Since 2007 Finland has had in force the Class Action Act (444/2007), which enables the Consumer Ombudsman to bring a redress action (judicial procedure in civil court) on behalf of consumers, and consumers could separately register to join the class. The scope of this act includes disputes between consumers and businesses, which qualify for a class action (narrower scope than in the Directive). However, no class actions under this act have been brought. Thus, the law and its mechanisms remain untested in practice. Injunctive relief available in civil proceedings is available also for these proceedings. Further, the Consumer Ombudsman, and the Market Court upon application, have powers to issue interim injunctive measures in certain situations, e.g. to protect consumers or to prevent improper market actions. In Market court proceedings a claims for interim injunctions may be dealt with in a written procedure without security. Interim injunctions requested by the Consumer Ombudsman may be granted even if it has not been notified to the person against whom it is directed.

The implementation of the Directive will take place by repealing the current act on cross-border injunctive measures and by enacting a completely new Act on Representative Actions for Injunctive Measures (1101/2022), as well as by amending the existing legislation in several instances. In particular, the Class Action Act will also be amended to enable actions by representative groups designated as qualified entities promoting the collective interests of consumers who have incurred damages. To comply with the Directive, the scope of the Class Action Act will be expanded beyond the traditional consumer protection infringements to include class actions in areas such as data protection, financial services, transport and electronic communications.

The new Act stipulates that the Market Court will have jurisdiction regarding representative actions for injunctive measures. For the redress measures under the Class Action Act, the competent court will be the Helsinki District Court, which has jurisdiction over all class actions in Finland. The name of the Act will remain the Class Action Act (and will not be amended to e.g. Representative Action Act). In the same vein, a representative action for redress measures will domestically continue to be called a class action.

Under the new legislation, the representative (QE) may initiate either domestic or cross-border representative actions for injunctive relief, or domestic class actions or cross-border representative actions for compensatory relief.

Injunctive measures:

• A provision will be introduced in the Act on Representative Actions for Injunctive Relief allowing the Market Court to prohibit a trader from continuing or renewing a practice that is considered unlawful. The prohibition must be reinforced by a conditional imposition of a fine unless this is considered unnecessary for a specific reason. A specific declaratory relief has not been considered necessary in the new provisions.

Redress measures:

• Redress measures would not be limited to any specific claims such as compensation. Also e.g. performance claims, declaratory actions, and actions for a modification of rights could all be raised as a redress measure. The type of claims a plaintiff can bring in court depends on the applicable substantive law. The decision of the court is binding on the members of the group to whom the court has addressed its decision.

There is a difference between redress measures and injunctive measures regarding the extent that the unsuccessful party must pay the costs of the proceedings.

Injunctive measures:

• Both parties are responsible for their own costs concerning injunctive measures in the Market Court.

Redress measures:

• The costs of proceedings are governed by the Code of Judicial Procedure. Unless otherwise stated by law, a party who loses a case is liable to pay all reasonable costs incurred by his opponent in taking the necessary measures. Thus the QE or the defendant business may become liable for costs.
• A member of the group is as a general rule liable for any legal costs. However, a member of the group may be liable to pay the costs incurred by the defendant in the proceedings if the member has, intentionally or negligently, caused costs to another party by failing to appear in court, by disobeying court orders or by making a plea which he knew or ought to have known to be unfounded, or by otherwise prolonging the proceedings in breach of his duty.
• If a member of the group has been excluded from the proceedings as a separate case, he shall be liable as a party for the costs incurred after the exclusion.

There are no peculiarities regarding national transitional provisions in relation to Article 22.

Claims for an order for redress – both domestic and cross-border – are permitted on an opt-in basis. Consumers must register separately to join a group. Consumers must submit a written notice of their intent to join the class action to the plaintiff within the specified time period. If the action is brought by an organization designated as a qualified entity, the plaintiff may require the class member to pay a reasonable filing fee.

