Bank Leumi CEO Calls for High Costs for Frivolous Lawsuits
Translated & summarized from Globes by baba
Hanan Friedman, CEO of Bank Leumi, called for high costs to be imposed on those filing frivolous lawsuits, following a court's rejection of a representative suit against Shufersal and McDonald's. The court ruled that sending digital invoices with limited promotional content does not necessarily violate the "Spam Law." The judge dismissed the case, citing that other regulatory mechanisms exist and the representative lawsuit tool is not needed for deterrence, ordering the plaintiff to pay NIS 30,000 in costs.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Bank Leumi CEO Hanan Friedman advocated for high costs for frivolous lawsuits.
- A court rejected a representative suit against Shufersal and McDonald's over digital invoices.
- The judge ruled digital invoices with limited ads don't necessarily violate the "Spam Law."
- The court cited existing regulatory mechanisms and dismissed the need for a representative suit.
- The plaintiff was ordered to pay NIS 30,000 in legal costs.
Hanan Friedman, CEO of Bank Leumi, stated on social media platform X that individuals filing frivolous lawsuits should be compelled to pay significant legal costs. This statement was made in response to a court ruling concerning a case involving Shufersal and McDonald's, which was issued yesterday. Friedman elaborated that while representative lawsuits are a crucial tool for public protection and rectifying wrongs, some have transformed this mechanism into a business for baseless claims. He asserted that it is time to impose substantial costs on those who exploit the legal process and, concurrently, ensure that genuinely harmed parties can seek and receive compensation.
The court ruling in question, issued by the Lod District Court, rejected a request to certify a representative lawsuit against Shufersal and McDonald's. The suit alleged violations of the Communications Law, commonly known as the "Spam Law," related to the digital sending of invoices to customers. The judge determined that when a customer agrees to receive digital invoices, and any accompanying promotional content is limited and secondary to the service information, the transmission of the invoice should not necessarily be considered a violation of the Spam Law.
The court also referenced several similar representative proceedings that concluded with compensated withdrawals. It denied the certification request and ordered the plaintiff to pay NIS 30,000 in legal expenses and attorney fees to the companies. Beyond the substantive dismissal, the court noted that even if digital invoices containing some advertising content were deemed a violation, it would be a "marginal violation." The court emphasized that other mechanisms exist to regulate the companies' conduct towards their customers, and the powerful tool of a representative lawsuit, with its associated costs borne by the companies and the public, does not appear necessary for deterrence. Therefore, the court expressed doubt that the objectives of the Representative Lawsuits Law, to encourage law enforcement and deter violations, justify certifying and proceeding with the case as a representative lawsuit, suggesting this as another reason for dismissal.