Swedish class actions are regulated primarily under the Group Proceedings Act (2002:559). Prior to the entry into force of said statute (on 1 January 2003), class actions could not be pursued under Swedish procedural law.

The statute was preceded by nearly a decade of legislative review, which started in 1991 and was concluded by 1994 through the so-called SOU 1994:151. This thorough evaluation included assessments on the availability of class actions to environmental protection organisations, consumer protection organisations, individual consumers, and representatives of Swedish public authorities.

Actual legislation was delayed, however, and class action regulation only entered into force (in a majorly reworked way compared to the original vision) in the early 2000s. By this point, the ambition was for Swedish class action proceedings to resemble regular civil litigation proceedings to the greatest extent possible.

Unfortunately, class actions have not received much legislative attention in Sweden. The only major legislative reform since the entry into force of the Group Proceedings Act has been the implementation of the EU Collective Redress Regime in 2023.

By and large, Swedish class action legislation cannot be said to have been modelled on the regime of any other jurisdiction. The aim of the Swedish legislator was, rather, that it should resemble regular Swedish civil litigation proceedings to the greatest extent possible.

Sweden implemented the EU Directive 2020/1828 in 2023 through the Act on class actions for the protection of consumer interests (2023:730). The implementation was, in other words, carried out through the enactment of a purpose-made statute on the subject matter.

The primary statute regulating class actions in Sweden is the Group Proceedings Act, which contains the bulk of the applicable rules on class actions.

Complementary regulations exist in the form of:

• the Code of Judicial Procedure (1942:740), which the Group Proceedings Act complements, as most procedural rules for class actions are identical to regular civil litigation proceedings;
• the Act on class actions for the protection of consumer interests ‒ through which the EU Directive 2020/1828 is implemented in Swedish law;
• the Environmental Code (1998:808), which provides complementary rules on class actions regarding environmental cases;
• the Competition Damages Act (2016:964), which provides complementary rules on class actions regarding violations of competition law.

The Group Proceedings Act could be considered an add-on to the Code of Judicial Procedure, complementing the latter with procedural rules specific to class actions. This includes matters of standing, competent courts, class member status, representation, and specific settlement mechanisms.

There are no specific limitations under Swedish law regarding the scope of areas of law (substantively) to which class action legislation applies. Class actions may be brought concerning the same areas of law as for any regular civil litigation procedure.

Examples of the areas of law in which class actions may be brought include:

• environmental law;
• consumer protection law;
• competition law;
• torts and extra-contractual damages;
• employment law; and
• contract law.

In short, any type of claim that could be pursued under regular Swedish procedure may be pursued as a class action, assuming that the specific procedural requirements applicable to class actions under the Group Proceedings Act (see 3.2 Overview of Procedure) are met.

The Group Proceedings Act defines class actions under Section 1 as “an action brought by a claimant on behalf of several persons and having legal effects for them, even though they are not parties to the case”. Section 1 of the Group Proceedings Act further specifies that a class action may be brought as an individual class action, an organisational class action or a public class action (see 3.3 Standing for more detail). Moreover, it defines the “class” as those individuals on behalf of whom the claimant has brought the action.

In short, the claim does not need to fulfil any specific criterion beyond relying on circumstances that are held in common between multiple claimants against the same respondent and which could be invoked as a basis for an action.

According to Section 3 of the Group Proceedings Act, the competent courts for class actions are determined specifically by the Swedish government. The government is required to designate an existing court in each Swedish county as a specialist class action court specifically for that county. The primary method of determining jurisdiction between courts in Sweden is geographic ‒ that is to say, each county is covered by a designated general court. Given that each Swedish county already has a competent general court for the purposes of trying regular civil litigation proceedings, in practice what this means is that the Swedish government has decided that these same courts also act as the specialist courts for class actions within their respective geographic jurisdictions.

