The solution reached in the voluntary procedure for the protection of the collective or diffuse interest of consumers, in accordance with the provisions of article 54 P of Law No. 19. 496, will consider the reparation and/or indemnification for the benefit of consumers, which will be determined according to the circumstances of the case” (article 1° No. 1 of the PVC Regulation).
In addition, the resolution containing the terms of the agreement reached within the framework of a PVC must contain “The calculation of the respective refunds, compensations or indemnities for each of the affected consumers, when applicable” (article 54 P, second paragraph No. 2 of the LPC).
-
Are there any jurisdictional obstacles to class actions or collective redress proceedings?
According to general rules, class actions are heard by the ordinary courts (article 50 A of the LPC in connection with article 76 of the Political Constitution of the Republic and article 1 of the Organic Code of Courts). In particular, class actions are heard by the civil courts corresponding to the domicile of the defendant supplier (article 134 of the Organic Code of Courts).
On the other hand, it should be noted that plaintiffs who are parties to a class action may not subsequently file an individual action based on the same facts (article 51 of the LPC).
In addition, once the class action has been declared admissible, and the appeals filed against the resolution declaring it admissible have been rejected, a notice must be published in the media. After such publication, no person may file another lawsuit against the defendant based on the same facts (article 53, third paragraph of the LPC).
Finally, it is provided that the SERNAC may not initiate a PVC once class actions have been brought in respect of the same facts and while such actions are pending. On the other hand, once a PVC has been initiated, no one may bring a class action with respect to the same facts while the proceeding is pending (article 54 H of the LPC).
-
Are there any limits on the nationality or domicile of claimants in class actions or collective redress proceedings?
As indicated in point 2 above, class actions may be brought by a party entitled to do so (article 51, first paragraph No. 1 of the LPC).
The SERNAC is a public body of the State of Chile, while consumer associations are associations that must be constituted in Chile under the Chilean law.
However, regarding the consumers who may initiate a class action, the LPC does not establish limitations regarding the nationality or domicile of the parties entitled to bring a class action.
-
Do any international laws (e.g. EU Representative Actions Directive) impact the conduct of class actions or collective redress proceedings? If so, how?
There are no foreign legislations that affect the exercise of class actions or PVCs.
Notwithstanding the above, the SERNAC, in its capacity as the supervisory body of consumer regulations in our country, is a member of the International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network (ICPEN) and of the Ibero-American Forum of Government Agencies for Consumer Protection (FIAGC).
There are also certain cooperation agreements with the consumer agencies in Chile’s neighbour countries Peru (National Institute for the Defense of Competition and the Protection of Intellectual Property, “INDECOPI”) and Argentina (National Directorate for Consumer Protection, “DNDC”).
Also, in 2021, SERNAC approved the international review on consumer protection before the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), being the first country of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to do so. In addition, SERNAC constantly participates in the Consumer Policy Committee Meeting organized every year by the OECD, of which Chile has been a member since 2010.
However, there is no legislation in Chile that gives SERNAC the power to participate in the prosecution of infractions outside the country, apply foreign regulation, or prosecute foreign infractions in Chile.
-
Is there any mechanism for the collective settlement of class actions or collective redress proceedings?
The PVC is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for consumer disputes that aims precisely to reach an agreement between the parties. The PVC is defined as a procedure that “aims to obtain an expeditious, complete and transparent solution in the case of conduct that may affect the collective or diffuse interest of consumers”, which is achieved through an agreement (article 54 H of the LPC).
In the case of class actions, the parties may reach an agreement to terminate the lawsuit at the conciliation stage. This stage must be decreed prior to the beginning of the evidentiary period, and in it the judge acts as amiable mediator, trying to obtain a total or partial agreement for the litigation (article 52, nineth paragraph of the LPC). In any case, the judge may call the parties to conciliation as many times as he deems necessary (article 53 B of the LPC).
-
Is there any judicial oversight for settlements of class actions or collective redress mechanisms?
Both agreements reached in the framework of a class action or a PVC must have subsequent judicial approval.
