𝗗𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗵 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗘𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲: 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘀

Currently, only two WAMCA class actions on product liability are pending in the Netherlands – both involving medical devices.

I wrote about one of them last month: the case against Allergan concerning breast implants, in which the Amsterdam District Court rendered a final judgment. The claimant vehicle, who ended up second in the proceedings, has appealed—meaning a new round with new opportunities.

The other case is at least as interesting. It concerns Bayer and its female sterilization device, Essure. A recent interim judgment by the Midden-Nederland District Court (11 February 2026) shows that a final decision is still far off: based on the current debate, the court cannot yet determine whether Essure is defective or whether there is a causal link with the alleged complaints. First, the facts must be clarified.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴?
👉 Bayer must provide additional (clinical) research data, including signals from the market and regulators
👉 An independent expert panel (epidemiologists, gynecologists, immunologist) will be appointed to answer targeted questions

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝘂𝘁?
📌 The court actively uses its powers under Article 22 DCCP, requiring disclosure of information—even if commercially sensitive—when necessary for fact-finding
📌 Bayer must co-finance the expert investigation—a clear signal that its current defence is not yet sufficient

𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆
The court is setting a clear course: no ruling yet on liability, limitation or the long stop term, but first full clarity on the facts. In doing so, it takes an active, case-management role.