The Israeli comprehensive class action regime was formally established with the enactment of the Class Actions Law, 5766–2006 (the “Class Actions Law” or the “Law”), which came into force in 2006.

Class actions in Israel have their roots in common law traditions, with the modern model inspired by the US system. The first legislative recognition came in 1988 through the Securities Law, followed by similar provisions in other sector-specific statutes throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, governing, inter alia, investment funds, consumer protection, antitrust, banking, insurance and equal pay. However, the fragmented legal framework led to practical challenges, including narrow definitions of eligible claims and inconsistent procedures. Courts rejected attempts to rely on general civil procedure rules as a broad basis for class actions, underscoring the need for comprehensive legislation.

The policy drivers for reform included the following, culminating in the enactment of the comprehensive Class Actions Law in 2006:

• enhancing access to justice for individuals with small or impractical claims;
• deterring misconduct by powerful entities;
• promoting judicial efficiency and consistency; and
• recognising class actions as an important tool for public interest enforcement.

The Class Actions Law was supplemented by the Class Actions Regulations, 5770–2010 (the “Class Action Regulations” or the “Regulations”), which provide procedural guidelines for filing, managing and resolving class actions. The Law sets out an exhaustive list of causes of action eligible for class actions (included in Schedule 2), the procedural framework for certification and settlement approval, and the criteria for adequate representation and judicial discretion.

Over time, judicial interpretation and several legislative amendments have refined the Law’s scope and application. Israeli courts have developed a consistent body of jurisprudence regarding certification standards, settlement fairness and the qualifications of representative plaintiffs. Recent policy discussions have focused on preventing abuse of the class action mechanism and ensuring proportionality between deterrence and procedural efficiency.

In line with these efforts, the proposed Amendment No 16 (2024) aims to curb frivolous claims, introduce pre-filing notice requirements and further enhance procedural fairness, reflecting an ongoing effort to balance access to justice and public enforcement with judicial economy and fairness to defendants.

Israel’s class action regime, established under the Class Actions Law, was influenced by international models, particularly the US class action system, but was adapted to fit the Israeli legal and social context. A key distinction lies in the certification stage, where Israeli courts go beyond procedural considerations and assess the merits of the case. The plaintiff must demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success in order for the claim to be certified as a class action. Moreover, class actions are limited to specific fields expressly listed in the Second Addendum to the Law – such as consumer protection, banking, insurance, antitrust and securities – or as otherwise provided by statute.

Another major difference is that Israeli law prohibits the award of punitive or exemplary damages in class action proceedings; the focus is on compensation and deterrence, not punishment.

This is not relevant in Israel.

The principal legislation governing class actions in Israel is the Class Actions Law, which establishes a comprehensive and exclusive framework for all class actions filed in Israel. Upon its enactment, the Law repealed and replaced the various sector-specific provisions that had previously permitted class actions under separate statutes, including the Consumer Protection Law and the Securities Law. This consolidation was designed to unify and streamline the procedural and substantive rules governing collective redress.

The Class Actions Law sets out the substantive rights and procedural requirements applicable to class actions, including eligibility criteria, certification standards, representation requirements and available remedies. It is supplemented by the Class Actions Regulations, which provide detailed procedural guidance on the filing, management and approval of class proceedings.

In addition, the Civil Procedure Regulations apply to class actions insofar as specific procedural matters are not addressed in the Class Actions Law or its Regulations. This complementary application ensures procedural completeness, uniformity and consistency across all stages of class action litigation within the Israeli judicial system.

In Israel, class actions may only be filed in specific areas of law expressly defined by statute. A class action may be brought only if it is based on a cause of action listed in the Second Addendum to the Class Actions Law, or if it is explicitly authorised by another statute. To date, no additional laws have been enacted that independently authorise class actions. This statutory limitation reflects a deliberate legislative policy to confine class actions to areas of significant public importance and to maintain predictability and procedural control.

