VCRS 0.1.0-beta.1    

Annex NL: the Netherlands (WAMCA)
=================================

What the WAMCA and the Dutch courts require of a register, and what the standard asks beyond them.

This is the text of VCRS 0.1.0-beta.1 as released, and it does not change. The current text is [VCRS 0.1.0-beta.2](https://vcrs.org/annexes/nl).

02

VCRS 0.1.0-beta.1
-----------------

9 sections

VCRS 0.1.0-beta.1. Draft for consultation. Not legal advice. Law and rulings as read on 19 October 2026: statutes from the BWB, rulings from rechtspraak.nl, each quote checked against the publisher's text.

1. The regime
-------------

A collective action is brought under art. 3:305a BW and art. 1018b to 1018m Rv (the WAMCA, in force since 1 January 2020) by a stichting or vereniging whose statutes cover the interests. Ad hoc and commercially initiated foundations may sue ('De WAMCA biedt uitdrukkelijk ruimte voor ad hoc organisaties en commerciële organisaties', Rb Amsterdam 27 May 2026, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:6440, ro. 6.47); who started the case invites critical review, not a bar (Rb Noord-Holland 23 July 2025, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:8944, ro. 4.32).

The foundation must be 'voldoende representatief (...), gelet op de achterban en de omvang van de vertegenwoordigde vorderingen' (art. 3:305a lid 2 BW). The Hoge Raad reads this as 'de steun (...) van een voldoende groot deel van de totale groep personen voor wie zij opkomt' (HR 17 July 2026, ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1198, ro. 3.3.5). The statute and the Hoge Raad set no number (ro. 3.3.6).

2. Who is bound, and how they join
----------------------------------

- **Residents: opt-out.** Everyone in the narrowly defined class is bound unless they opt out by written statement to the court registry within the term the court sets after the exclusive representative is appointed (art. 1018f lid 1 Rv). Courts adapt the form, by e-mail to the court for instance (Rb Amsterdam 19 March 2025, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:1859, ro. 3.18).
- **People living abroad: opt-in.** They are bound only by a written statement to the court registry, within the court's term, that they consent to being represented (art. 1018f lid 5 Rv). In a consumer claim under the Representative Actions Directive they must also state that they are not represented in a parallel action in another EU or EEA state (art. 1018f lid 6 Rv). Outside such claims the court may apply opt-out to them on a party's request (lid 5, last sentence). Both statements are made only after the appointment. A person abroad belongs to the narrowly defined group the foundation acts for (lid 5); whether their support counts before they are bound is unsettled (section 8), and this standard counts it (NL-15).
- **Joining the foundation** is not a statutory act. It is evidence of support, and not a condition of being bound: '(behoudens een tijdige opt-out) alle personen die behoren tot de groep (...) door de uitspraak worden gebonden' (HR ro. 3.3.5; art. 1018f lid 1 Rv). Nor is it needed to show support: 'Actieve aanmelding voor de collectieve vordering of lidmaatschap van een belangenorganisatie zijn echter niet vereist om te kunnen aannemen dat sprake is van steun van een voldoende groot deel van de totale groep' (HR ro. 3.3.6). The foundation's website must say how to join and how to leave (art. 3:305a lid 2 sub d 9° BW), so joining is revocable.

3. When the register is tested
------------------------------

| Stage | What it asks of the register | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Writ | A precise class definition and how representativeness is met | art. 1018c lid 1 sub b and d Rv |
| Admissibility | Support relative to the whole class, the size of the claims, attribution to class members, a verifiable count, an accurate sign-up flow. Tested as things stand when the court decides | art. 1018c lid 5 Rv; HR ro. 3.2.2, 3.3.5; Rb Amsterdam 2026:6440 ro. 6.14 |
| Exclusive representative | Group size and claim value weigh in the choice between competing claimants | art. 1018e lid 1 Rv |
| Notice | The register supplies the known persons who get a letter, unless the court decides otherwise | art. 1018f lid 3 Rv |
| After appointment | The court keeps 'doorlopende controle' and may re-test; a mass opt-out can end the case | HR ro. 3.2.4; art. 1018f lid 1 Rv |
| Distribution | The class minus opt-outs, plus people abroad who opted in; per-person proof of membership at the latest here | art. 1018i lid 1, 1018j lid 1 Rv; Rb Amsterdam 25 September 2024, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:5972, ro. 3.5 |

**Reference date.** The court judges 'naar de toestand zoals die zich voordoet ten tijde van zijn beslissing' (HR ro. 3.2.2, applied to the WAMCA in ro. 3.2.5). The register states a reference date shortly before each oral hearing and regenerates on the court's request. Courts have worked from a count of 1 October 2024 for a hearing of 22 October 2024 (Rb Amsterdam 15 January 2025, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:313, ro. 6.8 and 8.4).

