Class actions & representative actions in Italy: The Turin Court of Appeal’s order of July 16, 2025

By order of July 16, 2025, the Court of Appeal of Turin (Specialized Section for Business Matters) ruled on the appeal filed by Stellantis, Groupe PSA Italia, and Automobiles Citroën in the "Takata airbag" case concerning the Citroën C3 and DS3 models (2009-2019)¹.

The Court dismissed the appeal and held that both the class action pursuant to Article 840-bis of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure and the representative actions pursuant to Articles 140-ter et seq. of the Italian Consumer Code were admissible.

Although this decision is only procedural in nature, given that no decision on the merits has yet been made, there are some interesting aspects worth noting that could influence future strategies (on both parties' side) in class actions.

The facts of the case

The facts of the case stem from the recall campaign involving a "stop-drive" order launched by the Stellantis Group in May 2024 in relation to certain C3/DS3 vehicles equipped with defective Takata airbags. This immediately triggered negative reactions from consumers and/or owners of the affected vehicles, who complained about delays in launching and managing the recall campaign, the lack of information provided, and the inadequacy of the alternative mobility measures offered.

On July 25, 2024, an individual consumer brought a class action for damages under Article 840-bis of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure before the Court of First Instance of Turin.

The claimant alleged that he had purchased a Citroën C3 in April 2016 and, in May 2024, had received a letter from Groupe PSA Italia S.p.A. informing him of a serious safety issue caused by defective Takata airbag inflators, accompanied by an invitation not to use the vehicle. He claimed a breach of Articles 20, 104, 112 of the Italian Consumer Code and of Article 1375 of the Italian Civil Code, arguing that he was acting as a member of the class of consumers who had purchased C3 vehicles during the period 2009–2019 and were subject to the recall campaign. He requested that Stellantis N.V., Groupe PSA Italia S.p.A. and, subsequently, Automobiles Citroën S.A.S. be declared liable and ordered to pay compensation for damages, consisting of the mandatory costs of the annual car ownership tax and compulsory third-party motor liability insurance during the period of immobilisation of the vehicle, as well as the damage for loss of use, the impairment of quality of life, and other non-pecuniary harm.

At the same time, consumer protection associations brought legal proceedings against such defendants.

Some of such consumer protection associations brought actions pursuant to Articles 840-bis et seq. of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to protect the homogeneous individual rights of all owners of C3 and DS3 vehicles affected by the recall campaign launched in May 2024 that were consequently subject to the stop-drive order. They alleged: that Stellantis N.V. and Groupe PSA Italia S.p.A. had acted unlawfully, since, although they were aware of the dangers posed by the Takata airbags as early as 2013, they had failed to act promptly to replace them and had only launched the recall campaign with the stop-drive order many years later (May 2024). Additionally, such consumer protection associations submitted that this was a campaign which in any event was not adequately planned nor executed; that the fundamental rights of those involved (the right to health, safety, property, self-determination and freedom of movement) had been infringed; that the defendants were liable for breach of Articles 18, 20, 104, 114–117 and 129 of the Italian Consumer Code, of Articles 2043 and 1176 of the Italian Civil Code, and of Regulation (EU) 2019/771; that the defendants' actions had given rise to pecuniary damages arising from the loss of the right to use the vehicle, as well as moral and existential damages.

Other associations, however, took steps to bring representative actions against the same defendants under Article 140-ter of the Italian Consumer Code (with proceedings being subsequently extended to Automobiles Citroën).

After joining the proceedings, the Court of First Instance declared all actions to be admissible. Upon appeal by the defendants, the Court of Appeal upheld the Court of First Instance's ruling that there was no manifest lack of foundation, that the class of consumers was identifiable (owners of C3/DS3 vehicles from 2009–2019), and that the rights were homogeneous regarding the damage caused by the stop-drive order.

On this latter point, the reasoning of the Court of Appeal is of particular interest: for the purposes of homogeneity, it is irrelevant that multiple forms of conduct were involved, since these pertained to the same multiple, closely connected actions that were carried out by the three defendants. Ultimately, such conduct represents the common factual basis of the homogeneous rights asserted (the marketing of a dangerous product and the launch of a late and inadequate recall campaign, which gave rise to the homogeneous rights of the affected owners).

With respect to the quantification of damages, although the amount of compensation may differ for individual vehicle owners, it can nevertheless be assessed by applying uniform and mathematical criteria. The damage resulting from the stop-drive order affected the entire class, since all owners were required to immediately refrain from using their vehicles.

This, in summary, is the reasoning followed by the judges of the Court of Appeals in deciding on the admissibility of the actions, without anticipating any assessment of the merits of the claims for compensation made by the plaintiffs.

But what did the Court say? Three key points

The Court of Appeal rejected the five procedural grounds of appeal put forward by Stellantis, Groupe PSA Italia, and Automobiles Citroën, ruling on procedural and substantive issues that could affect the strategy for bringing collective actions. In particular, the Court's ruling focused on three key issues, which will have significant implications for future litigations in this area.