In the case of class actions, it is stated that “Any settlement, conciliation or transaction must be submitted to the judge for approval”. It goes on to state that “In order to approve it, the judge must verify its conformity with the rules for the protection of consumer rights. The approval shall be without prejudice to the possible application of fines in case of violations of this law. However, the court shall consider the reparation of the damage caused by the supplier to reduce the amount of the fine up to 50%” (article 53 B of the LPC).
Then, we can indicate that, in the case of class actions: (a) the agreements must not contain a minimum content, but they must respect the rules on consumer protection; and (b) despite the fact that the parties reach an agreement, the supplier may still be sanctioned in the proceeding.
In the case of PVCs, it is established that the judge may reject the erga omnes effect if the agreement does not comply with the following minimum aspects: “1. The cessation of the conduct that could have affected the collective or diffuse interest of the consumers. 2. The calculation of the respective refunds, compensations, or indemnities for each of the affected consumers, when applicable. 3. A solution that is proportional to the damage caused, that reaches all the affected consumers and that is based on objective elements. 4. The way in which the terms of the agreement will be enforced and the procedure by which the supplier will make refunds, compensate, or indemnify the affected consumers. 5. The procedures through which compliance with the agreement will be enforced, at the expense of the supplier” (article 54 Q, second paragraph of the LPC in relation to article 54 P, second paragraph of the LPC).
-
How do class actions or collective redress proceedings typically interact with regulatory enforcement findings? e.g. competition or financial regulators?
Pursuant to article 2 bis of the LPC, it is not applicable to activities of production, manufacture, importation, construction, distribution, and commercialization of goods or rendering of services that are regulated by special laws. The foregoing, unless its application refers to (a) matters that special laws do not regulate; (b) the procedure for the defence of the collective or diffuse interest of consumers, when the special law does not contemplate it; and (c) the right of the consumer to appeal individually in order to be compensated, when the special law does not establish it.
However, in view of the existence of a special regulation and the application of sanctions by the corresponding authority, class actions have been filed to pursue the infringement and civil liability of these providers regulated by special laws (providers of continuous services, financial services, among others).
This has given rise to a series of discussions and doctrinal opinions. From the judicial perspective, although there are some cases in which the principles in question have been recognized, in other cases the Courts have ruled that the LPC also applies to these providers even when they are regulated by special rules. It is also interesting to note that, in another group of cases, the prior sanction of the sectoral body is recognised, and the class action is brought only to pursue the civil liability of the supplier.
-
Are class actions or collective redress proceedings being brought for ‘ESG’ matters? If so, how are those claims being framed?
We are not aware of any class actions filed exclusively for environmental, social and governance (‘ESG’) criteria.
Notwithstanding the above, the LPC contemplates a special case of misleading advertising by virtue of which it is considered that the supplier incurs in this type of advertising who, knowingly or knowingly and through any type of advertising message, misleads or deceives consumers with respect to the condition of not producing damage to the environment, to the quality of life and of being recyclable or reusable the good or service offered (article 28 letter f) of the LPC).
In addition, a class action is currently pending in which a gas company providing network gas services is alleged to have engaged in acts of bad governance. In particular, the supplier is alleged to have set up a “paper” company in order to increase its production costs and thereby charge consumers more for the service it provides (“Organización de Consumidores de Chile con Metrogas S.A.”, Rol C-8.940-2021, 9° Juzgado Civil de Santiago).
Finally, it is worth mentioning that the adoption of a specific compliance plan in the matters to which the respective infringement refers and which has been previously approved by the SERNAC is considered as a substantial collaboration of the infringer with the SERNAC, which in turn constitutes an attenuating circumstance that must be considered when establishing the corresponding fine (article 24, fourth paragraph letter c) of the LPC).
-
Is litigation funding for class actions or collective redress proceedings permitted?
Litigation funding, understood as an activity in which a private investor, external to the litigation, invests in the procedure and pays the costs and other expenses of a party, in order to receive a percentage of the amounts that this party may receive, is not expressly permitted in our legislation.
Notwithstanding the above, the LPC provides for the creation of a Competitive Fund to finance the initiatives that consumer associations develop in fulfilment of their objectives. This Fund is composed of (a) the contributions that each year are contemplated in the SERNAC’s budget; (b) donations made for this purpose by national or international non-profit organisations; and (c) the remainders not transferred or claimed from solutions reached through voluntary procedures for the protection of the collective or diffuse interest of consumers or in the context of class action lawsuits (article 11 bis of the LPC).
