Introduction
Tech policy discussions too rarely focus on how laws are to be enforced against big tech companies, or how private enforcement litigation against tech companies to promote digital rights can be funded. Passing laws alone is not sufficient if we want to regulate technology effectively: those laws need to be enforced, and enforcement requires resources. I have argued elsewhere that private enforcement litigation is an important under-explored mechanism in the enforcement of digital regulation in which civil society organisations (CSOs) play a vital role (Harris, 2024). Yet, lack of financial resources for human rights litigation against corporations is a recognised access to justice barrier in business and human rights (see, e.g., EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2020, 9-10, 12-13) including with regard to big tech.
This blog is based on my research on funding for public interest private enforcement litigation against big tech, for which my primary goal was developing good practice recommendations for philanthropy. In a field affected by a problematic lack of data, My research is informed by over a decade of working in non-profits and digital rights in the UK, including seven years in philanthropy – an experience which allowed me to put into focus the largely unaddressed issue of the role of philanthropic funding in private enforcement actions against digital corporations.
Philanthropic grants are typically a fixed amount of funding for a fixed period of two or three years at most, and project grants (a type of philanthropic grant) are usually tied to a project budget requiring that funds be used for the particular activities specified in the budget. The costs and timelines of any case are uncertain, so this typical approach to philanthropic grant-making is not well suited to support litigation, which was the impetus for my research to develop recommendations on good practice.
To gain further information – filling a gap in both policy and academic discourse – I hence embarked in an empirical research, interviewing people working in CSOs who are directly involved in litigation against big tech companies that aims to advance digital rights, meaning human rights in the digital age, and further used those insights to sketch some preliminary considerations on how philanthropic funders may need to restructure their financing in order to play a more effective role in facilitating public interest litigation.
In this blogpost, I first outline the current geopolitical context in which private enforcement litigation is of particular importance, the costs and dynamics of litigation such litigation, and three sources of non-philanthropic funding used by interviewees and those sources’ constraints. Then, I show how the need for more philanthropic funding becomes apparent in light of these non-philanthropic funding sources. I conclude by sketching out my findings on good practice in philanthropic funding for public interest private enforcement litigation against big tech, which are shaped by understanding the costs and dynamics of such litigation.
Context: Why Private Enforcement Litigation Matters
The global geopolitical, economic and technological context for discussions of big tech companies has fundamentally changed since the founders and CEOs of many tech giants prominently attended President Trump’s inauguration in January 2025. Among these changes have been the diplomatic, security, and trade pressure from the United States upon Europe to lighten or remove regulation of tech companies, particularly US companies. For example, in February last year Vice President Vance used his visit to Europe to publicly criticise EU regulation of tech, including likening efforts to tackle disinformation to Soviet era censorship (Politico, 15 February 2025). Since then, President Trump and his administration have threatened the EU with retaliatory trade restrictions in response to enforcement of EU laws against American tech companies, and imposed travel sanctions on individuals working against online disinformation (CNN, 12 January 2026). The likelihood of robust public enforcement of the law by EU regulators has become increasingly doubtful, in this context where the distinctions between corporate power and the governmental power of the Executive is collapsing in the US.
Accordingly, the importance of mechanisms for private enforcement by civil society of digital rights has come to the fore as an alternative mechanism to hold companies legally accountable in circumstances where EU regulators fail to. The increased importance of public interest private enforcement should prompt consideration of how such cases are to be funded.
Summary of Methodology
In November 2025, I conducted semi-structured interviews with six individuals working in civil society involved in digital rights litigation against big tech companies to understand their experiences of funding for such cases. Public interest litigation against big tech companies is a relatively small area, so there is a limited number of people with the experience necessary to comment on the research questions of this project. Purposive sampling for the research identified individuals with experience across different European jurisdictions (including UK, Ireland, Belgium, Austria, and the Netherlands), which was germane to the research questions and who were willing to participate. In addition to their current professional affiliations, a majority of interviewees have been personally involved as litigants in cases involving big tech. The interviewees were:
- Martha Dark, Co-Executive Director, Foxglove
- James Farrar, Founder & Director, Worker Info Exchange
- Duncan McCann, Tech and Data Lead, Good Law Project
- Johnny Ryan, Director of Enforce, Irish Council on Civil Liberties (ICCL)
- Max Schrems, Founder and Honorary Chairman, None of Your Business (NOYB), and
- One interviewee who preferred to remain anonymous.