The determination of the competent court in each particular case is regulated under Chapter 10 of the Code of Judicial Procedure and is, as is generally the case for class action proceedings in Sweden, no different than for regular civil litigation proceedings. In other words, typically speaking, the competent court will be whichever court happens to have jurisdiction over the geographic area of the respondent’s place of residence (ie, forum domicilii), per Chapter 10, Section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure.

There are, however, options to pursue actions outside of the place of residence of the respondent in certain cases. Examples include the option to pursue an action under the jurisdiction of:

• the court where the damage that forms the basis of the action being pursued was caused (Chapter 10, Section 8 of the Code of Judicial Procedure); or
• the competent court of the claimant’s place of residence, if the claimant is a consumer (Chapter 10, Section 8a of the Code of Judicial Procedure) ‒ “consumer” in this context referring toa natural person who purchases goods or services for private use (ie, not in the course of their professional or business activities).

Certain types of claims are instead tried under specialist courts ‒ for instance, environmental courts try environmental claims.

The course of a class action proceeding as such essentially does not differ from regular civil litigation procedure. All civil litigation procedure in Sweden follows the adversarial principle ‒ that is to say, the courts themselves do not have an investigatory or inquisitorial role. Actions are initiated by submitting a statement of claim to the court (Chapter 42, Section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure). One major difference is that the Group Proceedings Act (unlike Swedish civil litigation procedure in general) features rules on mandatory legal counsel (ie, the claimant must have a legal counsel, such as an attorney).

Under Chapter 42, Section 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, the statement of claim must include:

• the specific redress being sought;
• an account of the facts that are being relied upon for the action;
• statement of evidence for those facts; and
• an account of whichever facts render the court competent.

In addition to these general rules, Section 9 of the Group Proceedings Act mandates that the statement of claim for a class action must include:

• information on the class covered by the action;
• the circumstances that are held in common between the class members;
• any facts that to the claimant’s knowledge are relevant to the assessment of the claims of only some of the members of the class; and
• any other circumstances relevant to whether the claims should be tried as a class action or not.

Once a statement of claim has been submitted (see 3.1 Mechanisms for Bringing Collective Redress/Class Action), and assuming that the court is competent (ie, it has jurisdiction), the process will begin with an admissibility assessment.

Under Section 8 of the Group Proceedings Act, a class action must meet five requirements (in addition to the basic requirements applicable to any claim which follow from the Code of Judicial Procedure) in order to be admitted – namely, that:

• the action is based on facts held in common between (or which are similar to) the claims of the members of the class action;
• the class action does not appear to be inappropriate as a result of some of the class member’s claims being materially or substantially different to the claims of other members of the same class action;
• the majority of the claims that fall under the class action cannot be equally well served individually by each class action member as a regular civil case;
• the class action members are appropriately defined in terms of the group’s size, boundaries, and other relevant factors; and
• the claimant is a person appropriate as a representative of the class in the case, with regard to:
1. their interest in the matter;
2. their financial capacity; and
3. other relevant circumstances.

If the admissibility requirements are met, the court will then initiate proceedings by serving the statement of claim to the respondent (Chapter 42, Section 5 of the Code of Judicial Procedure), with a requirement for the respondent to provide a response within a given timeframe. Failure to meet this timeframe will result in a default judgment in favour of the claimant. Again, this procedure does not differ from regular civil litigation procedure. There is no requirement for any authorisation by any public authority, there are no specific publications made regarding the ongoing process (see 3.3 Standing), nor are the parties expected or obligated to initiate the procedure with any settlement phase.

Any claimant who brings a class action must also provide the names and addresses of known members of the class action.

The process will then involve the exchange of additional written submissions between the parties until the court decides that the positions of the two parties are sufficiently clear to schedule a preliminary hearing.

