Yes, Italian law provides for class actions and collective redress mechanisms, governed by a comprehensive legal framework that defines both the substantive requirements and the procedural aspects of such actions, while also referring to the general principles of civil procedure. The main legal sources are Articles 840-bis et seq. of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure (as amended by Law No. 31 of 12 April 2019), Articles 140-ter et seq. of the Consumer Code (Legislative Decree No. 206 of 6 September 2005), and Legislative Decree No. 198 of 20 December 2009.

Italian law provides for three main types of class actions and collective redress mechanisms.

Class actions governed by Articles 840-bis et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (Royal Decree no. 1443 of 28 October 1940) may be brought by representative organisations or by individual members of the class against enterprises or bodies managing public services or public utilities. Such class actions can be aimed at either compensatory or injunctive relief:

1. compensatory class actions may be brought in relation to the breach of homogeneous individual rights (“diritti individuali omogenei”) resulting from acts or omissions incurred by the defendant(s) in the course of their activities. By such class actions, plaintiffs can seek a declaration of liability as well as compensation and/or restitution in the interest of the class members. Such class actions consist of two main phases: a preliminary phase and a decision-making phase. In the preliminary phase, the court rules on the admissibility of the action. The action is ruled admissible if (i) it is not manifestly unfounded, (ii) there is no conflict of interests between the claimant(s) and the defendant(s), (iii) it concerns homogeneous individual rights, and (iv) the claimant(s) appear(s) capable of taking adequate care of the latter. If it admits the action, the court must define the relevant class and set a time limit for class members – who are represented by a court-appointed class representative – to join the action. Following any joinders and the required evidence gathering, the court rules on the class members’ claims, by liquidating the amounts owed to each original individual plaintiff and by setting uniform liquidation criteria for the other class members who have joined in the action. In this latter instance, the court sets a deadline for the approval of a detailed liquidation schedule by the parties, failing which liquidation is made by the court in respect of all members of the class;
2. injunctive class actions seek the issuing of a cease-and-desist order, by which the court orders the defendant(s) to desist from a conduct harming the interests of a number of natural or legal persons. Procedure is simplified and more flexible compared to compensatory class actions, in that the course of the proceedings is largely determined by the court itself.

National or cross-border representative actions governed by Articles 140-ter et seq. of the Consumer Code (Legislative Decree no. 206 of 6 September 2005) may be brought by registered Italian or EU consumer organisations against natural or legal persons acting in the course of their trade, business, craft or profession, in relation to breaches of specific EU-derived consumer protection provisions. Such class actions can be aimed at either compensatory or injunctive relief and were introduced in 2023 by way of transposition of Directive (EU) 2020/1828.

Finally, the so-called actions for the efficiency of public administrations (also known as public class actions), governed by Legislative Decree no. 198 of 20 December 2009, may be brought by users or consumers of public services, holding legally relevant and homogeneous interests (“interessi giuridicamente rilevanti ed omogenei”), or by representative organisations thereof, against public administrations or concessionaires of public services, seeking a court order that compels the defendants to abide by its statutorily or regulatorily mandated service performance standards, or to set service performance standards as required by law or regulation.

The development of class actions and collective redress mechanisms in Italy has its roots in consumer protection policy. Historically, the Italian legal system did not recognize any form of class action or collective redress until relatively recently. It was only in 2005, with the enactment of the Consumer Code, that renewed legislative attention was directed toward strengthening consumer rights, inspired in part by comparative experiences—most notably from the United States.

In 2009, this policy direction led to the first introduction of collective redress provisions within the Consumer Code, marking the formal entry of class actions into the Italian legal framework. The same year also saw the introduction of public class actions aimed at improving the efficiency of public administrations. Both mechanisms were conceptually based on in the idea of protecting individuals in their roles as users or consumers of goods and services.

A significant evolution occurred in 2019, when the Italian legislature enacted a major reform that relocated the legal framework for class actions from the Consumer Code to the Code of Civil Procedure. This reform not only systematised the procedural rules governing class actions but also significantly expanded their scope. The new provisions introduced the broader concept of “homogeneous rights” as the basis for collective redress, allowing for actions beyond the traditional consumer context.

