Israel: A Dispute Resolution: Class Action (Plaintiff) Overview

Class actions are one of the central legal tools in Israeli law and serve as an essential pillar in consumer protection, competition law and privacy protection. In recent years, Israeli courts have been dealing with an increase in the number of complex and high-profile class actions, particularly in the fields of privacy, financial services, antitrust, digital platforms and mass consumer claims.

In 2025, significant legislative and judicial developments were recorded in Israel, continuing to shape the landscape of class action litigation. Proposed Amendment No 16 to the Class Actions Law – intended to refine and streamline the legal mechanisms governing class proceedings, is currently in the legislative process in the Knesset. At the same time, several important rulings were issued in the past year, clarifying the law on key issues such as environmental protection, privacy rights, global corporations, insurance law and more.

Trends

Reform of the Privacy Protection Law – Amendment 13 (effective 14 August 2025)

Since many class actions in Israel concern privacy violations, this amendment is expected to have a significant impact on ongoing cases. For example, the law now establishes a blanket prohibition on performing any action involving personal data collected unlawfully. It also imposes an obligation to appoint a Data Protection Officer in public bodies and in any organisation whose primary activity involves large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, as well as in organisations engaged in large-scale systematic monitoring or tracking of individuals.

Proposed Amendment No 16 to the Class Actions Law (Government Bill)

This is an extensive reform proposal, which includes, among other things, a framework for handling competing class action motions and granting priority to the party who first approached the business (“pre-motion notice”), as well as a structured method for awarding attorney fees and incentive awards to representative plaintiffs and their counsel. The proposal is currently under discussion in a joint committee of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee and the Economic Affairs Committee.

Encouraging private enforcement in competition law

In July 2025, the Israel Competition Authority issued a public notice highlighting the importance of private enforcement through class actions and announcing its willingness to provide informal assistance and guidance to representative plaintiffs. This is a supportive regulatory signal for class actions involving cartels and abuse of market power.

Selected Significant Court Rulings from the Past Year

BRM 4413/23 State of Israel – Tax Authority v Neuman (Supreme Court, 4 November 2025)

The Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s approval of a class action concerning a tax benefit for self-employed individuals’ pension savings. The court held that although the statutory text supported the plaintiffs’ interpretation, the legislative purpose supported the Tax Authority’s position, and that a “drafting flaw” in the relevant statutory provision should not entitle class members to benefit where the underlying legislative intent was different.

Attorney General v Golan (“Dieselgate”), RA 8356/22 (Supreme Court, 14 April 2024)

The state appealed the certification of a class action against Volkswagen and its Israeli importer regarding the “Dieselgate” emissions scandal. The core issue was whether a class action can be certified on behalf of the entire Israeli public for environmental harm, without showing individualised personal damages to class members, including the representative plaintiffs. A three-justice panel issued divergent opinions: Justice Ronen supported a lenient approach, arguing that the Class Actions Law includes mechanisms enabling relief when the class has a valid cause of action but faces difficulties in identifying individual members or quantifying each member’s damages. President Amit held that the law requires a clear personal cause of action, and class actions cannot be certified for bodily harm claimed to affect an undefined segment of the public. Justice Daphne Barak-Erez adopted a middle ground: a more lenient standard for proving personal causes of action in cases of mass exposure to pollutants but concluded that in this case the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden in proving actual damages.

The significance of this case is that it represents a formative ruling that attempts to define what is required for class actions involving mass harm, but also reveals deep disagreement within the court regarding the scope of the evidentiary burden.

Hana Tamari et al. v Mivtachim and Other Pension Funds (LC 33792-03-24, National Labour Court, 28 September 2025)

The National Labour Court accepted an appeal in a class action concerning alleged discrimination regarding payment of one of the benefits under the pension fund by-laws. The court ruled that discrimination between insured members is impermissible when they have switched between pension funds during their employment – unless there is an actuarial or substantive reason for the distinction.

The significance of this case is that it strengthens the ability to file class actions in the context of social and pension insurance, anchors the principle of equality among pension fund members and highlights the potentially substantial individual damages, which in one case reached USD80,000.

Looking Ahead

Several key issues are expected to shape Israeli class action practice in coming years. The impact of Amendment No 16 remains uncertain as it continues to advance through the Knesset; the final legislation will determine what limits are placed on attorney fees and incentive awards, and whether these limits may have a “chilling effect” on initiating complex cases where compensation depends entirely on success.

Regarding international and global corporations, courts continue the trend of recognising Israeli jurisdiction over claims against them under Israeli law, while rejecting the application of foreign law. In the coming years, especially after Amendment 13, numerous privacy class actions are expected, with the resulting case law set to shape Israeli privacy doctrine for years to come.

In the consumer field, courts have “broken the fear barrier,” issuing judgments worth hundreds of millions of shekels, and it remains to be seen whether this trend will continue.

Additionally, an increase in class actions in the capital markets sector is expected, partly in light of a ruling earlier this year in the Hatslacha case, which signals heightened judicial scrutiny of anti-competitive behaviour in banking and investments.

Conclusion

The year 2025 saw numerous significant developments in the field of class actions in Israel, including landmark rulings that advanced Israeli law. The major uncertainty remains the fate of Amendment No 16, which, once enacted, is expected to dramatically reshape the field. In any case, class actions continue to evolve and remain a central tool for civil enforcement and consumer protection in Israel.