Legal Areas Covered by the Second Addendum

• Claims against dealers – actions against dealers concerning dealer-customer relationships (not limited to claims under the Consumer Protection Law).
• Insurance and provident funds – claims against insurers, insurance agents or provident fund management companies.
• Banking and financial services – claims against banks, financial service providers, payment service companies, financial information licensees and charitable institutions offering interest-free credit.
• Competition law – claims under the Economic Competition Law.
• Merchant arenas – claims relating to the management or marketing of merchant arenas.
• Securities and investment units – claims involving damage or loss relating to securities or investment units.
• Environmental hazards – claims against parties responsible for environmental pollution or other environmental harm.
• Anti-discrimination – claims under statutes prohibiting discrimination in the provision of services, employment or access to public places.
• Accessibility and disability rights – claims under laws guaranteeing accessibility and equal rights for persons with disabilities.
• Labour law – certain employment-related claims, excluding those governed by collective bargaining agreements.
• Unlawful collection by authorities – claims for the recovery of unlawfully collected taxes, fees or payments, including by the Israel Land Authority.
• Spam and unsolicited advertising – claims under Section 30A of the Communications Law.
• Pension clearing systems – claims concerning the transmission of pension information or funds.
• Credit rating – claims by shareholders or holders of financial instruments against credit rating agencies.

This closed-list approach limits the availability of class actions to predefined subject areas, ensuring that the mechanism is used primarily for matters of broad social and economic significance.

A class action in Israel is a civil proceeding defined by the Class Actions Law as “an action conducted on behalf of a group of people, who did not authorise the representative plaintiff to act on their behalf, and which raises substantive questions of fact or law that are common to all members of the group”.

In essence, it enables a single representative plaintiff, together with their legal counsel, to pursue a claim on behalf of a broader class of individuals who share similar legal or factual issues but have not individually empowered the representative to act for them.

Class actions are initiated by filing a motion for certification, which serves as a prerequisite to the commencement of the proceeding. At this stage, the court examines whether the claim meets the statutory criteria for certification, including the existence of common factual or legal questions, the appropriateness of the representative plaintiff and counsel, and whether a class action is the most suitable and efficient means of resolving the dispute.

Only upon certification does the case proceed as a class action. This gatekeeping mechanism ensures that the collective litigation tool is reserved for matters that truly warrant group adjudication, balancing efficiency and access to justice with the need to prevent unmeritorious or duplicative claims.

Class actions may be filed with magistrate courts, district courts, labour tribunals and administrative courts.

The certification stage is a critical preliminary phase in Israeli class action proceedings. A class action claim must be filed together with a petition for certification, which is adjudicated before the merits of the claim are heard in full trial. The petition must be supported by the plaintiff’s affidavit and relevant evidence, such as expert opinions or documentary exhibits. This early stage serves as a substantive filter: the case may proceed as a class action only if the court is satisfied that the statutory conditions are met.

Under Section 8 of the Class Actions Law, the court may certify an action as a class proceeding if it finds that:

• the claim raises material questions of fact or law common to all class members, with a reasonable prospect of success;
• a class action is the most efficient and fair method for resolving the dispute;
• the interests of all class members will be represented adequately; and
• the representative plaintiff and counsel are acting in good faith.

The court may still grant certification even if the third or fourth criterion is not initially satisfied, provided that the deficiency can be remedied by replacing the representative plaintiff or counsel.

The respondent must file a written response to the certification petition within 90 days, supported by affidavits and, where applicable, expert opinions. The plaintiff may file a reply within 30 days. The petition and response are each limited to 30 pages, excluding annexes, while the reply is limited to five pages. Discovery and interrogatories are permitted at this stage but are confined to materials relevant to certification, and are allowed only if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case.

Following the written stage, the court typically holds a pre-trial hearing within one to two months. Parties may submit short lists of preliminary motions (one page per motion and response). At the pre-trial hearing, the court may question counsel, make preliminary observations or recommend mediation. Several pre-trial hearings may be held to resolve procedural issues before the court schedules evidentiary hearings, during which affiants and experts are cross-examined.

After evidentiary hearings, the parties submit written summations and the court issues its certification decision, often several months later. If certification is denied, the plaintiff may appeal as of right; if granted, the respondent may appeal only with leave. As most class actions are heard before the District Courts, appeals are typically lodged with the Supreme Court.

Once certified, the proceeding moves to the post-certification stage before the same judge. The defendant must file a statement of defence within 45 days, and the plaintiff may reply within 14 days. Discovery obligations expand to include general discovery affidavits and broader interrogatories. The court may hold additional pre-trial hearings to address procedural matters and prepare for trial. Evidence-in-chief is submitted sequentially, beginning with the plaintiff, followed by the defendant, typically through affidavits and expert opinions. After evidentiary hearings and written summations, the court renders its final judgment. Appeals may be filed as in ordinary civil proceedings, and enforcement is not automatically stayed without a specific court order.