Dynamics of Litigation and Non-Philanthropic Funding
We need to understand the costs and dynamics of public interest litigation against big tech to understand the scale and structure of funding needed for such cases. My interviews confirmed my professional experience that litigation against big tech companies is expensive: depending on jurisdiction and subject matter, a single case can cost hundreds of thousands to over a million euros in legal fees, and further fees if there are appeals. When undertaking public interest litigation, CSOs need resources for legal costs, including evidence gathering as well as lawyers’ fees, plus complementary communications, campaigning, and advocacy. All of the CSOs discussed in interviews use non-legal tactics alongside litigation to achieve their strategic goals, such as media engagement or advocacy to lawmakers. These non-legal activities are essential for the strategic success of litigation but require resourcing over and above legal costs. Furthermore, interviewees spoke about the need for surety against risks that include adverse costs (paying the Defendant’s costs if a case is lost) and potentially the response of tech companies such as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). CSOs have to weigh the potential financial cost of these risks when they are contemplating litigation, and managing the risks shapes their decisions on whether to bring a case.
I was surprised by the degree to which interviewees used non-philanthropic funding for digital rights litigation. At the same time, it was clear that the three non-philanthropic alternatives that interviewees used each have shortcomings for public interest private enforcement cases. First, there are commercial litigation funders who finance litigation on a for-profit basis as a form of investment. However, such funders are only interested in cases that present a likelihood of high return on investment, meaning a strong probability of success and large potential damages, meaning tens of millions in financial damages. This is a relatively narrow subset of the potential cases against big tech, because of the uncertainty of success in many public interest cases that are testing new questions of law, and because such damages will tend to be available only where many hundreds of thousands or millions of people would be eligible as claimants. Furthermore, commercial funders tend not to be willing to fund complementary campaigning and advocacy activities, which are important for strategic success.
Second, interviewees worked with lawyers who undertake public interest cases pro bono, at discounted rates, or on the basis that the lawyers will receive fees or an “uplift” (success fee) only if the case is won. However, interviewees noted the potential for such arrangements to result in a lower standard of service from lawyers or misaligned interests, for example contingency fee arrangements could lead lawyers to focus on financial damages or settlement above other considerations. Interviewees gave examples of having been let down by lawyers working under such arrangements. Finally, multiple interviewees had used crowd funding or small-scale donations for cases such as administrative review of regulators, but the scale of funding they could raise would not be sufficient for multi-million-euro litigation against big tech.
Concluding Recommendations for Philanthropy
A key theme that emerged in the interviews was that more philanthropic funding is needed for digital rights litigation as philanthropic funding still plays an important role because of the relative independence and empowerment it can allow CSO and the limited scope of other funding sources mentioned above. Almost all interviewees had been prevented from bringing cases against big tech due to the lack of available funding. Interviewees talked about there only being a few philanthropic funders interested in funding litigation. Most interviewees saw fundraising for public interest litigation against big tech as a very difficult challenge, particularly in regard to risks such as adverse costs, which philanthropic grants are not structured to cover.
As noted in the introduction, philanthropy needs to change how grants are structured so that funding meets the needs and dynamics of litigation. Interviewees identified trust and flexibility as valuable characteristics of the available philanthropic funding. There are many risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, including the timeline and process of a case which are shaped by decisions on procedural options taken by defendants as well as claimants. Much of how a case unfolds will not be within the control of a CSO bringing the case, thus interviewees emphasised that funding for litigation needs to be underpinned by trust and flexibility so that the CSO can respond to unexpected developments with confidence in the ongoing support of the funder. Interviewees also expressed frustration with rigid application processes for philanthropic funding and spoke about the need for flexible processes to enable better communication, particularly regarding complex litigation.
Neither private enforcement litigation nor the philanthropic funding needed for such cases is a panacea for the realisation of digital rights. CSOs are increasingly turning to private enforcement actions due to regulatory failure, but interviewees emphasised that it would be better if public regulators robustly enforced the law to prevent digital rights infringements and hold companies accountable when they act unlawfully. Nevertheless, mechanisms for private enforcement mitigate the political risks to which public enforcement mechanisms are subject, as demonstrated by the current geopolitical context, and the efficacy of these mechanisms depends in part on the availability of funding that is ‘fit for purpose’ to support litigation.
<small>(Photo: <a href=”https://unsplash.com/photos/a-view-of-two-tall-buildings-from-the-ground-64grc3AMrH8″>Max Harlynking</a>)</small>