-
Are contingency fee arrangements permissible for the funding of class actions or collective redress proceedings?
Our legislation does not prohibit the setting of contingency fees, success fees or “litigation fees”. Therefore, their establishment would be accepted in the case of lawyers representing the interests of 50 or more consumers in the framework of a class action.
Regarding consumer associations, the LPC states that under no circumstances may they: “distribute procedural and personal costs, surpluses, profits or pecuniary benefits of their activities among the founding members, directors, partners, persons related to the above (…), or workers, without prejudice to the legal gratuities that correspond to them”. It is added that “The income obtained from its activities shall be used exclusively for its financing, institutional development, research, studies or for the support of its objectives, which only obtain as profit the costs of the case” (article 9 letter b) of the LPC).
Finally, it is worth mentioning that the SERNAC has defined a series of guidelines regarding the costs that correspond to the legitimised parties and other actors in a class action (see: Interpretative Circular on “Legal duties and good practices for litigants during the processing of proceedings for the defence of the collective or diffuse interest of consumers”, approved by the SERNAC Exempt Resolution No. 71 of 6 February 2021, section “8. On costs”, pp. 12-14, available at: https://www.sernac.cl/portal/618/articles-60272_archivo_01.pdf, accessed on 30 April 2023).
-
Can a court make an ‘adverse costs’ order against the unsuccessful party in class actions or collective redress proceedings?
As a general rule, the party who is unsuccessful in a class action is liable to pay the costs incurred in bringing the suit (article 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
In addition, the defendant may request the judge to declare the claim to be frivolous, if the complaint or claim lacks plausible grounds. In the event that the claim is declared reckless, the plaintiffs will be sanctioned with fines of up to 300 UTM (USD 23,637) (article 50 E, first paragraph of the LPC, in relation to articles 24 and 51 No. 1 of the LPC).
The above is without prejudice to the corresponding disciplinary sanctions against the lawyers who filed the lawsuit and the joint and several criminal and civil liability of the authors for the damages they may have caused (article 50 E, first paragraph, final part of the LPC, in relation to articles 530 and following of the Organic Code of the Courts, and article 50 E, second paragraph of the LPC).
-
Are there any proposals for the reform of class actions or collective redress proceedings? If so, what are those proposals?
The following draft laws are currently being processed, which aim to amend the process for the “protection of the collective or diffuse interest of consumers”:
- Bulletin No. 12.328-03, Amending Law No. 19.496, which establishes rules on the protection of consumers’ rights, regarding the special procedure for the protection of the collective or diffuse interest of consumers. Through this project, it is intended to modify the current article 51 No. 8 of Law No. 19.496, which currently establishes: “All appeals granted in this procedure will be added as extraordinary to the table of the day following the entry of the proceedings to the respective Court of Appeals, with the exception of what is indicated in article 53 C, in which case the case will be included in the table of the week following that of its entry to the Court”, replacing the expression “following” with the phrase “subsequent working week”. This bill was introduced on 18 December 2018 and was noticed on 19 December 2018. However, the bill remains in the Committee on Economy, Development; Micro, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, Consumer Protection and Tourism, with no progress to date.
- Bulletin No. 10.111-03, Amending Law No. 19.496, which establishes Rules on the Protection of Consumers’ Rights, to grant preference in the judicial processing of actions based on collective or diffuse interests. The aim of this bill is to incorporate a new final paragraph to article 50 of Law No. 19.496, which reads as follows: “Actions in which the protection of collective and diffuse interests is promoted will have preference for their hearing and ruling in the courts of appeals”. The bill was introduced on 9 June 2015 and on 11 June 2015 it passed to the Committee on Economy, Development and Development. Then, on 18 March 2021, it was agreed to merge it with the bills Bulletins No. 9282-03, No. 9283-03, No. 9709-03, No. 9735-03, No. 9743-03, No. 9982-03, No. 9991-03, No. 10006-03, No. 10111-03, No. 10152-03, No. 10275-03, No. 10418-03, No. 10632-03, No. 10650-03, No. 10724-03, No. 10880-03, No. 10957-03, No. 11232-03, No. 11285-03, No. 11360-03, No. 11659-03, No. 11679-03, No. 11799-03, No. 11835-03, No. 11924-03, No. 12053-03, No. 12054-03, No. 12055-03, No. 12099-03, No. 12110-03, No. 12111-03, No. 12123-03, No. 12151-03, No. 2166-03, No. 12258-03, No. 12265-03, No. 12293-03, No. 12295-03, No. 12502-03, No. 12503-03, No. 12684-03, No. 12727-03, No. 12742-03, No. 12793-03, No. 12814-03, No. 12858-03, No. 12859-03, No. 12936-03, No. 12984-03, No. 13150-03, No. 13239-03, No. 13282-03, No. 13540-03, No. 13578-03, No. 13599-03, No. 13623-03, No. 13708-03, No. 13841-03 and No. 13858-03. However, on the 25th of the same month it was decided to reprocess it separately from these projects.
