Private enforcement – news on damages estimates and from Luxembourg

In the field of private enforcement, 2025 in Germany was characterised by the continued diverging approaches taken by trial courts in estimating antitrust damages. At the same time, the Court of Justice of the European Union provided new impetus in preliminary rulings.

Damages estimates: diverging approaches and the need for uniform standards

In 2025, German courts once again took diverging approaches to estimating antitrust damages. There is a wide range of methods and percentages between the individual judgments, with no clear preferred path being apparent to date.

On the one hand, Stuttgart Regional Court (Landgericht Stuttgart, judgment of 27 February 2025 – 30 O 235/17) and Stuttgart Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart, judgment of 20 November 2025 – 2 U 263/21) assume a broad scope for damages estimates and determine damages at their free discretion by referring to meta-studies. Stuttgart Regional Court even disregarded the results of its own expert witness proceedings by referring to minimum damages. Conversely, Munich I Regional Court (Landgericht München I) appears to place more emphasis on an empirical basis for damage assessment during its expert witness proceedings (see report on the expert witness proceedings). This divergence reveals a general problem: German trial courts are still looking for the right balance between judicial discretion and economic precision.

Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) did not set any new guidelines in 2025. Although its decisions to date have strengthened the trial courts’ discretionary powers, they also require an assessment of the economic analyses presented. This increases the pressure to develop methodological standards that combine estimation leeway and economic robustness. It therefore remains to be seen in 2026 whether a more uniform practice on estimates will emerge.

Collective redress: while German courts take a critical approach, the EU level shows more openness

Diverging approaches have also emerged when it comes to collective redress. While German courts – such as Dortmund Regional Court (Landgericht Dortmund, judgment of 26 February 2025 – 8 O 35/22 (Kart)) – still take a critical view of assignment models in specific cases and thus continue to clarify the limits of permissible arrangements, a different trend is emerging at EU level. In the ASG 2 case (judgment of 28 January 2025 – C‑253/23), the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the principle of effectiveness requires, under strict conditions, that injured parties can assert claims jointly in collective proceedings (see our Noerr Insight). At the same time, however, justified limits of national law remain valid in principle.

EU impulses regarding limitation periods

In the preliminary ruling proceedings Nissan Iberia (judgment of 4 September 2025 – C‑21/24), the Court of Justice of the European Union set out requirements with regard to the knowledge-based start of limitation periods in Spanish limitation law. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that in the light of the principle of effectiveness, the knowledge-based limitation period in the case of a follow-on action only starts to run once the underlying decision by the competition authorities has become final. It is obvious that this will also trigger discussions on limitation periods under German law.

It therefore appears that 2026 will be a year in which methodological, substantive and procedural questions still need to be addressed.

This article is part of the Competition Outlook 2026. You can find all Competition Outlook articles here.