Under Section 4 of the Class Actions Law, standing to bring a class action is granted to several categories of claimants. This provision reflects the legislature’s intention to facilitate access to justice while ensuring that representative actions are pursued by parties with a genuine connection to the dispute or a recognised public interest.

• Individuals – any person who possesses a personal cause of action that raises common questions of fact or law shared by a broader class may act as a representative plaintiff. This is the most common form of standing in Israeli class actions.
• Public authorities – governmental or public bodies may initiate a class action where doing so is consistent with their statutory mandate and serves a public purpose. This mechanism enables state or regulatory entities to protect collective rights efficiently and systematically.
• Non-profit organisations – registered non-profit organisations that promote public interests, such as consumer protection, environmental preservation or equality, may also seek certification to file a class action. Court approval is required, and the organisation must demonstrate that it is acting in good faith and has the capacity to represent the class effectively, and that the claim aligns with its stated objectives.

In Israel, class actions are generally conducted on an opt-out basis. Under Section 10 of the Class Actions Law, once a class action is certified, the court must define the class on whose behalf the proceeding will be conducted.

The class ordinarily includes individuals whose cause of action arose before the date of certification, while those whose claims arose afterward are excluded. The court may, however, permit additional individuals to join the class by a specified deadline and determine how notice of such inclusion is given – whether through individual notice, publication or other means. All notices must also be registered with the Director of Courts to ensure transparency and public accessibility.

The court may divide the certified class into sub-classes if it determines that certain factual or legal issues are not common to all members. In such cases, it may appoint a separate representative plaintiff or legal counsel for each sub-class to safeguard adequate and effective representation.

Under Section 11 of the Law, all individuals who fall within the court-defined class are deemed to have consented to participate unless they notify the court of their wish to opt out within 45 days of the certification decision or within a later period determined by the court.

In exceptional cases, pursuant to Section 12, the court may order that the proceeding be conducted on an opt-in basis. This occurs only in limited circumstances, such as where a significant portion of the class is expected to file individual claims or where each member’s claim has substantial personal value (for example, bodily injury cases). Before issuing such an order, the court must hear the parties’ arguments. If an opt-in mechanism is approved, the court may require each participating member to contribute to litigation costs, and will determine how notice of these conditions is to be communicated.

In Israeli class action proceedings, a respondent may file a third-party notice only with the prior leave of the court. This mechanism allows the respondent to bring another party into the proceedings who may be liable to indemnify or contribute to any potential judgment, and is subject to strict judicial control given the collective nature of the action. A motion for leave to file a third-party notice must be submitted concurrently with the respondent’s response to the petition for certification, accompanied by an affidavit and a detailed explanation of the proposed third party’s relevance to the issues in dispute. The court will grant such leave only if it is satisfied that the joinder will not unduly complicate or delay the certification process and that it serves the efficient and fair resolution of the case.

Under Section 7 of the Class Actions Law, when a court determines that a newly filed motion for certification raises factual or legal issues that are identical, or substantially similar, to those in an existing motion or class action, it may order the transfer of the new motion to the court already handling the earlier proceeding.

The receiving court may then decide to dismiss one of the overlapping cases or to consolidate the proceedings, and it may also replace or add representative plaintiffs or counsel to ensure the effective and fair representation of the class. These powers are designed to promote judicial efficiency, prevent duplication and safeguard the interests of class members by ensuring that class actions addressing the same or similar issues are managed in the most co-ordinated, effective and just manner.

In addition, the court has the authority to stay proceedings before it when a related class action is pending elsewhere, whether in Israel or abroad. This discretion is exercised to prevent duplicative litigation and conflicting decisions, while balancing considerations of judicial economy, the interests of the class and the need for consistent and fair adjudication of collective claims.

Class actions in Israel are generally lengthy proceedings, typically lasting between two and five years. The duration depends on several factors, including whether the case proceeds through both the certification and post-certification stages, and whether the certification decision or final judgment is appealed. In practice, most class actions conclude before reaching full trial. A significant number are withdrawn or settled during the certification stage; even when certification is granted, the majority are resolved through court-approved settlements rather than a final judgment on the merits. Only a small proportion of class actions are litigated to completion.

These timelines may vary based on the complexity of the issues, the number of parties involved, the workload of the court, and procedural developments throughout the litigation.