- Bulletin No. 11.360-03, Amends Law No. 19.496, which establishes Rules on the Protection of Consumers’ Rights, regarding the requirement relating to the number of persons who may bring a class action. The purpose of this bill is to amend letter c) of article 51 of Law No. 19.496, reducing the number of consumers who, as a group, can bring a class action from 50 to 30. The bill was introduced on 7 August 2017 and on 9 August 2017 it passed to the Committee on Economy, Development; Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Consumer Protection and Tourism. Then on 18 March 2021 it was agreed to merge it with Bulletins No. 9282-03, No. 9283-03, No. 9709-03, No. 9735-03, No. 9743-03, No. 9982-03, No. 9991-03, No. 10006-03, No. 10111-03, No. 10152-03, No. 12742-03, No. 12793-03, No. 12814-03, No. 12858-03, No. 12859-03, No. 12936-03, No. 12984-03, No. 13150-03, No. 13239-03, No. 13282-03, No. 13540-03, No. 13578-03, No. 13599-03, No. 13623-03, No. 13708-03, No. 13841-03, and No. 13858-03. However, on the 25th of the same month it was decided to reprocess it separately from these bills.
Chile: Class Actions
This country-specific Q&A provides an overview of Class Actions laws and regulations applicable in Chile.
-
Do you have a class action or collective redress mechanism? If so, please describe the mechanism.
-
Who may bring class action or collective redress proceeding? (e.g. qualified entities, consumers etc)
-
Which courts deal with class actions or collective redress proceedings?
-
What types of conduct and causes of action can be relied upon as the basis for a class action or collective redress mechanism?
-
Are there any limitations of types of claims that may be brought on a collective basis?
-
How frequently are class actions brought?
-
What are the top three emerging business risks that are the focus of class action or collective redress litigation?
-
Is your jurisdiction an “opt in” or “opt out” jurisdiction?
-
What is required (i.e. procedural formalities) in order to start a class action or collective redress claim?
-
What remedies are available to claimants in class action or collective redress proceedings?
-
Are punitive or exemplary damages available for class actions or collective redress proceedings?
-
Are class actions or collective redress proceedings subject to juries? If so, what is the role of juries?
-
What is the measure of damages for class actions or collective redress proceedings?
-
Are there any jurisdictional obstacles to class actions or collective redress proceedings?
-
Are there any limits on the nationality or domicile of claimants in class actions or collective redress proceedings?
-
Do any international laws (e.g. EU Representative Actions Directive) impact the conduct of class actions or collective redress proceedings? If so, how?
-
Is there any mechanism for the collective settlement of class actions or collective redress proceedings?
-
Is there any judicial oversight for settlements of class actions or collective redress mechanisms?
-
How do class actions or collective redress proceedings typically interact with regulatory enforcement findings? e.g. competition or financial regulators?
-
Are class actions or collective redress proceedings being brought for ‘ESG’ matters? If so, how are those claims being framed?
-
Is litigation funding for class actions or collective redress proceedings permitted?
-
Are contingency fee arrangements permissible for the funding of class actions or collective redress proceedings?
-
Can a court make an ‘adverse costs’ order against the unsuccessful party in class actions or collective redress proceedings?
-
Are there any proposals for the reform of class actions or collective redress proceedings? If so, what are those proposals?