Class Actions Radar
Scanning global trends and risks
Class actions are growing in volume, complexity, and strategic importance across global markets.
Read more
8 ต.ค. 2026
Insight
Australia
Class actions have become a recognised enterprise risk, shaped by cyber incidents, regulatory scrutiny, shareholder expectations, ESG obligations and emerging technologies. Organisations can’t afford to view them as isolated legal events.
Our survey of senior legal, governance and risk professionals across corporate Australia reveals a clear shift: class action risk is increasingly viewed as a Board-level issue requiring stronger governance, oversight and organisational readiness.
The boardroom shift
Our survey confirms what many directors already sense intuitively: class action risk is broadening, and the governance questions it raises are becoming more complex. Over half of the organisations we surveyed rate their concern about class action exposure at 4 or 5 out of 5, a figure that reflects the reality of an increasingly active litigation environment.
What has changed is the nature of the risk itself. Cyber breaches now routinely trigger parallel regulatory, shareholder and consumer proceedings. ESG commitments are crystallising into enforceable obligations. Derivative actions are re-emerging as a tool for shareholders to test board decision-making. While only 33% of participants identified AI risk as a current concern, AI issues are generating the kind of overseas litigation that has historically found its way to Australia within a few years.
The survey suggests there is an opportunity for boards to bring greater structure to how class action risk is assessed and monitored. At present, many organisations address it within broader risk or compliance categories rather than as a discrete item. Sixty percent of respondents reported that their board or senior executive team does not receive regular dedicated briefings on class action exposure. As the risk profile evolves, there is a natural case for governance frameworks to evolve with it.
Directors may wish to consider whether their current governance arrangements provide sufficient visibility over class action trends, including whether board materials and disclosure processes are designed with litigation resilience in mind, and whether the organisation is actively monitoring overseas developments that may signal where Australian claims are likely to emerge next.
In our experience, the organisations best positioned to manage this risk are those that treat class action preparedness as a standing governance consideration and ensure that their frameworks are updated and relevant to the businesses shifting risks. For boards willing to engage with these issues proactively, the dividend is risk mitigation and confidence in the quality of governance.
This survey highlights an opportunity for directors. As class action risk evolves across cyber, ESG and AI, boards that build structured visibility over that risk, and treat it as a standing governance item, will be the ones best positioned when the next wave of claims arrives."
Jason Betts, Partner, Head of Class Actions, Asia and Australia
Where is class action exposure concentrated?
Our survey data shows class action exposure distributed across five distinct areas, none of which can be managed in isolation. Shareholder claims remain prominent, but they now sit alongside cyber, investor, consumer, ESG and employment risks that cut across operations, governance and disclosure. For leadership teams, the practical consequence is that class action risk cannot be siloed within a single function or mapped to a single part of the business.
 | Financial Disclosure and Shareholder Claims Shareholder claims remain the most commonly identified source of exposure. Fifty-seven percent of respondents ranked financial disclosure risk in their top concerns. Listed entities face increasingly complex disclosure obligations, and the consequences of a misstep have sharpened as plaintiff firms pursue continuous disclosure claims in parallel with regulatory investigations. |
 | Cyber Security and Data Privacy A single cyber incident can generate regulatory investigation, shareholder claims, consumer class actions and reputational fallout simultaneously. That convergence is what makes cyber risk distinctive. It is not simply a technology issue or a compliance issue. It is a litigation multiplier. Forty-four percent of respondents ranked cyber and privacy among their top class action risks, and the survey suggests that exposure is shaped less by the breach itself than by the governance and response decisions that follow it. |
 | Consumer Claims and Product Liability Consumer-facing organisations continue to face significant exposure from product quality, safety and marketing representations. The risk is most acute in healthcare, pharmaceutical and consumer sectors, where regulatory standards and consumer expectations are both intensifying. |
 | Employment and Workplace Culture Underpayments, discrimination and systemic workplace issues are increasingly being pursued through collective actions rather than individual disputes. That shift creates particular challenges for employers where the alleged failings are characterised as embedded in organisational systems and culture rather than confined to isolated incidents. |
 | ESG and sustainability ESG commitments that were once aspirational are now being tested as enforceable representations. As regulatory frameworks tighten around sustainability reporting and greenwashing, the gap between what organisations have publicly committed to and what they can demonstrate becomes a measurable litigation risk. Respondents identified ESG as a growing source of shareholder, consumer and activist claims, particularly where sustainability disclosures lack the rigour applied to financial reporting. |
Class action risk touches data systems, continuous disclosure issues, investor claims, sustainability reporting, supply chains and workplace culture. Organisations focused on only one of those areas are likely exposed in another."