There are no formal procedural mechanisms in Israel that allow deviation from the standard duration or timetable of class action proceedings. The Class Actions Law does not provide for the acceleration or deliberate delay of such claims. Instead, courts manage the pace of proceedings through their general case management authority – for example, by granting or denying motions for extensions of time, rescheduling hearings or issuing other procedural directives. However, no statutory framework exists to structurally expedite or postpone class action timelines.

Motions to dismiss in limine are available under Israeli law but are rarely granted in the context of class actions. This is because the certification process itself is considered a preliminary stage, and courts are generally reluctant to hold separate preliminary proceedings within it. Such motions will be granted only in exceptional cases where dismissal would resolve the entire action, and where the matter can be determined swiftly and on clear legal grounds, without the need for extensive factual inquiry.

Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in Israeli class actions are success-based and are calculated as a function of the benefit conferred upon the class. Other litigation costs, such as court fees and expert fees, are generally borne by the plaintiffs. The Israeli framework combines judicial oversight with statutory guidance, ensuring fair and proportionate compensation for both class counsel and representative plaintiffs, while discouraging unmeritorious or commercially driven litigation.

There are two principal alternative sources of external funding for class actions.

• The first is the Fund for the Financing of Class Actions (the “Class Actions Fund”), established under Section 27 of the Class Actions Law. The Class Actions Fund’s primary purpose is to assist in financing motions for certification and class actions that serve significant public or social interests. It is funded by monetary remedies from prior class actions, and allocates grants to non-profit organisations and other qualifying entities, typically via public calls for proposals. Its mandate is to support socially impactful litigation rather than commercially motivated claims.
• The second source is private litigation funding, a developing practice in Israel whereby private finance entities provide funding in exchange for a share of any proceeds if the claim succeeds (however, some judges have expressed reservations about using litigation funding in class actions).

Israeli case law has developed a comprehensive framework for determining attorneys’ fees and remuneration for representative plaintiffs. Section 23(b) of the Class Actions Law lists the factors relevant to determining attorneys’ fees, including:

• the benefit obtained for class members;
• the complexity of the case, counsel’s effort and the risks assumed;
• the public importance of the matter;
• the manner in which counsel conducted the proceedings; and
• the disparity between the remedies sought and those ultimately awarded.

Section 22(b) prescribes similar considerations for determining the representative plaintiff’s remuneration, emphasising their effort and risk, the benefit achieved for the class, and the public importance of the action.

The percentage-of-recovery method is the principal approach for calculating attorneys’ fees, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, under which fees are determined as a percentage of the total recovery (by judgment or settlement) on a tiered basis, whereby the applicable percentage decreases as the total recovery increases. For example, in Estate of Shemesh v Reichert (CA 2046/10), the court established indicative tiers:

• 25% on the first NIS5 million recovered;
• 20% on amounts between NIS5 million and NIS10 million; and
• 15% on any amount exceeding NIS10 million.

These percentages encompass both attorneys’ fees and remuneration for the representative plaintiff.

Finally, judicial oversight is mandatory. The court has exclusive authority to determine the amounts of attorneys’ fees and representative plaintiffs’ remuneration, whether the proceeding concludes by judgment or settlement. Parties may only recommend specific amounts in a settlement agreement, but the validity of the settlement cannot be conditioned on judicial approval of those recommendations. Generally, higher fees are awarded where the class prevails by judgment, although courts retain flexibility to account for the nature and complexity of the settlement achieved.

Regulation 4 of the Class Actions Regulations authorises the court, during the certification stage, to order the discovery of documents. According to Israeli case law, the court may also direct a party to respond to interrogatories submitted by the opposing party. However, the scope of discovery and interrogatories at the certification stage is considerably narrower than in ordinary civil proceedings in Israel, which themselves are more limited in scope compared to US discovery practice and do not include e-discovery or depositions.

Under Regulation 4, discovery during the certification stage is restricted in two main respects:

• first, it is confined to documents relevant to the certification proceedings – ie, materials that may assist the petitioner in establishing that the motion for certification should be granted; and
• second, the petitioner must first demonstrate that the certification motion, as filed, establishes a prima facie case against the respondent sufficient to justify such discovery.

This framework reflects the preliminary nature of the certification phase and aims to balance procedural efficiency with fairness.

