Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
As Australia’s class action landscape continues to grow more sophisticated, interconnected, and strategically complex, HSF Kramer has identified six defining trends set to shape the year ahead – signalling what it describes as “another defining year” for Australia’s rapidly evolving class action environment.
Class actions remain a persistent reality for corporate Australia, with the landscape continuing to evolve in ways that are making it increasingly sophisticated, interconnected, and strategically complex as 2026 unfolds.
As this reality fuels an increasingly “complex and dynamic environment” for businesses across Australia, Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (HSF Kramer) has shone a spotlight on six key trends set to shape the class action landscape – heralding what it describes as “yet another defining year” for class actions in Australia.
While filings in consumer and shareholder class actions are expected to remain relatively steady, the firm predicts a notable evolution in risk profiles across key sectors – particularly employment, cyber security, ESG disclosures, and cross-border litigation influences.
Collectively, these developments are set to heighten pressure on corporate risk management frameworks and reshape how businesses prepare for, respond to, and resolve class action claims.
Employment and cyber claims are driving new growth areas
One of the clearer shifts HSF Kramer identified is the continued expansion of employment-related class actions, alongside a rise in cyber-related claims.
The global law firm explained that the escalating litigation risk in these areas is being driven by two powerful reinforcing forces: the rising “prevalence of cyber security incidents” impacting Australian business, and “heightened regulatory enforcement” across the cyber security landscape.
To mitigate these risks, HSF Kramer emphasised that organisations will need to prioritise robust payroll governance, conduct regular audits, and engage proactively with regulators to identify potential issues early before they escalate into litigation.
Staying ahead of regulatory change, the firm notes, now requires early involvement of external legal advisers to stress-test systems, disclosure processes and compliance frameworks.
Increasingly willing to fight claims
Another notable trend is a marked shift in defendant behaviour, with more companies expected to push back against class action filings and mount a more robust defence, rather than opting for early settlement.
While settlements are still expected to remain a common pathway to resolution, the global law firm observed that this growing willingness to fight claims signals a more pronounced “shift in litigation strategy”.
As a result of this shift, HSF Kramer warned that class actions could become increasingly “protracted and resource-intensive”, placing greater pressure on businesses to develop litigation strategies that “balance legal merits, commercial objectives and reputational risk”.
Regulatory enforcement and class actions increasingly intertwined
An additional emerging pattern identified by the firm is the growing “overlap” between regulatory investigations and class action proceedings, a convergence that is expected to deepen further over the year ahead.
HSF Kramer explained that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC) enforcement priorities have focused on “misleading pricing practices” linked to cost-of-living pressures, as well as financial reporting misconduct and failures in claims and complaints handling.
“Financial reporting misconduct directly increases exposure to shareholder and investor class actions, whereas ASIC’s focus on misleading pricing practices and claims and complaint handling failures creates potential for consumer class actions, particularly in financial services and insurance sectors,” the firm said.
Importantly, the firm warned that regulatory investigations and class actions will “increasingly proceed in tandem”, often addressing “similar subject matters” but unfolding at different speeds.
This dual track environment, HSF Kramder shared, will require organisations to adopt “coordinated” strategies across legal, compliance and communications functions.
Early engagement with regulators and transparent internal investigations are seen as critical tools for managing both regulatory exposure and litigation risk.
The global law firm also flagged that this shift could significantly heighten “directors’ liability exposure” through ASIC enforcement activity – independent of any class action – particularly in cases involving alleged market disclosure breaches or governance failures.
Rise of cross-border “copycat” litigation
HSF Kramer also pointed to a growing trend of cross-jurisdictional “copycat” class actions, where litigation initiated overseas is subsequently mirrored in Australia.
In particular, the firm noted that US proceedings are often followed by the filing or investigation of similar claims in Australia, a pattern particularly evident in sectors such as pharmaceuticals and medical products.
Not only is this expected to persist in 2026, but the firm warned that the trend is also expanding into other sectors, including automotive, where allegations raised in foreign proceedings are increasingly being mirrored domestically.
ESG disclosures creating new litigation frontiers
Another key point the firm highlighted is that environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosures are set to remain a significant – and increasingly scrutinised – source of class action risk in 2026.
While much of the current activity has been “regulatory-led”, HSF Kramer anticipates a far stronger convergence emerging between regulatory action, shareholder scrutiny and follow-on class action litigation.
The global firm warned that ESG-related class actions are likely to be framed not only as misleading or deceptive conduct claims but also as disclosure-based shareholder actions, where ESG-related statements are alleged to have inflated share prices or obscured material risks.
“We can also expect class action promoters to continue to explore novel theories on loss and causation as this area matures and the case law develops,” the firm said.
For businesses, the firm explained that this means ESG governance “can no longer be viewed solely through regulatory and reputational lenses”, but must instead be treated as a core risk discipline – requiring robust oversight of data integrity, close alignment between sustainability narratives and operational reality, and rigorous legal scrutiny of all public disclosures.
On top of this, HSF Kramer stressed that rigorous legal review of ESG statements, particularly where “they intersect with financial performance or forward-looking commitments”, has become an “essential component” of class action risk management this year.
Courts refine case management approaches
The final trend identified by the firm is the continued refinement of how Australian courts manage class actions, with an increasing emphasis on efficiency and early resolution.
HSF Kramer explained that as claims in Australia become more complex and numerous, courts will place greater emphasis on case management tools that promote efficiency, justice and early certainty, making this a key area of focus moving forward.
“We expect continued judicial emphasis on class closure mechanisms, encouraging the parties to early mediation, staged proceedings, and increased scrutiny of common issues at an early stage,” the firm said.
However, the firm predicted that this shift presents both challenges and opportunities, explaining that while early case management may compress timelines and heighten upfront resource demands, it can also enable earlier resolution and greater clarity around exposure, particularly where claims are narrowed or determined on common issues.
The firm described strategic engagement with case management processes as “critical”, stressing that defendants who invest early in understanding the scope of the claim, identifying key pressure points, and engaging constructively with the courts are significantly better placed to secure favourable procedural outcomes and maintain effective cost control.