Melissa Gladstone, Partner
Three trends reshaping litigation risk
 | Cyber is now litigation riskCyber security and data privacy concerns sit at the centre of the corporate risk. Forty-nine percent of all respondents identified cyber and data privacy as a top-three source of class action risk. In financial services, that figure rises to 68%. The legal framework has materially changed. New privacy protections, expanded regulatory enforcement powers and heightened reporting obligations have each widened the basis on which claims can be brought. Yet recognition of the risk has not translated into preparedness. Many organisations have not adjusted their governance or response frameworks to reflect that shift. The consistent theme of cyber and data concern across two successive surveys is notable. Cyber and privacy risk is not a passing concern. It has settled into the landscape as a structural source of exposure, and the legal framework around it has materially changed. AI is also reshaping cyber risk and regulator expectations are increasing. In an open letter to industry sent earlier this year, ASIC urged entities to act now and not wait for advanced AI tools to uplift their cyber security fundamentals and ensure their systems can withstand AI-accelerated threats. Identifying 12 steps to focus on, including reassessing cyber plans and the use of AI for defensive purposes where appropriate, ASIC called for “urgency, focus, and accountability”. |
What we consistently see is that litigation is often shaped by what happens after an issue emerges: how an incident response was governed, how disclosure decisions were made, and whether any failures were properly remedied. That is where class action exposure flourishes or fades."
Tania Gray, Partner
Watch our podcast episode
Securing Corporate Australia: National Security, Cyber Risk and Governance
In this episode of On Just Terms, Jason Betts and Melissa Gladstone are joined by Hamish Hansford, Head of National Security at the Department of Home Affairs and Australia's Commonwealth Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, for a discussion on the evolving national security landscape and its implications for Australian organisations.
 | When regulators move, class actions followFor several years now, regulatory investigations and enforcement have become a reliable indicator of class action activity. This has not changed. Across sectors, enforcement proceedings generate a public factual record, admissions and findings of contravention that are often used by class action promoters as a foothold in follow-on class action litigation. Current regulator priorities also point to where risk lies and where the next wave of claims may land. ASIC's 2026 priorities include misleading pricing, superannuation issues and insurer claims handling. The ACCC continues to focus on pricing practices, greenwashing, product safety and consumer guarantees in the automotive sector. Our survey respondents also identified derivative actions as the next frontier for litigation, with around one in three identifying regulatory findings as a basis for claims that challenge board decision-making. |
Regulatory investigations don't just precede class actions, they help shape them. The findings, evidence and issues identified by regulators can provide a roadmap for plaintiff firms. Boards that connect regulatory and litigation risk in their governance frameworks will be better positioned to respond.”
Vanessa Leyshon, Executive Counsel
 | Global trends, local consequencesOver 70% of respondents expressed concern about cross-border class action exposure. That concern is well-founded. Claims initiated in overseas jurisdictions, particularly the United States, are routinely followed by similar filings in Australia. As plaintiff firms and litigation funders operate increasingly across borders, the lag between US proceedings and Australian filings is shortening. The pattern is visible across sectors. Mass tort and product liability claims in the United States have been followed by consumer class actions in Australia, particularly in the healthcare, pharmaceutical and automotive sectors. More recently, data privacy and AI-related litigation in the US is generating the same cross-border momentum. Plaintiff firms are increasingly coordinating strategy across jurisdictions, accessing US discovery materials and adapting overseas claims for the Australian legal framework. Organisations that actively monitor global litigation developments and assess how overseas claims could be brought under Australian laws, including the ACL, will be better positioned to identify emerging exposure before proceedings are filed. |
US class action risk continues to increase exponentially - and the US is usually the first stop for the plaintiffs' bar. Inevitably, those claims spread to Australia and the UK. Organisations that monitor global litigation trends are not being cautious. They are gaining the lead time they need to respond."
Norman Simon, Partner, New York
AI is emerging faster than governance frameworks
Artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping how organisations operate and make decisions. As Australia accelerates investment in AI infrastructure and develops new policy settings for AI deployment, attention is increasingly turning from adoption to accountability. For boards and executives, the challenge is whether governance frameworks are keeping pace with its use and not whether AI will become embedded in business operations.
AI-related class actions are emerging as a distinct area of concern. While only one-third of respondents expressed specific concern about AI class action risk, 20% reported they do not know enough to judge the risks, and 63% have not introduced AI-specific mitigation measures. Global litigation trends suggest that perspective may change quickly. Issues including AI-washing, data usage, privacy, intellectual property and disclosure risk are already attracting regulatory and litigation scrutiny internationally.
The organisations best positioned for the future will be those that establish governance frameworks, disclosure discipline and appropriate controls before litigation risk fully matures.
The greatest AI risk today is the gap between adoption and governance. Australia has just raised the stakes on AI accountability. Organisations that have not yet established governance frameworks, disclosure discipline and data-use controls are not just unprepared for litigation. They are building tomorrow's class action."
Nataly Adams, Partner
What better-prepared organisations do differently
The most prepared organisations treat class action risk as a forward-looking governance issue rather than a reactive litigation problem.
How prepared is your organisation?
Speak with your go-to class actions team about developing a proactive approach to litigation and regulatory readiness.
Learn more
Key contacts
Jason Betts
Partner, Head of Class Actions, Asia and Australia, Sydney
Melissa Gladstone
Partner, Sydney
Vanessa Leyshon
Executive Counsel, Sydney
More insights
Legal Notice
The contents of this publication are for reference purposes only and may not be current as at the date of accessing this publication. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action based on this publication.
© Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer 2026
Stay in the know
Receive timely insights and briefings from HSF Kramer, tailored to keep you informed and ahead
Subscribe now