One of the defining features of opt-out collective actions is scale.
These cases often involve millions of consumers, each affected in a similar way. But while the total value of a claim can be substantial, the amount available to each individual is often relatively modest.
For example, in Merricks v Mastercard, the claim ultimately settled for £200m after earlier estimates had placed potential damages between £14bn and £17bn. Of that, £100m was ring-fenced for class members, with an estimated return of only £45–£70 per class member (with a proposed cap of £70 if the take-up was lower than the expected 5%).
That creates a challenge. Because when it comes to claiming compensation, many people don’t just consider what they might receive. They weigh it against the effort required to get it.
The question potential claimants actually ask
Opt-out claims often arise because individual losses are too small to make standalone claims practical. A few pounds added to a bill. A fee built into a price. A charge applied across millions of transactions.
From a legal perspective, recoveries represent:
- Acknowledgement that harm occurred
- Accountability at scale
- A deterrent against future conduct.
Without a collective mechanism, most consumers would receive nothing at all. So even small amounts can justify action. And collectively, these small amounts can add up to very significant sums.
But consumers often see things differently. Their question is simpler: is it worth it?
In theory, this should make opt-outs more attractive. With people preferring automatic inclusion to avoid the effort of signing up. But in most cases, if the claim succeeds, individuals still need to register to get their share of the compensation pot. And if doing so is not straightforward, participation may drop.
Not because people do not care about the issue. But because awareness is lacking, or the process feels disproportionate to the outcome.
Research by Thorndon Partners highlights how individuals are significantly more likely to engage when the perceived value is meaningful. For example, people were 26% more likely to make a claim when the potential compensation was £1,000 compared to £10.
When friction becomes the deciding factor
Where individual amounts are relatively low, friction becomes critical.
Friction is not just about time. It includes anything that makes the process feel difficult, uncertain or unclear.
Common examples include:
- Lack of understanding of the legal issues
- Forms that feel overly long or complex
- Unclear instructions about what to do
- Uncertainty about eligibility
- Long delays with little communication
- Lack of trust in the process
- Privacy concerns.
This is not just theoretical. Thorndon Partners found that the most commonly cited barrier to submitting a claim was the process feeling too complicated (38%).
Lack of awareness was also a significant factor, with 29% of respondents saying they had not heard of the issue or the legal case when it happened, or only became aware when told they might be owed compensation.
That combination is important. It shows that low participation is not simply about effort. It is also about understanding. If people are unclear about what the claim involves — or only hear about it at the point of payout — they are far less likely to engage.
So, how do we make the opt-out process feel safe, clear and proportionate for claimants?
Reducing friction without oversimplifying
The challenge is to reduce friction without compromising accuracy or compliance.
This is not about stripping away necessary checks or oversimplifying legal concepts. It is about making the process easier to understand and navigate.
That can include:
- Explaining claims clearly before compensation becomes available
- Helping people understand whether they may be affected
- Using plain English rather than technical language
- Setting realistic expectations about timelines and outcomes
- Ensuring that when action is required, the steps are clear and proportionate.
When people feel informed and confident, they are far more likely to engage.
Ultimately, participation depends on whether claiming feels worthwhile in practice, not just in theory.
A practical consideration for the future
As the opt-out regime continues to evolve, the design of compensation processes will become increasingly important.
Because at scale, small improvements in clarity and simplicity can have a significant effect on participation. And in a system built around collective redress, participation is what ultimately determines whether the promise of the regime is fulfilled.
At Join the Claim, we have published a new guide exploring this issue and what it means for law firms, funders and class representatives running collective actions.
If you are running or funding an opt-out collective action and would like to explore how awareness and claimant engagement can support participation, we are always open to an informal conversation.
