Virginia class action proposal dies after Spanberger veto

Virginia will remain one of only two states without a formal class action process in its state courts after Gov. Abigail Spanberger this week vetoed legislation that would have allowed groups of Virginians with similar legal claims to sue collectively in a single case. 

The veto followed lawmakers’ rejection of a significant rewrite of the proposal submitted by the governor during the General Assembly’s reconvened session last month. Spanberger said she supports class actions in Virginia courts but believed the legislation needed additional guardrails. 

“I support the General Assembly’s goal of providing a class action mechanism that can be used by plaintiffs in Virginia courts,” she said in her veto statement for House Bill 449 and Senate Bill 229. 

“I offered amendments to ensure that when Virginia adopts its first-ever class action procedure, we do so in a tailored and judicious way — building on longstanding, federal precedent while providing regional circuit courts an opportunity to develop expertise. The General Assembly did not accept these amendments.”

Virginia and Mississippi are currently the only states without a formal class action procedure in state court. Without that framework, groups of plaintiffs in the commonwealth generally cannot combine similar claims into a single lawsuit, even when many people have suffered the same alleged harm. 

What the legislation would have done

Sponsored by Del. Marcus Simon and Sen. Scott Surovell, two Democrats from Fairfax, the legislation passed the Democratic-controlled General Assembly earlier this year. 

The proposal would have allowed one or more individuals to represent a larger group in court if several legal standards were met: that the proposed class was large enough to make individual lawsuits impractical; that claims shared common legal or factual questions; and that the named plaintiffs could adequately represent the broader group’s interests. 

The legislation also established procedures for how courts would certify class actions, oversee settlements and dismissals and manage attorneys handling cases. It further extended provisions of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act to class actions, allowing damages to be awarded to class members if violations were proven.

Under federal law, class action cases involving more than $5 million in damages can already be moved to federal court. That means the Virginia proposal would have primarily affected smaller-dollar cases that often struggle to move forward because plaintiffs lack the resources to pursue litigation individually. 

The legislation was also intended to address recent federal court rulings that have narrowed some consumer claims. Those courts have increasingly dismissed certain cases following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, which tightened standing requirements for plaintiffs.

While Spanberger’s substitute preserved the broader class action framework, it proposed several significant limitations. 

One of the biggest changes involved where such lawsuits could be filed. Rather than allowing cases statewide, the substitute would have limited venues to Richmond, Fairfax County, Norfolk and Roanoke. 

The substitute would have also expanded the ability of courts to dismiss cases earlier in the litigation process through wider use of summary judgment and other procedural mechanisms during discovery. 

Surovell surprised by veto 

Surovell said in a phone interview Wednesday that he did not expect the governor to veto the legislation, even after lawmakers rejected her substitute proposal. 

“The administration did not raise any objections during session to the bill,” he said. “I was given amendments about two days before the (action) deadline, and I explained to the governor’s office that the amendments basically made the statute completely unusable. And they refused to modify them then, because they were imposed as a ‘take it or leave it’ substitute. We had to reject it.”

Surovell said discussions with the governor’s staff suggested Spanberger agreed with the concept of class actions but disagreed with the details of the legislation. 

“In the 17 years I’ve served, governors tend to leave the details to the legislature,” he said. “And if they have issues with the details, they’re usually raised during session, and we can have a public dialogue and debate about it instead of proposing a substitute, which is basically like introducing brand new legislation. And there’s no opportunity for amendments or debate.” 

The fight over class actions has stretched over multiple administrations. 

Surovell first introduced his proposal six years ago. In 2024, then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin vetoed similar legislation, also sponsored by the Fairfax Democrat, arguing the proposal would expose businesses to excessive liability and pressure defendants into settlements. 

“The possible statutory damages resulting from these consumer class actions will coerce defendants into settlements to avoid potentially ruinous financial consequences,” Youngkin wrote in his veto statement at the time. He also warned the legislation could strain the Virginia Court of Appeals and create significant economic consequences. 

Opponents warned of legal and fiscal impacts 

The latest proposal also carried a measurable fiscal impact. 

According to the state’s analysis, implementation would cost roughly $622,729 annually beginning in fiscal year 2027, largely because of increased workload for the Office of the Attorney General. Officials said class action litigation often involves extensive volumes of documents and electronic data requiring additional staffing and specialized software.  

To manage the workload, the attorney general’s office anticipated hiring five employees, including three assistant attorneys general and two paralegals. The Virginia Court of Appeals said its costs were indeterminate, while the Workers’ Compensation Commission projected no fiscal impact. 

The American Tort Reform Association urged Spanberger to veto the bills, arguing the legislation would expose businesses to unprecedented liability while disproportionately benefiting trial lawyers. 

Simon, who sponsored the House measure, also criticized the veto but said that Spanberger acknowledged the broader need for a class action system and expressed hope lawmakers and the administration could negotiate a future compromise. 

“This legislation was about leveling the playing field between Virginia consumers and large corporations when widespread harm occurs but no single individual has the resources to fight back alone,” Simon said in a statement. “Virginians should not have fewer tools to seek justice than consumers in every other state but Mississippi.”

Simon added that judges in 48 states already oversee class action litigation and said that he has “complete faith” in the ability of Virginia judges to do the same.