With the introduction of the Dutch Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie (Settling of Large-scale Losses or Damage (Class Actions) Act), civil courts are increasingly confronted with large socio-economic disputes, also reflecting a broader rise in ESG-driven litigation. One such up-and-coming issue is concerning PFAS emissions. Globally, collective claims are on the rise in response to extensive PFAS pollution. For example in high-profile cases such as the class action lawsuit against 3M and the $2 billion settlement of DuPont in New Jersey. In a recent class action before the District Court of The Hague (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:2175), several environmental organisations chose to take aim at the Dutch State. They did not seek damages. Instead, they challenged the State’s PFAS policy, arguing that it is insufficiently stringent. Calling for tighter regulations, additional emission limits, and more thorough implementations of European obligations.
According to the plaintiffs, the State is taking insufficient measures to prevent the spread of PFAS and to reduce existing contamination. They raised multiple points claiming the State is taking too little measures to meet the set requirements. The court dismissed their claims. Primarily because the plaintiffs had not sufficiently substantiated their claims and that the court considered its role in this socially oriented class-action to be restricted.
With regard to the insufficient substantiation, the court did not agree with the argument that current legal frameworks offer inadequate possibilities to effectively limit emissions. According to the court, the claimants failed to provide concrete and substantive evidence showing that existing regulatory instruments - such as permit conditions and enforcement requirements - are insufficient. Merely referring to the option of introducing a ban on discharges without supporting research or legal analysis, does not suffice this claim. At the same time, the court did acknowledge that PFAS are now classified as substances of very high concern and it recognises as well as endorses the importance of PFAS regulations. However, in the court’s view the presently existing legal system offers sufficient grounds and instruments to regulate PFAS emissions.
The court further emphasised that it is not the judiciary’s role to dictate political choices. Its task is only to assess whether the government has remained within the bounds of the law in its decision-making. The court cannot compel the legislator to enact legislation with a specific content. Judicial review of policy is therefore marginal: the civil court assesses legality, and is not empowered to formulate new policy itself. For interest groups, this boils down to the following. A claim must be accurately and fully anchored in concrete and enforceable legal standards. Judicial intervention is only justified if the State exceeds its discretionary powers, resulting in a violation of the law. In the case of PFAS claims like this, such a violation can occur if the State fails to meet the required PFAS standards. Arguing that legislations is insufficiently vigorous without identifying a specific breach of a legal obligation, will not be considered enough.
In addition to the substantive assessment discussed above, this ruling also highlights a relevant procedural component. After the summons was properly registered in the central register (as required), the plaintiffs amended several of their claims. As expected, the State argued that this undermines the system of the WAMCA. Registration of a summons is intended to allow other interest groups to join the dispute if they have grounds to do. Subsequent amendments to the claims undermine this exact function.
The court did recognise that there is little competence for amending the summons but it also highlighted that no absolute prohibition applies. The key question is whether the amendment of a claim or part of the summons also substantially changes the substance of the dispute. In this case, the changes were deemed permissible, as they were primarily of a textual nature or attributable to the defence of the opposing party, and did not change the core of the claims.
This ruling further emphasises that PFAS has become a hot-topic in both environmental law and collective action litigation. Social and legal attention for PFAS is visibly increasing, not only in the Netherlands but internationally. With the growing attention for public health and the environment, it is likely that many more collective proceedings concerning PFAS will be initiated in the near future.