Following certification, discovery becomes somewhat broader but remains limited compared to US practice. At the post-certification stage, parties may obtain discovery on issues beyond those addressed at certification, such as the size and composition of the class and matters relevant to the calculation of damages. Nevertheless, e-discovery and depositions remain unavailable under Israeli civil procedure.

There are no special privilege rules applicable to class actions, and the general evidentiary privileges recognised under Israeli law, such as attorney-client privilege and litigation privilege, apply equally in this context.

When a class action is decided in favour of the class, in whole or in part, the court may award monetary compensation or other remedies to class members. The court has broad discretion to fashion relief that is fair, efficient and proportionate, taking into account the nature of the harm, the composition of the class and the need to avoid undue administrative or financial burdens on the parties. While declaratory and injunctive relief are available, monetary compensation remains the most common form of remedy in Israeli class actions.

In awarding monetary relief, the court may choose from among several mechanisms, including:

• individual compensation – direct payments or benefits to each class member who demonstrates eligibility;
• proof-based compensation – requiring class members to substantiate their entitlement, often under the supervision of a court-appointed administrator, whose decisions are subject to judicial review; the court may also authorise reimbursement of reasonable expenses incurred in proving claims; or
• aggregate damages – where the total harm can be reliably quantified, the court may order a lump-sum award to be distributed among class members proportionally.

Unclaimed or undistributed amounts may be transferred to the Class Actions Fund under Section 27A of the Class Actions Law, to be used for purposes related to the subject matter of the case.

If direct compensation is impracticable due to difficulty identifying class members or disproportionate distribution costs, for example, the court may order indirect relief, directing funds or benefits to the Class Actions Fund or to initiatives serving the public interest closely connected to the issues litigated.

When determining the form and extent of compensation, the court may also consider potential harm to the defendant or to the public, particularly where the defendant is a public authority or provider of essential services, ensuring that the remedy does not impair its financial stability or the continuity of critical public functions.

The Class Actions Law expressly prohibits punitive or exemplary damages in class actions. Compensation without proof of damage is permitted only in specific cases enumerated in the Second Addendum, such as certain discrimination or accessibility claims. However, compensation for non-pecuniary harm (eg, distress or reputational damage) is permitted where appropriate.

Finally, courts retain ongoing supervisory authority to ensure compliance with their rulings, including the power to require the submission of final reports detailing the implementation of the relief granted.

Mediation and court-approved settlements are common in Israeli class action proceedings, and courts actively encourage the use of ADR mechanisms to reduce costs and promote efficient case resolution. Any settlement reached between the parties must be submitted for court approval and is subject to potential objections from class members, public bodies or the Attorney General.

The settlement procedure is governed by the Class Actions Law and Regulations. The parties must file a motion for approval detailing the terms and rationale of the proposed settlement, supported by affidavits from the representative plaintiff, the defendant and their counsel confirming full disclosure of all settlement terms and the absence of any undisclosed payments or benefits. If the court grants initial approval, it will order public notice – typically in two widely circulated newspapers and, pursuant to recent Supreme Court guidance, also on additional platforms such as the defendant’s website – and invite objections within a prescribed period, usually 45 days.

Under Section 19 of the Class Actions Law, a settlement will be approved only if the court finds it to be fair, reasonable and adequate for the class members. The court may appoint an independent examiner to review the settlement and assess its advantages and disadvantages, although this is not common in straightforward cases. In deciding whether to approve a settlement, the court must consider the following, among other factors:

• the gap between the proposed relief and the potential outcome at trial;
• the objections raised;
• the stage of the proceedings;
• the examiner’s opinion (if any);
• the risks and benefits of continued litigation; and
• the extent of the res judicata effect created by the settlement.

The court’s written decision must also define the class covered, identify the common issues and causes of action, and summarise the main settlement terms.

The court may impose conditions to safeguard class members’ interests, including opt-out rights, enforcement mechanisms and post-approval monitoring. It may require the submission of implementation reports to ensure compliance. A copy of the court’s approval and the final settlement must be filed with the Registrar of Class Actions and made available to the public.

Finally, the court determines the attorneys’ fees and representative plaintiff’s remuneration, which may be made contingent upon successful execution of the settlement. Once approved, the settlement is binding on all class members who have not opted out.

A judgment in an Israeli class action is binding on all class members who did not opt out of the proceeding. Once rendered, whether following a full trial or the approval of a settlement, the judgment is final and enforceable against the defendant as in any other civil case. It conclusively determines the rights and obligations of all class members with respect to the causes of action adjudicated and creates res judicata, preventing the filing of additional individual or collective claims on the same grounds by class members covered by the judgment.