4. Required items
-----------------

A register that claims a level in a Dutch action meets every item below. The first table holds what Dutch law requires, by statute or a court's holding. The second holds what this standard requires beyond the law, each with the case law that gives the reason.

### What the law requires

| \# | Item | Core | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| NL-1 | A class definition and a class size with its basis. A range so wide that no conclusion follows from it carries little weight | 3, 6.1 | art. 1018c lid 1 sub b Rv; Rb Noord-Holland 2025:8944 ro. 4.40: 'Die schatting heeft echter een dermate grote bandbreedte dat daaruit geen nauwkeurige conclusies kunnen worden getrokken.' |
| NL-2 | Coverage against the whole class, at the date the court decides | 6.2, 7 | HR ro. 3.3.5: 'de steun heeft van een voldoende groot deel van de totale groep personen voor wie zij opkomt'; ro. 3.3.7 rejects 'een niet te verwaarlozen aantal' as 'een te lage drempel' |
| NL-3 | The size of the represented claims, where damages are claimed | 6.5 | art. 3:305a lid 2 BW: 'de omvang van de vertegenwoordigde vorderingen'; Rb Noord-Holland 2025:8944 ro. 4.44 and 4.52 |
| NL-7 | Every flow version tells the person which claimant, defendant, claim and period they join | 5.1 | Rb Amsterdam 4 February 2026, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:1555, ro. 5.24: the process gave 'geen duidelijk (eerlijk) beeld (...) waar deze massaclaim op ziet'; Rb Amsterdam 2021:7647 ro. 5.11; Rb Amsterdam 2026:6440 ro. 6.20 |
| NL-8 | The count is verified from the foundation's own administration, never from a list the foundation supplies | 8 | Rb Amsterdam 2024:5972 ro. 3.4: 'De registeraccountant heeft echter niet zelf geverifieerd of het aantal aanmeldingen volgt uit de administratie van ASC, maar heeft zich gebaseerd op een door ASC aangeleverde lijst. Dit is naar het oordeel van de rechtbank onvoldoende.' |
| NL-9 | The foundation supplies the figures on its own initiative, in or soon after the writ, and refreshes them for the hearing | 7 | Rb Noord-Holland 2025:8944 ro. 4.52: the foundation 'kan (...) daarmee niet wachten tot zij van de rechtbank daartoe opdracht krijgt'; ro. 4.50 (no further opportunity) |
| NL-10 | A published route to join and to leave; a withdrawal takes the record out of the count | 4.1 (1), 5.1 | art. 3:305a lid 2 sub d 9° BW |
| NL-11 | For people abroad, once the term the court sets under art. 1018f lid 5 Rv has closed: their written statement to the registry, made within that term, and in a consumer claim under the Directive their statement on parallel actions. The record names the channel as `registry`, or as the route the court set instead, which the export then states as `opt_in_channel`: courts adapt the form ('kan de rechter hiervan afwijken', Rb Amsterdam 2025:1859 ro. 3.18, on lid 1). The export states the term's first and last day as `opt_in_opened_on` and `opt_in_closed_on`; a consent given at sign-up is not this statement | 4.6 | art. 1018f lid 5 and 6 Rv: 'door een schriftelijke mededeling aan de griffie', 'binnen een door de rechter te bepalen termijn van ten minste een maand na de' (...) 'aankondiging van de uitspraak, bedoeld in artikel 1018e', so after the appointment |
| NL-13 | Registering and checking the backing is the foundation's own task, whatever it costs | 9 | Rb Noord-Holland 2025:8944 ro. 4.51: 'het haar kerntaak is om op te komen voor de belangen van haar achterban. (...) Het gegeven dat aan die werkzaamheden kosten zullen zijn verbonden doet daaraan niet af' |