This shift reflects, among other factors, an institutional recognition of the burden on the Italian judiciary and the strategic value of procedural consolidation. By centralizing claims with common factual or legal elements before a single court, the collective redress mechanism serves as a tool to increase judicial efficiency and reduce systemic overload.

Importantly, the 2019 reform did not render obsolete the original representative actions under the Consumer Code. On the contrary, these actions remain in force and continue to play a distinct and complementary role, reflecting the origins of collective redress in Italy as a tool primarily designed to protect consumers.

Until recently, class actions governed by the Code of Civil Procedure were seldom brought in Italy. However, recent data show a significant increase. As of 2025, the Italian Ministry of Justice’s public online platform lists 81 class actions filed since the introduction of the new collective redress framework. Of these, 36 were brought under the Civil Procedure Code, with a steady increase in the number of filings: 4 cases in 2021, 6 in 2022, 11 in 2023, 14 in 2024 and 2 already registered in 2025.

Even more significant is the increase in national representative actions governed by the Consumer Code. 31 such actions have been filed in the past three years, which represents a significant increase compared to the previous representative action system. In particular, 20 of such actions were launched in 2024, following 6 in 2023, and already 6 in 2025.

A further 14 collective actions were registered on the Ministry’s platform without sufficient information to classify them as either class actions or national representative actions.

Actions for the efficiency of public administrations remain quite rare and continue to represent only a marginal part of collective redress litigation.

Although class actions still represent a small proportion of total litigation in Italy, the marked increase in recent years – particularly in 2023 and 2024 – indicates a growing awareness and use of collective redress mechanisms, especially in sectors such as consumer protection, financial services and digital markets. These actions show how collective redress is increasingly being used to respond to violations of fundamental rights in sensitive areas.

Recent trends in collective redress litigation in Italy indicate that the most common claims concern breaches of consumer protection law, rather than competition law or traditional commercial litigation.

The majority of collective actions have targeted unfair commercial practices (such as misleading advertising, failure to deliver purchased goods, and the use of unfair contract terms). In particular, a significant portion of these actions has arisen in the financial services sector. Examples include actions against banks and credit institutions for failing to reimburse upfront costs upon early loan repayment or for misrepresenting the nature of investment and insurance products.

In the Italian legal system, the term ‘class action’ refers to proceedings aimed at the direct protection of homogeneous rights, while the term ‘collective redress’ refers more broadly to actions aimed at the indirect protection of collective consumer interests, typically through initiatives brought by representative organisations.

For class actions under the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, a practical trigger may arise from the activism of consumer or citizen associations or organizations. Such associations and organizations act as the main catalysts for actions by individuals that are directly affected by the specific conduct of an enterprise. In these contexts, it is typical for the association’s or organization’s promoters to be themselves directly affected by the relevant corporate conduct. Conversely, class actions that are purely individual-driven are still quite rare in Italy.

The role of associations and organizations is even more pre-eminent in the case of representative actions under the Consumer Code, the initiative is linked to the activity of a category association. In this context, the trigger does not necessarily concern specific individual positions, but rather involves a broader pattern of conduct identified by the associations or organizations. Indeed, in the case of representative actions, it is possible to bring a class action based solely on conduct identified by associations as potentially harmful. If the action is deemed admissible, the members of the class are then given the right to join the action. This flexibility ensures that class actions may be brought in a wide range of situations, even where the harm is not immediately apparent but is believed to have the potential to affect a broad group of individuals.

The only general provision in this respect is Article 840-ter of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that the court may abstain from ruling on the admissibility of a compensatory class action if an investigation on the relevant facts is pending before an independent administrative authority (autorità amministrativa indipendente).

Specific provisions apply in the realm of antitrust law.

In this respect, Article 7 of Italian Legislative Decree no. 3 of 19 January 2017 (transposing Directive 2014/104/EU) provides that final decisions by the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) finding a violation of antitrust law have binding effect on all Italian civil courts regarding the existence and unlawfulness of the relevant anticompetitive conduct.