The purpose of the preliminary hearing is for the parties and the court to jointly discuss and settle any major substantive questions and certain procedural questions (for instance, relating to document disclosure). Furthermore, the court will decide on the remainder of the procedural schedule, including deciding how many additional submissions each party will submit. Finally, the court is obligated at this stage to assess whether there are any prospects of reaching a settlement. This obligation formally does not extend beyond consulting with the parties on the matter. As a rule, however, courts do tend to devote significant effort and time to settlement discussions.

If no settlement is reached, the parties will determine a date for the main hearing, in which the case will be tried on its merits. Final submissions, including final statements of evidence whereby all evidence relied upon by each party is included, will be submitted before the main hearing. Parties may not deviate from these statements of evidence by relying on other evidence beyond what was invoked. For these statements of evidence, it is not enough to provide a list of each type of evidence ‒ parties are expected to explain what specific facts each piece of evidence (whether written or oral) is intended to prove.

There are three forms of class action under Swedish law, each of which has different rules on standing.

Individual class actions are regulated under Section 4 of the Group Proceedings Act. Any single individual (including both natural and legal persons) who possesses a claim that meets the formal requirements for a class action may bring an individual class action.

Organisational class actions are regulated under Section 5 of the Group Proceedings Act. Only certain non-profit associations may bring organisational class actions before the courts. Said non-profit associations must have as their purpose (according to their statutes and articles of association) the protection of the interests of consumers in disputes against traders or employees vis-à-vis their employers.

Chapter 32 of the Environmental Code additionally allows non-profit organisations to bring class actions regarding environmental damages (in turn regulated under the Environmental Code) if:

• the non-profit organisation’s purpose is either environmental protection or nature conservation; or
• the non-profit organisation is a professional association in the following sectors: forestry, raindeer husbandry, fishing, or farming.

Public class actions are regulated under Section 6 of the Group Proceedings Act. Standing in such actions is limited only to public authorities that the government has designated as such. At present, the government has designated the Swedish Consumer Agency as the public authority authorised to pursue public class actions in the interest of consumers.

The Group Proceedings Act has no requirements concerning the size of the class; there is neither a minimum requirement nor a maximum allowed number of members. Similarly, the Group Proceedings Act has no requirements regarding either the domicile or the nationality of the class members. The only requirement is that the class should be appropriately defined and that a class action procedure should be appropriate given the nature of the action being brought.

The Group Proceedings Act follows an opt-in procedure, whereby all members of the class action are notified by the court of the initiation of the proceedings, assuming that the action passed the admissibility stage. Typically speaking, the notification will be via public notice or some other form of public announcement. The court is also empowered to order the parties to make the notification.

Anyone eligible and willing to join the class action may then, within a time period prescribed by the court, make their wish known to the court and thereby join the action. Should a prospective class member not be included in the class action, their claims are not barred but may be pursued as individual actions.

Class actions are subject to the same joinder procedure as any individual civil litigation case. Such rules may be found in Chapter 14 of the Code of Judicial Procedure. Cases may be joined in either a mandatory or discretionary manner.

Mandatory Joinder

Chapter 14, Section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure mandates a joinder of cases where a claimant simultaneously brings several different actions against the same respondent, and these actions materially have the same basis ‒ for instance, they rely on similar or the same facts.

Chapter 14, Section 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure mandates a joinder of cases in situations where one claimant brings actions against multiple separate respondents or where multiple claimants bring actions against one or several respondents, assuming again that the claims materially have the same basis.

Finally, Section 4 of Chapter 14 of the Code of Judicial Procedure mandates a joinder of cases where someone who was not party to the proceedings wishes to bring an action against either or both parties in an ongoing proceeding concerning the matter in dispute.

Discretionary Joinder

Besides mandatory joinder, the Code of Judicial Procedure also includes the option for discretionary joinder. This follows from Chapter 14, Section 6 the Code of Judicial Procedure – under which, procedures may be joined even in situations other than mandatory joinder, if this would benefit the investigation of the case. The determination of whether such joinder should take place (ie, if there are any investigatory or other benefits to joining the cases) is entirely at the court’s discretion.