### What this standard requires

| \# | Item | Core | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| NL-4 | Support attributable to identifiable members of the class, with contact data | 4.1 (5, 7), 4.2 | Active sign-up is not required (HR ro. 3.3.6) and anonymous support is not excluded, but a court must address whether support is anonymous and comes from the class: HR ro. 3.3.11 faults the Hof for not asking 'of (...) de likes volledig anoniem zijn uitgebracht en of daaruit is af te leiden of deze afkomstig zijn van personen die behoren tot de groep'. Without contact data the backing cannot be reached: 'Omdat TPC geen contactgegevens heeft geregistreerd (...) kan zij immers niet communiceren met de door haar gestelde achterban' (Rb Amsterdam 29 December 2021, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2021:7647, ro. 5.12). This standard counts only support it can attribute |
| NL-5 | Deduplication on more than an e-mail address | 4.1 (6), 4.5 | The count must be verifiable: 'het gestelde aantal deelnemers wel verifieerbaar moet zijn' (Rb Amsterdam 2024:5972 ro. 3.3). The objection that one person signed up under several addresses failed because SOMI's sign-up asked more: 'moet bij aanmelding niet alleen het e-mailadres worden opgegeven maar ook unieke persoonsgegevens, zoals de voor- en achternaam en (...) ook nog de geboortedatum' (Rb Amsterdam 2026:6440 ro. 6.21) |
| NL-6 | Each record affirms membership of the class and support for this claim | 4.2 | One court asked for an accountant's statement that each sign-up had ticked the option confirming a purchase in the class (Rb Amsterdam 2024:5972 ro. 3.4). Another counted support because every sign-up declared 'Ik ben Gedupeerde' and 'Ik steun de bankenclaim van Collectief FGS' (Rb Amsterdam 15 July 2026, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:7864, ro. 5.10). An affirmation on each record answers both |
| NL-12 | A count per subgroup where the foundation defines subgroups or a subgroup is small | 6.4 | Courts weigh representativeness per group where the claimant itself acts for distinct groups: FGS distinguished the Coronadatalek case because 'de eisende partij in die zaak zelf voor verschillende te onderscheiden groepen opkwam' (Rb Amsterdam 2026:7864 ro. 5.11). SOMI's court waived a count per group because each was large, and set apart cases on '(zeer) kleine groepen' (Rb Amsterdam 2026:6440 ro. 6.23) |
| NL-14 | An operator paid regardless of the outcome, whom the foundation can afford to replace | 9 | A servicer on 'een (redelijke/zakelijke) vergoeding die niet afhankelijk is van de uitkomst van de procedure' is in any case not a connected person (Hof Den Haag 23 December 2025, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2025:2738, ro. 6.81). The connection there rested on servicers who financed the claim for an outcome-dependent reward, repaid from the proceeds with an uplift (ro. 6.77, 6.78). A foundation tied to its servicer had no room 'om DRRT buiten de deur te zetten' (Rb Den Haag 20 September 2023, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:14036, ro. 5.122). This standard takes the safe harbour |
| NL-15 | Each record holds the person's residence, and a person abroad counts as support until the term of art. 1018f lid 5 Rv closes, with residents and people abroad shown apart in the cross-section (core 6.3) | 4.6, 6.3 | Residence decides who must opt in (art. 1018f lid 5 Rv). A person abroad belongs to 'de nauw omschreven groep personen wier belangen in deze collectieve vordering worden behartigd' (lid 5), but HR ro. 3.3.5 ties representativeness to the binding effect of the judgment, so a court may leave them out until they are bound (section 8). Showing them apart lets the court weigh support either way |

5. Recommended items
--------------------

- **Documentary proof of membership per record (grade B).** Courts mostly leave actual membership to the damages stage (Rb Amsterdam 2024:5972 ro. 3.5), but demanded it at admissibility for an investor class whose membership turned on records the foundation could have collected (Rb Noord-Holland 2025:8944 ro. 4.42 and 4.43), and accepted a per-participant overview of invoices and contracts with identities withheld from the defendant (Rb Amsterdam 25 October 2023, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:6683, ro. 2.7 and 2.8).
- **Confirmed sign-ups beside raw sign-ups.** Courts record both figures (Rb Rotterdam 28 May 2025, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2025:6254, ro. 6.34: SDBN's 9 421 forms, 4 186 confirmed by e-mail).
- **The cross-section.** The Hoge Raad names whether the people who joined 'een evenwichtige afspiegeling vormen van de totale groep' as a way to infer support of the whole (ro. 3.3.6).
- **The auditor's check at Level 3.** An accountant who examined the operator on site and was shown the results of queries on its databases answered the objection that the count came from exports (Rb Amsterdam 2025:313 ro. 8.5.2). An expert with a bailiff present, making test sign-ups and examining the databases, carried SOMI's count (Rb Amsterdam 2026:6440 ro. 6.19). An accountant who only watched the foundation generate the list was accepted as 'minimaal' (Rb Amsterdam 2025:1859 ro. 3.3), before the Hoge Raad raised the bar.
- **A report under Standaard 4400N.** It puts the burden on the defendant to say concretely what is wrong: 'Een algemeen verwoord vermoeden is ontoereikend' (Rb Amsterdam 2025:313 ro. 8.5.1).
- **Endorsements from organisations with a track record**, recorded apart from the count (core 6.6). The Hoge Raad lets them weigh (ro. 3.3.9); they carried SOMI (Rb Amsterdam 2026:6440 ro. 6.24) and their absence counted against SDBN (Rb Rotterdam 2025:6254 ro. 6.37: 'Dergelijke steunbetuigingen kunnen met name van belang zijn in gevallen waarin er in absolute en relatieve zin een beperkte achterban is.').
- **An explicit mandate per record for a damages claim based on the AVG.** Whether art. 80 AVG requires one is left to the merits (HR ro. 3.4.5), and the Court of Justice may decide whether the WAMCA's requirements apply to such claims at all (C-523/25, pending).
- **A consultation channel** the board uses before settling. It counts toward the safeguards (Hof Den Haag 2025:2738 ro. 6.87; Claimcode 2019, principe V.7).