This provision clearly facilitates any civil actions, including class actions, aimed at compensation and/or restitution arising from violations of antitrust law, since the court can rely on the AGCM’s findings regarding the alleged anticompetitive conduct.

The above civil actions, including class actions, are further facilitated by Articles 4, 5 and 6 of Legislative Decree no. 3, which provide that the court:

1. may compel the production of evidence contained in the investigation files of the AGCM or of another national competition authority of the European Union, if no party to the proceedings is able to submit such evidence;
2. may admit evidence obtained by a party through access to the investigation files of the AGCM or of another national competition authority of the European Union;
3. may request the AGCM to submit appropriate guidelines on the quantification of damages arising from the relevant anticompetitive conduct.

As regards class actions governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, no restrictions as to subject matter apply besides the requirement that uniform relief is sought against a breach of homogeneous individual rights (“diritti individuali omogenei”) – to be understood as protected legal interests that are uniformly harmed by one unlawful conduct or pattern of conduct – or, in the case of injunctive class actions, against a conduct harming the interests of a number of natural or legal persons. Class actions governed by the Code of Civil Procedure can, therefore, rely on statutory as well as contractual or non-contractual causes of actions.

Differently, national or cross-border representative actions governed by the Consumer Code can solely rely on the alleged breach of one or more of the EU-derived consumer protection provisions listed in Annex II-septies of the Consumer Code. These provisions concern, for instance, liability for defective products, unfair terms in consumer contracts, air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage, food safety, unfair commercial practices and personal data protection.

Finally, actions for the efficiency of public administrations can solely rely on the alleged failure to implement service performance standards as required of the defendant by force of statute or regulation.

Compensatory class actions governed by the Code of Civil Procedure are aimed at the issuing a declaration of liability on the part of the defendant(s) as well as compensation and/or restitution.

Injunctive class actions governed by the Code of Civil Procedure are aimed at the issuing of a cease-and-desist order by the court.

Similarly, national or cross-border representative actions governed by the Consumer Code can be aimed at either compensatory or injunctive relief. Compensatory relief can consist of either the payment of a sum of money, repair, replacement, price reduction, rescission of the contract or reimbursement of the price paid, depending on the EU-derived consumer protection provisions that are relevant to the case. Injunctive relief consists of a cease-and-desist order.

Finally, actions for the efficiency of public administrations are aimed at the issuing of an order by the court, compelling the relevant defendant to comply.

Class actions governed by the Code of Civil Procedure may be brought by natural or legal persons that are individual members of the relevant class, and/or by non-profit organisations or associations whose statutory purposes include the protection of the relevant homogeneous individual rights (“diritti individuali omogenei”) and that are registered on a list maintained by the Italian Ministry of Justice.

National or cross-border representative actions governed by the Consumer Code may be brought by one or more:

1. nationally representative consumer or user associations based in Italy that are registered on a list maintained by the Italian Ministry of Enterprises and Made in Italy;
2. nationally representative consumer or user associations based in another EU Member State that are registered on the list maintained by the EU Commission pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 1, of Directive (EU) 2020/1828;
3. national public authorities designated by a EU Member State as responsible for enforcing EU consumer protection legislation, as defined by Article 3(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2394.

Actions for the efficiency of public administrations may be brought by natural or legal persons that are users or consumers of the relevant public service, and/or by associations or committees formed by such users or consumers.

In class actions governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, there are no limits on the nationality or domicile of claimants that are individual members of the relevant class. Differently, non-profit organisations or associations cannot act as claimants in such class actions if their registered office is outside the European Union.

In national or cross-border representative actions governed by the Consumer Code, claimants must be based in the European Union as explained in the answer to Question 10 above.

Finally, there are no specific limits on the nationality or domicile of claimants in actions for the efficiency of public administrations.

In the Italian legal system, there are no noteworthy limitations on the size or type of the class in class actions or collective redress proceedings.

Yes, there are specific requirements regarding the definition and composition of the class in Italian class action proceedings, and certain prohibitions apply.