There is no special enforcement mechanism unique to class actions. Enforcement of monetary or injunctive relief is carried out through the Execution Office or other standard enforcement procedures available under Israeli civil law. However, the Class Actions Law grants courts ongoing supervisory powers to ensure proper implementation of their rulings or settlements. The court may:

• issue specific instructions for monitoring execution;
• require the submission of compliance or final implementation reports; and
• where appropriate, appoint an administrator or examiner to oversee the distribution of compensation or the performance of injunctive remedies.

These mechanisms are designed to guarantee that the relief ordered by the court is effectively carried out and that class members receive the benefits conferred by the judgment.

This is not applicable in Israel.

A proposed Amendment (No 16) to the Class Actions Law was published in April 2024 (the “Proposed Amendment”) and represents the most comprehensive reform to the Israeli class action regime since its enactment, seeking to recalibrate the balance between ensuring effective consumer and public redress and preventing procedural abuse. It introduces new mechanisms to:

• curb misuse of the class action process;
• encourage legitimate claims, particularly in the areas of privacy and public law;
• standardise attorney compensation; and
• reinforce judicial integrity and public confidence in the system.

Key measures aimed at deterring frivolous litigation include:

• requiring plaintiffs to provide pre-filing notice to defendants in certain cases to encourage early resolution;
• eliminating the possibility of awarding attorney fees upon voluntary withdrawal;
• introducing a de minimis threshold enabling courts to dismiss claims of negligible merit or minimal public interest;
• providing that settlements without class compensation will not generate fees or remuneration;
• mandating the imposition of costs where proceedings are conducted in bad faith; and
• limiting the ability of serial plaintiffs to repeatedly file class actions.

The Proposed Amendment also expands the Second Addendum to the Class Actions Law to include new causes of action, most notably class actions for privacy violations under the Privacy Protection Law, 5741–1981, and defined claims against public authorities. It also introduces a new Fifth Addendum, establishing a standardised formula for determining attorneys’ fees and representative plaintiffs’ remuneration, thereby enhancing uniformity and transparency while preserving judicial discretion in exceptional circumstances.

Other procedural reforms include requiring mediators to attach explanatory letters regarding the data and assumptions underlying proposed settlements (a practice already informally adopted by some courts), and mandating the online publication of settlement notices to promote greater public accessibility and awareness.

Despite enjoying broad support among practitioners and policymakers, it is still uncertain if and when the Proposed Amendment will be enacted.

Recent Supreme Court rulings highlight two significant trends shaping Israel’s class action landscape.

The first is a renewed emphasis on the requirement for the representative plaintiff to possess a personal cause of action, as reaffirmed in Attorney General v Golan (LCA 8356/22, 25 August 2025) and Hatzlaha v UBS AG (CA 7125/20, 2 January 2025). The Court has made clear that this is a substantive precondition and not a mere formality, ensuring that class representatives are genuinely affected by the alleged misconduct. This development raises the threshold for initiating class actions and will likely make it more challenging for plaintiffs’ lawyers, who must now identify and substantiate individual claimants with valid personal causes of action before filing. It also limits the ability of consumer organisations or advocacy bodies to pursue actions in the absence of a directly harmed individual.

The second trend is heightened judicial scrutiny of settlements and attorneys’ fees, as reflected in Supregas v Schwartzmann (LCA 2957/17, 17 March 2024) and Optica Halperin Ltd. v Ziss (LCA 1394/24, 24 April 2025). The Supreme Court has tightened standards for approving fee awards and expressed a clear preference for cash-based settlements over non-monetary “voucher” arrangements. This approach aims to ensure that settlements deliver genuine value to class members rather than primarily benefitting counsel or defendants. This development aligns with the objectives of the Proposed Amendment (No 16) to the Class Actions Law, which seeks to strengthen judicial oversight of settlements and promote transparency, fairness and public trust in the process. As a result, structuring creative settlements has become more difficult, particularly those involving indirect or in-kind compensation, requiring plaintiffs’ counsel to design more transparent and directly compensatory settlement frameworks.

Together, these trends reflect a maturing class action regime focused on legitimacy, proportionality and public interest, but they also increase the procedural and practical hurdles for plaintiffs’ representatives.