Opting out is possible by written notice to the court until the case has proceeded to the main hearing. After that, opting out is possible only upon acceptance of the defendant. In both cases, the case is left unexamined in relation to the persons opting out. Opting out is no longer possible when the court is deliberating.

The criteria that apply to the designation of QEs for the purpose of bringing domestic representative actions match the ones set in Art 4(3). There is no deviation in this regard.

A case can be treated as a class action if:

• several persons have claims against the same defendant based on the same or similar facts,
• it is appropriate to bring the action as a class action having regard to the size of the class, the substance of the claims and the evidence to be adduced in the case, and
• the class is precisely defined.

A claim with an unacceptable or non-transparent funding structure may be left unexamined at any stage. Please see the section "Third-Party Litigation Funding" for details.

Apart from that there is no certification stage applicable to representative actions.

According to the Finnish Code of Judicial Procedure, courts must dismiss actions to the extent they are manifestly unfounded. Art. 7(7) of the Directive has not led to any specific implementing measures or provisions.

External funding is allowed to cover the legal costs of bringing representative actions. However, a third-party funder of a class action may not be a competitor of or dependent on the defendant in the class action. The funder must not influence the decisions of the plaintiff in the class action to the detriment of the collective interests of consumers.

The court could order the representative organization to disclose funding at the risk that the action be ruled inadmissible. If the funding of the action is not arranged in compliance with the above and the claimant does not remedy the situation, or if the claimant does not comply with the request to provide an account of the funding, the court shall dismiss the action as inadmissible.

The plaintiff is entitled to settle the case on behalf of the class members. For an agreement made by a plaintiff in a class action to be binding on the members of the class, the court must confirm it. A settlement may not be confirmed if it is unlawful, clearly unreasonable or if it infringes the rights of a third party. Individual consumers concerned by the action are not given the possibility to accept or refuse to be bound by settlements. Art. 11(4) did not institute any specific implementing measures or provisions.

According to Finnish legislation, the plaintiffs (QEs) should inform the public on their websites about their planned representative actions, initiated representative actions, the stage reached in these proceedings and the outcome of such proceedings. Thus, the party initiating the proceedings is liable to provide information thereon.

There are no provisions concerning the databases meant in Art 14.

There are no specific rules regarding discovery/disclosure applicable to representative actions or class actions in general. According to Finnish legislation, the court may order that an object or document be brought to court or that an inspection be conducted if the object or document could be of significance as proof or if the conducting of an inspection could be of significance in obtaining proof. This production of documents applies only to specific or identifiable documents/items in the possession of a person. There are no rules for the discovery of e.g. broad categories of documents in Finland.

There are no specific procedural mechanisms regarding requirements for cross-border representative actions. According to Finnish legislation, actions brought simultaneously by several claimants against one or more defendants must be dealt with in the same proceedings if they are based on essentially the same cause of action. This applies also to cross-border representative actions regarding both injunctive measures as well as redress measures.

Redress measures:

• A QE has the right to bring an action for redress under the Directive in another EEA State. Also, QEs designated in another EEA state for the purpose of bringing cross-border representative actions and included in the list referred to in Article 5(1) of the Directive, can bring a cross-border representative action in Finland.

Injunctive measures:

• Regarding injunctive measures, a QE designated in another EEA state for cross-border representative actions and included in the list referred to in Article 5(1) of the Directive, can bring a cross-border representative action in Finland if the conduct in question infringes the collective interests of consumers protected by the authority or organization designated as the QE. If the QE is an association, it may bring a cross-border representative action only in respect of a matter falling within its statutory purpose. The Consumer Ombudsman may, at his or her discretion, act as an agent or adviser for a QE appointed in another EEA State in proceedings before a court in a representative capacity.

There are no specific rules regarding the destination of any outstanding redress funds that were not recovered within the established time limits. Outstanding redress funds cannot be ordered to be paid to an organization promoting common interests.

The group members' claim against a defendant is time-barred under normal prescription rules. As a general rule, a claim based on a court ruling must be presented within 5 years of the ruling.

None at this time.