Although the class may be described in general terms in the initial petition, it is ultimately the responsibility of the court to define the class. To do so, the court requires supporting documentation to substantiate the claims of potential class members. This ensures that the individuals included share the same homogeneous wrights that are necessary for the action to proceed.

A crucial admissibility condition is also the absence of any conflict of interest between the claimant and the defendant. The existence of such a conflict is one of the grounds on which the action may be declared inadmissible.

The first-instance stage of class actions governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as of national or cross-border representative actions governed by the Consumer Code, is generally dealt with by the specialised business section of the ordinary court (tribunale) of the place where the defendant maintains its registered office. There are 22 first-instance courts in Italy with a specialised business section (namely those of Ancona, Bari, Bologna, Bolzano, Brescia, Cagliari, Campobasso, Catania, Catanzaro, Florence, Genoa, L’Aquila, Milan, Naples, Palermo, Perugia, Potenza, Rome, Turin, Trento, Trieste and Venice). In antitrust matters, however, only the specialised business sections of the courts of Milan, Rome and Naples have jurisdiction. Appeals are dealt with by the relevant court of appeal (corte di appello) and, as the court of last resort, by the Supreme Court of Cassation (Suprema Corte di Cassazione).

The first-instance stage of actions for the efficiency of public administrations is dealt with by the regional administrative court (tribunale amministrativo regionale) of the place where the defendant maintains its registered office. Appeals are dealt with by the Council of State (Consiglio di Stato) and, as the court of last resort in matters of jurisdiction, by the Supreme Court of Cassation.

There are no ad hoc rules on jurisdiction regarding class actions or collective redress proceedings. Accordingly, jurisdiction is determined according to the generally applicable provisions of EU and Italian law, including Regulation (EU) 2012/1215, as interpreted by the EU Court of Justice and the Italian courts (most importantly, the Supreme Court of Cassation), even in the event of a foreign defendant.

Regarding the separation between ordinary jurisdiction and administrative jurisdiction, it has been suggested by some authors that it should not be possible to bring class actions before the ordinary courts if the subject matter thereof falls within the domain of the so-called exclusive jurisdiction of the administrative courts, i.e. subject matters that would ordinarily fall under the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts but are expressly reserved to the administrative courts by law. This view is, however, disputed.

Italy is an opt-in jurisdiction.

Members of a class may join a compensatory class action governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, or a national or cross-border representative action governed by the Consumer Code, within a court-set deadline after the court admits the class action or after the court rules on the class members’ claims in favour of the latter. Members of the class join in the action by filing a standard online application form established by a decree of the Italian Minister of Justice.

Differently, members of a class may join an action for the efficiency of public administrations up to 20 days before the first hearing in the case, by serving the other parties with a brief of appearance and then filing it with the court.

Class actions governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as representative actions governed by the Consumer Code, are initiated by filing an application with the competent court. The court then sets the date for the first hearing of the parties, by an order which the applicant must serve on the defendant(s) alongside the application. The application and the order are published by the court’s clerk on a public online platform of the Italian Ministry of Justice. No class actions or representative actions may be brought on the basis of the same fact pattern and against the same defendant(s) once 60 days have elapsed from the day on which the application and the order are so published.

Actions for the efficiency of public administrations can only be brought if the plaintiff(s) has served prior notice on the relevant public administration(s) or concessionaire(s) of public services, demanding compliance by a deadline of no less than 90 days. The plaintiff(s) can then serve and subsequently file an application with the competent court, in which they must state that the defendant(s) have not fully remedied their state of non-compliance within the allotted 90 days or more. The application must be published on the defendant(s)’s website(s), and must be notified by the court’s clerk to the Italian Minister for Public Administration.

In addition to the general admissibility criteria, Italian class actions are subject to several mandatory procedural requirements.