A general requirement for both mandatory joinder and discretionary joinder is furthermore that the procedures take place in the same court and that they are subject to the same procedural rules.

Joinder Under the Group Proceedings Act

In addition to the rules under the Code of Judicial Procedure, Section 18 of the Group Proceedings Act states that the court may allow the claimant to expand upon the class action either by including additional claims from the current class members or by including new members in the group. This must be done without significantly delaying the case and without otherwise subjecting the respondent to considerable inconvenience.

Swedish procedural law provides the courts with reasonably wide management powers. Courts may at their discretion order preliminary hearings (including more than one – although this is rare), order clarifications from the parties, determine when to set the deadline for the submission of additional evidence, and so on. Swedish courts are also free to suggest a settlement between the parties and lead such settlement discussions; however, there is no obligation on either party to participate.

Moreover, courts determine the length each party has to prepare its submissions. If a party fails to comply with the court’s orders, the court may also decide that the party may no longer submit new circumstances or new evidence past a date determined by the court (Chapter 42, Section 15 of the Code of Judicial Procedure).

There is currently an ongoing legislative review to assess whether the courts should also be enabled – to a greater extent than is currently possible ‒ to render default judgments against parties who fail to follow the court’s orders (as of now, default judgments may be rendered if the respondent does not provide an initial response or if a party does not show up to a hearing). However, the result of said review remains to be seen.

The bulk of a Swedish civil proceeding (of which class actions are a form) is conducted in written form, with submissions exchanged between the parties usually within a few weeks of each submitting ‒ although this may be longer depending on the complexity and size of the case. Normally, there are only two occasions on which the parties appear before the court ‒ namely, at:

• the preliminary hearing, which usually takes place shortly after the first exchange of submissions between both parties; and
• the main hearing (which, depending on complexity, may last for days or weeks).

With regard to the preliminary hearing, please see 3.2 Overview of Procedure.

The trying of the case on its merits occurs during the main hearing. Swedish civil trial procedure follows two basic principles: the principle of immediacy and the principle of oral proceedings. The former principle dictates that the court may only try the case on those facts and evidence that were presented during the main hearing (irrespective of whether they are included in previously submitted written submissions ‒ although references during the hearing to the written submissions are allowed), whereas the latter principle dictates that a fact or piece of evidence is not presented unless this was done orally (although again references to previous written submissions are allowed).

Given the nature and scope of class actions, these types of proceedings tend to be lengthy. Parties can expect class action cases to last for several years, with additional appellate proceedings being likely.

The Code of Judicial Procedure allows Swedish courts flexibility with regard to determining the length of proceedings (eg, setting out dates for hearings and for party submissions). Once decided, courts generally do not shorten these timetables ‒ although parties may apply for time extensions. As a rule, Swedish courts are quite generous with granting time extensions if the requesting party can provide a reasonable cause for the request.

Under Section 30 of the Group Proceedings Act, if an individual claimant has been selected to replace the original claimant and act as class representative, they are entitled to reimbursement for their reasonable legal costs from public funds. This rule may only be invoked by such class representative that has been designated by the court under Section 21 (ie, where the original claimant is deemed inappropriate subsequent to initiating proceedings and the court therefore at its own discretion designates a class representative) and may not be invoked by the original claimant.

Section 31 of the Group Proceedings Act further states that a class representative designated by the court under Section 21 of the Group Proceedings Act is not obligated to pay for the opposing party’s costs (even in the event that the class action is unsuccessful), essentially unless they have conducted their case in a negligent manner. Instead, such liability falls on the original claimant.

Individual group members are only liable for legal costs in the following circumstances.

• The respondent is ordered to pay the claimant’s legal costs or to reimburse the State for such public funds that were used under Section 30 of the Group Proceedings Act and the respondent is unable to pay. The same applies for additional costs that have arisen as a consequence of a contingency fee arrangement and which the respondent is not ordered to pay. Each member of the class is only liable for their respective share of the legal costs.
• Group members who are not part of the proceedings are only liable for legal costs caused by their own negligence.