6. Recognised identification
----------------------------

- **Identity, grade A**: iDIN (bank identification) and eHerkenning (for legal persons), beside notified eIDAS means. `nl.json` lists them. DigiD is not available to private parties.
- **Outside sources, grade B**: the RDW vehicle register for vehicle classes; the KvK Handelsregister for business classes.

7. The level a typical action needs
-----------------------------------

A recommendation, not a court's rule.

- **Level 2, Identified, is the floor for a damages action.** Named, contactable, deduplicated people who affirmed membership and support, coverage against the class and its spread, recomputed by an auditor from the source records. Rb Amsterdam accepted counts against the lower test the Hoge Raad rejected, 'een niet te verwaarlozen aantal personen' (2024:5972 ro. 3.3 and 2025:1859 ro. 3.3; 2025:313 ro. 8.3), so no share accepted before 17 July 2026 is safe.
- **Level 3, Verified**, when the book will be fought over: a competing claimant in the window of art. 1018d Rv, a defendant attacking the count, a class of millions where the share will be small, a class whose membership turns on records, or a second chance after an adjournment.
- **Level 1, Registered**, matches the floor accepted in Rb Amsterdam 2025:1859, which predates the Hoge Raad's ruling.

8. Unsettled
------------

- No published ruling applies HR 2026:1198 to representativeness yet; Rb Amsterdam found Milieudefensie representative on 9 September 2026 without citing it (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:9098, ro. 3.13). The Hof Den Haag has not decided the referred TPC case.
- Whether support from people abroad counts before any of them is bound. HR ro. 3.3.5 bases the test on the binding effect of the judgment; art. 1018f lid 5 Rv counts people abroad in the group the foundation acts for. No ruling decides it. This standard counts their support and shows it apart (NL-15).
- C-523/25 (SDBN v Amazon) asks whether the Netherlands may add admissibility requirements to GDPR claims. If not, privacy damages actions leave the representativeness test.
- Whether a foundation may file statements of people abroad with the registry on their behalf, or in bulk. The statute is silent and no ruling was found.
- The cabinet's response to the WODC evaluation (Kamerstukken I 2026/27, 34608, C, 12 October 2026) proposes no change to the WAMCA, defers on representativeness to the courts, and plans to explore with the Raad voor de rechtspraak how to make the central register more complete, accessible and searchable. The WODC studies funding and margins next.
- `nl.json` asks every record abroad for the statement on parallel actions once the term has closed, though art. 1018f lid 6 Rv requires it only in a consumer claim under the Directive. Outside such a claim, record the statement anyway or note the exception in the conformance statement.
- Where the court applies opt-out to people abroad (art. 1018f lid 5 Rv, last sentence), the export states no window (`opt_in_opened_on` and `opt_in_closed_on` null), a record abroad counts without a statement, and the conformance statement names the court's decision.

Sources
-------

1. Burgerlijk Wetboek Boek 3, art. 3:305a, BWBR0005291, rendition of 1 July 2025: [https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005291](https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005291)
2. Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, art. 1018b to 1018m, BWBR0001827, rendition of 14 July 2026: [https://wetten.overheid.nl/jci1.3:c:BWBR0001827&boek=Derde&titeldeel=14a](https://wetten.overheid.nl/jci1.3:c:BWBR0001827&boek=Derde&titeldeel=14a)
3. HR 17 July 2026, ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1198
4. Rb Amsterdam 27 May 2026, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:6440
5. Rb Amsterdam 15 July 2026, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:7864
6. Rb Amsterdam 4 February 2026, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:1555
7. Hof Den Haag 23 December 2025, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2025:2738
8. Rb Noord-Holland 23 July 2025, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:8944
9. Rb Rotterdam 28 May 2025, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2025:6254
10. Rb Amsterdam 19 March 2025, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:1859
11. Rb Amsterdam 15 January 2025, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:313
12. Rb Amsterdam 25 September 2024, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:5972
13. Rb Amsterdam 25 October 2023, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:6683
14. Rb Den Haag 20 September 2023, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:14036
15. Rb Amsterdam 29 December 2021, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2021:7647
16. Kamerstukken I 2026/27, 34608, C (12 October 2026): [https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-1274229](https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-1274229)
17. CJEU C-523/25, SDBN v Amazon, pending: [https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-523/25](https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-523/25)
18. Claimcode 2019 (private code; courts apply it)
19. Rb Amsterdam 9 September 2026, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:9098

Every ruling is at [https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=](https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=) followed by its ECLI.