1. Publication on the PST portal: the class-action petition, together with the court’s decree setting the date for the hearing, must be published by the competent court registry on the public area of the Ministry of Justice’s Telematic Services Portal (PST) within 10 days of the filing of the decree.
2. Modalities for adhesion: potential class members may join the action only by submitting a formal adhesion request through the dedicated PST procedure provided for in the Italian Code of Civil Procedure. Intervention by means of a standard third-party appearance, as permitted in ordinary civil proceedings, is expressly prohibited.
3. Timely performance of procedural “propulsive” acts: certain key acts must be performed within certain time limits or the right to pursue the action will lapse or be deemed inadmissible. These include (i) payment of the litigation fund; (ii) submission of any additional evidence or integrations requested by the court in its admissibility order; (iii) appeals against interlocutory orders on admissibility, which must be lodged with the Court of Appeal within 30 days of notification or communication.

Although the law does not prescribe fixed deadlines for certain procedural steps, their timely completion is essential for the continuation and effectiveness of the proceedings. For instance, the payment of the litigation fund, once determined by the court—typically in the order admitting the class action—must be made within the time implicitly required to comply with the court’s order. Failure to do so may jeopardise the progression of the action or the admissibility of individual adhesions. Similarly, if the court requests additional documents or integrations it may set a specific deadline. In such cases, failure to comply within the prescribed deadline may result in forfeiture or inadmissibility.

In the context of these proceedings, the relevant regulations specifically govern the course of the procedure, which differs from the ordinary procedure. It is based on a special accelerated procedure, which also presents specific characteristics compared to the ordinary procedure. Moreover, the procedure is structured in two phases, as described in the answer to Question 1 above.

However, despite these specificities, the general principles established in the Civil Procedure Code continue to apply. In particular, principles such as those relating to the conditions for the existence of Italian civil jurisdiction or the validity of certain types of evidence remain applicable in this particular context.

It is difficult to establish a typical duration for collective action proceedings, as we have noted that their duration can easily vary significantly from case to case. This is because the duration of a case depends on several factors affected by a high degree of unpredictability, such as the complexity of the legal or factual issues involved and the court’s familiarity with the peculiarities of collection action proceedings.

Please see the answer to Question 9 above.

Italian law does not contemplate punitive or exemplary damages.

Please note, however, that following a successful compensatory class action governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, the court must order the defendant(s) to pay a special reward to the class representative and to each of the lawyers representing the successful class members. Such amounts are determined by the law as a percentage (depending on the number of class members) of the total compensation or restitution awarded to the class members, and can be raised or lowered up to 50 percent at the court’s discretion.

The competence to decide on the admissibility order and on the merits of the case lies with the specialised business section of the ordinary court, which rules in a collegial composition.

Italian law does not provide for the use of juries in civil proceedings, and class actions or collective redress proceedings are no exception.

Damages in class actions and collective redress proceedings are awarded on the basis of the “full compensation” principle. Accordingly, the amount of damages awarded to each class member is intended to place the latter in the economic position it would have been if not for the misconduct on the defendant(s)’s part, net of any contributory negligence by the relevant class member and excluding any punitive or exemplary damages.

Yes.

Class actions governed by the Code of Civil Procedure can be settled on a proposal by the court or by the class representative. While the court can issue a settlement proposal up to the first hearing in the case, the class representative and the defendant(s) may agree on a settlement proposal even after the court has ruled on the class members’ claims. In both cases, the settlement proposal must be published by the court’s clerk on a public online platform of the Italian Ministry of Justice, and members of the class may accept or reject such proposal within 45 or 15 days of publication, respectively. No answer implies acceptance, while rejection only counts as such if the relevant class member provides a formal explanation for it.

National or cross-border actions governed by the Consumer Code can be settled on a proposal by either the court or on a joint proposal by the claimant(s) and the defendant(s). In both cases, the settlement proposal must be made before the first hearing in the case.

There is no formal mechanism for the collective settlement of actions for the efficiency of public administrations.

Yes.

In class actions governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, once 45 days have elapsed from the publication of the settlement proposal (please see the answer to Question 26 above), the court, having regard to the interests of the class members, must issue an order by which it either authorises or refuses to authorise the entering into of the settlement proposal by the class representative on behalf of the class. Prior rejections of the proposal by class members (please see the answer to Question 26 above) are not binding for the court, but class members who rejected the proposal are not bound by the settlement if they confirm their rejection by an online filing within 15 days of publication of the above-mentioned order in the public online platform of the Italian Ministry of Justice.