Aside from certain rules that follow from the Swedish Bar Association, which therefore are only applicable to members of the Swedish Bar Association and which limit the use of contingency fees, Swedish law generally has no rules against litigation funding. The Group Proceedings Act includes certain rules regarding such funding agreements, however.

• Under Section 38, if the claimant entered into a funding agreement with their legal counsel whereby the compensation to the legal counsel is determined based on the success of the claim (contingency fee arrangement), this agreement may only be invoked against the other class members if it is accepted by the court.
• A contingency fee agreement may only be accepted by the court if it is conscionable with regard to the nature of the case. The agreement must be in written form and must state the way in which it differs from a normal fee system (ie, a reasonable fee under the Code of Judicial Procedure). The agreement may not be accepted if the agreement is fully dependent on the value of the matter in dispute.

The Act on class actions for the protection of consumer interests includes further rules on funding, applicable only in consumer interest cases. Under Section 23 of the Act on class actions for the protection of consumer interests, in the event that the class action is funded by a third party, then the approved entity is empowered to stipulate – as a condition for the inclusion of a class member in the procedure ‒ what portion of the amount that the class member is awarded through the proceedings shall accrue to the financier.

Section 24 of the Act on class actions for the protection of consumer interests stipulates that a class action may not be financed by a competitor of the respondent (or anyone dependent upon the respondent). The third party financier is furthermore not allowed to influence the procedural decisions made by the approved entity if this is to the detriment of the classes’ common interests.

Swedish law essentially does not include any obligation for pre-trial disclosure or discovery. Trial disclosure may be conducted at the request of a party and need not be directed at the opposing party in the case.

Trial disclosure requests must be for identified documents (which may be specified in a variety of ways, either individually or as a category ‒ for example, all minutes from meetings on a given matter between two given dates). So called “fishing expeditions” are not allowed under Swedish procedure. A further requirement is that the documents should at least in theory have some value as evidence in the ongoing matter.

Swedish law also includes an obligation to testify. Anyone called as a witness thus has such an obligation.

Privileged correspondence is exempt from disclosure obligations. This applies to oral testimonies as well.

There are no particular limitations on remedies available through class actions in Sweden. Class actions thus enable claimants to pursue the same remedies as they would for any civil litigation procedure. This includes enforceable judgements on specific performance, monetary claims (damages, reimbursement, and the like), declaratory judgments, and injunctions.

Class actions may only be settled with binding effect on all class members through a formal procedure. A settlement between the class representative and the respondent is only binding upon all members of the class if the settlement has been recognised and accepted by the court through a formal judgment.

For the court to render such a judgment, the settlement must not be discriminatory against members of the class. The settlement may also not be manifestly unconscionable.

Members of the class must be notified of the settlement and have the option of entering the ongoing procedure if they do not wish to be part of the settlement.

Class action judgments are binding upon all members of the class who opted in on the procedure, as well as upon the respondent with regard to said members.

Enforcement of class action judgments does not differ from enforcement of civil litigation judgments in general. This means that the claimant must make an application to the Swedish Enforcement Agency ‒ appending the judgment ‒ to have the matter enforced.

Currently, there is little policy development taking place in Sweden concerning class actions. The latest development was the implementation of EU Directive 2020/1828 through the Act on class actions for the protection of consumer interest, which was enacted in 2023.

Swedish legislation on class actions has generally been sparse and there is little interest in legislative reform. The more likely developments are going to be related to EU initiatives, as was the case with the implementation of EU Directive 2020/1828. There are currently no pending domestic proposals for further reform.

Unfortunately, class action litigation has not proven popular in Sweden. Since the inception of the Group Proceedings Act, Sweden has seen no more than around 30 class actions cases.