THE ENFORCEMENT OF CONSUMER LAW AND CAPITAL MARKETS LAW IN THE DIESEL EMISSIONS SCANDAL

A HETEROGENEOUS PICTURE OF ENFORCEMENT

Looking at the ways of law enforcement in the diesel emissions scandal, but also at its intensity and speed, huge differences between the various countries examined in this book become apparent: In the US ‘VW was hit from every angle’: In a ‘concert of government and consumer claims’ violations of all possible regulations such as consumer and commercial law, environmental standards as well as rules governing misleading advertisement etc. were prosecuted. Within a few months a settlement was negotiated between private claimants from all over the US and VW. Even criminal law aspects were addressed. Questions of capital markets law regarding the Volkswagen bonds have also been settled with the SEC. But not only private claimants but above all state authorities reacted astonishingly quickly at federal and state level.

Wheels turn slower in Europe. Also, within Europe a variety of different instruments of law enforcement are actually used, such as individual and collective civil actions, including forms of hybrid enforcement whereby public authorities bring consumer claims before civil courts, as well as regulatory and administrative sanctions along with criminal prosecution. In Germany the diesel emissions scandal even gave rise to the introduction of a new collective redress instrument, that is the model declaratory action (Musterfeststellungsklage). Yet, the picture within Europe is very heterogenous and an overall assessment shows that so far individual and collective redress claims within Europe faced significant difficulties both with regard to substantive and procedural law and that the intensity and severity of the measures taken, and sanctions imposed is significantly lower than in the US. It is particularly striking in comparison with the US, but also with other countries such as Australia and Brazil, that there is still no collective redress instrument on the European Union level that would enable aggrieved consumers let alone capital investors to assert their claims for damages in a bundled manner through one single claimant as representative.