Similar rules apply to the settlement of national or cross-border actions governed by the Consumer Code. In this context, however, authorisation of a settlement by the court is subject to the explicit additional requirement that such settlement does not conflict with any mandatory provisions of law and does not include clauses or obligations that are, in effect, unenforceable.

Given the recent increase in cases within this area, we anticipate a growing trend towards class actions in sectors where there has been limited collective legal actions, particularly in the areas of privacy and health. This shift is driven by emerging legal debates and trends in Italy.

For example, one notable case concerns a potential class action against ASL Roma for the mis-delivery of COVID-19 test results. This case raises significant concerns about violations of both privacy and the right to health, as individuals may have been exposed to improper handling of sensitive personal data in addition to health risks. Similarly, ongoing discussions about privacy violations by major companies such as Facebook and TIM point to potential class actions. Facebook is under scrutiny for failing to adequately inform users about data collection practices, particularly in relation to commercial purposes. TIM is facing possible legal action for allegedly processing of personal data without users’ consent.

Another notable case is the U-Mask controversy, where media coverage has highlighted allegations of misleading claims about the protective capabilities of their masks, which could be considered a violation of the right to health. While many of these cases are still in the early stages of potential litigation or discussion, collectively they indicate a growing focus on class actions involving privacy and health-related issues. This suggests that such legal actions will likely become more prominent in the future.

Over the last three years, class actions in Italy have concentrated around three main areas:

1. consumer credit and financial services: a large number of recent class actions have involved claims against banks, credit institutions, and insurance companies, typically for unfair commercial practices such as the failure to reimburse upfront costs in the event of early loan repayment, the use of unlawful clauses in contracts of guarantee, or the misrepresentation of investment and insurance products;
2. digital services and e-commerce: another significant trend involves online platforms and subscription-based services that have been brought for failure to deliver goods, unexpected changes in contract terms and misleading commercial practices in digital marketing and billing;
3. health and data protection: a distinctive feature of the Italian landscape has been the increase in class actions involving violations of privacy and the right to health, including cases arising from the mismanagement of sensitive health data, misleading health-related advertising, and the production or distribution of potentially harmful products.

Over the next 12 months, we expect to see significant legal developments in the area of collective redress and class actions, particularly as the understanding of the concept of “homogeneous right” continues to evolve. As recent privacy and health cases have emerged, this concept cannot be confined to traditional commercial or consumer contexts. Instead, it is becoming increasingly clear that “homogeneous rights” can be used to protect fundamental human rights.

To our knowledge, class actions and collective redress proceedings brought in Italy to date include the following concerning ESG matters:

1. a representative action brought in 2016 by a consumer organisation against the mother company and the Italian subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group, relating to the notorious “Dieselgate” scandal. The plaintiff organisation’s compensatory claims concern, inter alia, alleged greenwashing by the Volkswagen Group in respect of the emissions performance of its vehicles. These claims are framed as statutory breaches of Italian legislation banning unfair commercial practices. The proceedings were settled out of court in May 2024;
2. a class action brought in 2022 by an anti-discrimination organisation, on behalf of a flight attendant, against ITA Airways, seeking injunctive relief in connection with alleged gender-based discrimination in the defendant’s hiring practices. The plaintiff’s claim is framed as a statutory breach of Italian legislation banning gender-based discrimination;
3. a class action brought in 2023 by residents of the southern city of Taranto against the owner and the operator of the Taranto steel mill, claiming compensation for damages allegedly resulting from the air and ground pollution caused by the steel mill’s operations. The plaintiffs’ claim is framed as a tortious breach of their rights to health and to respect for private and family life, as enshrined in the Italian Constitution, in the European Convention on Human Rights and in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

No proposal for the reform of class actions or collective redress proceedings is currently being discussed in the Italian parliament.