台灣有關現代型紛爭事件之損害賠償請求，目前有民事訴訟法第44 條之 1、第44條之2 可為運用，消費事件則可循消費者保護法第50 條、第54 條等 規定提起損害賠償訴訟救濟之。但就訴訟外解決途徑而言，除證券投資人及期 貨交易人保護法（下稱投保法）第28 條第1 項設有20 人以上證券投資人或期 貨交易人授予仲裁實施權之規定，以及金融消費保護法第13條之1規定金融消 費爭議事件得由20 人以上金融消費者以書面授與評議實施權外，其他多數紛 爭當事人事件尚無訴訟替代機制，可供當事人作程序選擇。 就集團訴訟之機能而言，由於實體法上之損害賠償請求權係屬個人權利， 必須經過個別權利人授權始得為訴訟上之請求，相對於此，公益團體本於其獨 立的集團權利所實施之訴訟，通常僅限於一定作為或不作為訴訟。此對於擴散 型損害事件之當事人可能造成較高程度的程序不利益、訴訟不經濟，或因個別 提起訴訟而蒙受裁判歧異之風險。 荷蘭的集團訴訟也有類似之質疑，為此，乃於2005 年制定集團和解法案 The 2005 Collective Settlement of Mass Damage Act（Wet Collectieve Afhandeling Massaschade，簡稱The WCAM 2005），以因應大型損害事件 之需求。依據WCAM 2005，因同一事件或類似事件受有損害而具共同利益之 人，得由非營利組織代表與侵權行為人擬定和解協議，並由擬具和解協議之形 式當事人共同向法院提出聲請，確認該和解協議之效力及於所有依協議內容有 權受償之人(實質當事人)。和解協議經法院認可後，所有為和解協議效力所及 之人視為和解契約之當事人，但得於一定期間內行使退出權（opt-out），也因 此，荷蘭成為歐洲第一個採取退出制集團和解立法例的國家。 除大型損害賠償事件外，WCAM於2013年修法後，適用範圍擴及於破產 事件。WCAM 的性質雖然較接近訴訟外和解，但法院在確認和解協議效力的 過程中，透過對代表人適當性、和解方案及程序之公平合理性等審查，其核可 裁定不失為一種本於司法權之公正及獨立判斷而為之公權力行為。也正因為法 院擔負了較高程度的監督管理責任，於同樣適用ECHR及Brussels I Regulation 之歐盟會員國間，多數認為荷蘭法院之集團和解核可裁定具有相當於確認判決 之效力（Res Judicata），因而大幅降低受害人個別提起訴訟或一事再燃之不 確定性，特別是在跨國大型損害賠償事件上，WCAM 定紛止爭的功能日漸受到肯認及重視，值得我國吸取其成功經驗作為立法之參考。

In Taiwan, there have been some dispute resolutions for mass actions of the same event (or similar events)to claim for remedy, such as the Article 44-1, 44-2 of The Civil Procedure Law, and the Article 50, 54 of the Consumer Protection Act. When it comes to dispute resolutions out of court, the class arbitration bestowed by over 20 investors and the newly promulgated class ombudsman scheme for financial disputes, which are separately stated in the Article 28 section 1 of The Securities and Futures Investors Protection Act and the Article 13-1 of the Financial Consumer Protection Act, we have no other alternative scheme for general use applicable to all types of litigations. As far as the group litigation mechanism is concerned, the non-profit organization represents the interested individuals, who are known to the parties and who have actively bestowed the representative body with the power to initiate legal proceedings on their behalf. Usually, the non-profit association's litigation right is limited to injunctive reliefs or declaratory reliefs. No damages claim can be addressed independently from the authority of interested individuals. It is argued accordingly that, parties of similar numerous claims may either assume higher procedural inefficiency than expected, or each party going for separate suits may result in the risk of decision controversy on a same case. In the Netherlands, similar doubtfulness happens to be contributed to the introduction of Collective Settlement of Mass Damage Act (Wet Collectieve Afhandeling Massaschade, hereinafter "The WCAM 2005"). Under WCAM 2005, an agreement concerning the compensation for damages caused by an event or similar events can be entered by non-profit organizations on behalf of the allegedly injured persons (the class), and the alleged tortfeasor(s). The agreement is subject to the Court's approval, initiated by the joint request of named parties. It is legal binding only on class members who do not exercise his/her opt-out right after properly receiving the opt-out notice. WCAM is the first collective settlement device drafted on an opt-out basis in Europe. Based on the hearings, double notifications and the court's efforts in scrutinizing its content to safeguard the interests of the victims, WCAM settlement has received more and more judicial recognition in the EU area, including Germany.