Foundation lacks standing in collective action against AbbVie due to insufficient interest

The Pharmaceutical Accountability Foundation (PAF) lacks standing in its collective action against pharmaceutical company AbbVie. So ruled the Amsterdam District Court on 9 July 2025. Holding that PAF lacked a sufficient interest in its claims, the court declined to assess AbbVie's alleged unlawful conduct on the merits.

In this public interest action, PAF had sought a declaratory court judgment that AbbVie acted unlawfully by overcharging for the drug adalimumab (marketed as Humira) during the patent period (2004-2018). According to PAF, this conduct led to the displacement of publicly insured basic healthcare services, thereby violating fundamental human rights, including the right to life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. PAF claimed to represent all individuals entitled to such care (the 'affected parties'). It further alleged that AbbVie had abused its dominant market position as regards the affected parties, in breach of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and/or Article 24 of the Dutch Competition Act (Mededingingswet). 

The District Court held that the fact that PAF had raised a socially significant issue in the public interest – namely, whether excessive drug prices had resulted in the displacement of necessary healthcare – did not necessarily imply that it had a sufficient interest in the specific relief sought, as prescribed under Article 3:303 of the Dutch Civil Code.

The District Court concluded that PAF's interest did not meet the threshold in question. Where only a declaratory judgment is sought, as in this case, that judgment must provide a tangible benefit or legal remedy to the claimant (in this case: the narrowly defined group on whose behalf it is claimed) in its legal relationship with the defendant. PAF had said nothing about obtaining redress or recognition as a result of a finding of unlawful conduct, nor had it sought damages for the stakeholders in this public interest action. Further, the financial interests of other parties who may have paid too much for Humira, such as healthcare insurers, were in the District Court's view third-party interests which PAF did not protect. Finally, the declaratory judgment sought pertained solely to a period that has long since passed. As such, granting the relief would not alter the legal relationship between the interested parties and AbbVie by bringing an end to any ongoing unlawful conduct.

Accordingly, the court held that the requisite interest in the claim was lacking. The desire to establish general legal standards for future cases – without any legal effect on the relationship between the parties involved in the collective action (i.e. PAF/the narrowly defined group and AbbVie) – was insufficient for this purpose. 

In an earlier interim judgment, the District Court had declared PAB's claim admissible after reviewing the criteria under the Settling of Large-Scale Losses or Damage (Class Actions) Act (Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie, Article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code). In that judgment, the District Court had classified the collective action as one brought in the public interest, thereby applying a more lenient admissibility standard. It had also dismissed AbbVie's argument that the claims were not in the public interest as they could pave the way to future damages claims. Notably, this has now proved fatal to PAF's case at the final stage.

Please also see our News Update on the interim judgment: Claim against pharmaceutical company admissible as public interest action