1. Coexistence and joint handling: no obstacle, in principle, to the joinder of proceedings (class action and representative actions)

The Court of Appeal held that class actions and representative actions may be joined pursuant to Article 274 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure in cases where (a) the cause of action is identical and (b) the defendants are the same (at least partially). The joinder meets the requirements of procedural economy and consistency of the judgements (thereby avoiding conflicting decisions) and preserves the differences between the two instruments. Each case retains its own autonomy: allegations, evidence, remedies, and rules of procedure (e.g., on costs, limitation periods, settlements, and adhesion procedures) continue to lie with each institution. Their compatibility is assessed on the basis of the procedure — in this case, the simplified procedure under Article 281-decies of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure — and not on the nature of the remedies. Joinder is excluded when the association seeks an injunction (as expressly provided for in Article 840-sexiesdecies of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, paragraph 9).

Why it matters

• More efficient hybrid strategies: for the parties concerned, consolidation strengthens the unified management of compensatory (class action) and injunctive/compensatory (representative action) remedies, thereby allowing probative synergies to be achieved and reducing the risk of inconsistent judgments. This creates a more robust "value chain" for litigation, which can translate into greater bargaining power.
• Multi-level risk for companies: litigation becomes more complex for defendants: it increasingly affects their reputation and procedural aspects; the accelerated timelines of the simplified procedure require efficient and immediate risk management. Internal processes are therefore needed to ensure that there is narrative consistency between the two tracks (thus avoiding contradictions between "administrative compliance" and duties towards customers), as well as a recall playbook that guarantees compliance and operational accountability.
• Case law precedents from an organizational standpoint: it is reasonable to expect courts to be more inclined to consolidate parallel cases based on the same facts. This will lead to less procedural fragmentation, weightier case files covering more issues and a higher level of outcome predictability.

2. Ratione temporis: the "when" of the offense looks to the recall campaign

What does the Court say? According to the law on class actions (in force since May 19, 2021), the relevant date for determining the applicability of the new regime is not when the original defect manifested, but rather the subsequent conduct: the launch and management of the recall campaign are considered to be autonomous sources of liability. Therefore, since the recalls in the case in question took place in May 2024, after the law came into force, the new class action rules apply. The same applies to representative actions (the reform of which entered into force on June 25, 2023): consequently, the principle of tempus regit actum applies, meaning that the rules in force at the time an action is brought are relevant for determining the right to bring an action.

Why it matters

• The focus shifts to remedy management: in serial product safety/recall disputes, the burden of proof shifts from the "historical defect" to the quality of the recall, meaning that: the timeliness, coverage, transparency of information, repair timelines, and replacement measures therefore become central to judicial assessment.
• "Crisis compliance" as a line of defense: it is crucial for companies to be able to produce solid documentary evidence, such as risk assessments, decision logs, exchanges with the authorities, criteria and timing of communications (providing evidence of who, how and when), replacement or alternative vehicles availability, spare parts management and average response times.
• Two distinct regulatory layers: the Court emphasizes the distinction between EU type-approval legislation and consumer obligations under Articles 104 et seq. of the Italian Consumer Code, stating that: compliance with the former does not discharge the obligations under the latter. From a defensive perspective, operational KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) such as contact rates, fleet coverage, replacement lead times must be measured and tracked, because these are the data that are specifically relevant in court.

3. Class actions and associations: when locus standi is expanded

What does the Court say? In general, associations registered under Article 137 of the Italian Consumer Code are entitled to bring representative actions solely in the matters specified in Annex II-septies of such Code. In these cases, class actions are precluded.

However, when the claim goes beyond the scope of consumer protection and relies on more general rules and principles (such as, in the case dealt with by the Turin courts, the general principle of neminem laedere (meaning not to harm anyone), under Article 2043 of the Italian Civil Code, or the criterion of diligence in the performance of obligations, pursuant to Article 1176 of the Italian Civil Code, or the rules on consumer goods guarantees, referred to in EU Regulation 2019/771), which apply indiscriminately to all owners (including non-consumers) of cars affected by the manufacturing defect, then the right to bring a class action exists. In the case at hand, the Court therefore dismissed the objection of inadmissibility raised on this point.

Why it matters

• The "dual track" approach is consolidated: this means that when the case also involves non-consumers or fundamental rights (such as the right to health), associations are able to combine a representative action with a class action. This has the practical effect of broadening the audience and strengthening the action for compensation.
• New lines of defense for defendants: greater importance will be placed on issues such as class homogeneity and class definition (these prerequisites were deemed to be met for owners of C3/DS3 vehicles from 2009–2019 that were affected by the stop-drive order). It is therefore necessary to promptly outline the boundaries of the class, focusing on any overlaps between actions and possible conflicts between the remedies sought, to avoid the "combined effect" having a negative impact on the burden of allegation and proof.

Conclusion

The Turin Court of Appeal's order clarifies key procedural aspects of collective redress in Italy, particularly in the context of product recalls. The decision underscores the importance of:

• Efficient recall management and robust documentation
• Strategic use of joinder and hybrid litigation approaches
• Careful definition and management of claimant classes

For corporate defendants, the ruling signals a need for enhanced internal processes, crisis compliance protocols, and proactive litigation risk management.

_{1 Court of Appeal of Turin, Fifth Civil Division specializing in Business Matters, appeal proceedings No. 594/2025; contested measure: order of the Court of First Instance of Turin in proceedings No. 13711/2024.}

_{White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.}

_{This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.}

_{© 2025 White & Case LLP}