Anticipated surge in proceedings has not yet materialised
In October 2024, we wrote an article for the PensioenMagazine pension journal, analysing the risks of collective actions in the pension sector and suggesting how pension funds could prepare for them. At the time, we highlighted the phenomenon of entrepreneurial mass litigation, in which collective actions are initiated by commercial parties that earn income by funding the proceedings. The Dutch ‘plaintiffs’ bar’, comprising lawyers who institute this type of proceedings, had considerably grown since the introduction of the Settling of Large-Scale Losses or Damage (Class Actions) Act (Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie) on 1 January 2020, and various claim firms established close ties with foreign litigation funders. When the Future of Pensions Act was being drafted, the Council of State and the Council for the Judiciary warned emphatically of a surge in litigation, even if only relatively few people were to bring individual proceedings. Today, almost three years after the Act’s entry into force, we may conclude that the expected deluge of proceedings has not arrived – at least for the time being.
What is the explanation for this?
The first reason is obvious: the pension transition is simply still in full swing. In addition, a mass dispute usually needs time to evolve. Mass disputes in the financial sector and for cartel damage have taught us that it can take years, sometimes even more than a decade, for a mass claim to gather steam. Dissatisfaction only arises over time, as pension members start feeling the adverse effects of a product or transition, which may then result in collective claims. On top of that, prescription periods are relatively long and can be easily interrupted, and mass disputes take time to prepare. This pattern remains particularly relevant to the pension sector. The effects of the pension transition will not be completely clear until current and former members and pension beneficiaries are actually faced with the consequences.
Individual test cases as a prelude to collective actions?
The current pension claim landscape is diverse, with various organisations using a variety of different strategies. The current absence of collective actions does not mean that employers and pension funds can sit back and relax. Claims organisations might opt to initiate individual test cases first in order to obtain a landmark decision. A pension-oriented claims organisation’s call for an interruption action, urging current and former members and pension beneficiaries to secure their past entitlements to catch-up indexation, fits this picture. While all sorts of legal reservations can be raised about this proposed claim and its feasibility, the focus on overdue indexation illustrates that all the ingredients for dissatisfaction are abundantly present: a years-long period in which pensions lagged behind inflation, followed by a transition that has sparked fears among a large group of people that the indexation they missed out on will be lost permanently.
Generally speaking, an unfavourable ruling in a test case can trigger further claims. It is therefore important to be quick to take smaller-scale proceedings seriously as well, rather than treating them as isolated incidents. In addition, it should be borne in mind that with effect from 1 January 2024, pension disputes may be submitted to the Pension Funds Dispute Body (Geschilleninstantie Pensioenfondsen) via a low-threshold process. Although this body does not handle collective actions, new rulings on questions of principle could potentially have a wider impact.
Cautious look ahead
The next few years will be decisive for the further development of the pension claims landscape. The upcoming transition of dozens of pension funds in 2027 and 2028 and the expected development of new case law on substantive provisions of the Future of Pensions Act will increase the risk of litigation. Good communication is crucial in this respect and can at least partially eliminate the breeding ground for dissatisfaction. This point was recently reiterated by the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) in its letter of 9 January 2026 to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, which concluded in its observations that the pension transition “will have failed if, while properly implemented in technical terms, pension fund members have not received adequate information and consequently have no confidence in the conversion of their pensions“.
We are working on a follow-up article for PensioenMagazine, which we expect to be published in April 2026. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions in the meantime or would like to consult us about the implications of the Future of Pensions Act.