The European Union's consumer chief dismissed fears she intends to introduce US-style class action lawsuits to member states next year as part of her strategy to strengthen consumer rights.

EU Consumer Protection Commissioner Meglena Kuneva announced in March that she hoped to introduce a new system of "collective redress" aimed at giving European consumers more power to bring claims against providers of faulty goods or services.

But she dismissed claims that she proposed to copy the US system, where class action laws have allowed lawyers to create a thriving litigation industry seeking colossal damages against companies.

Class actions have been criticised in the US as letting enterprising law firms win big fees while often generating little return for the individuals concerned.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Office Depot's business and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Office Depot securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased Office Depot common stock between April 26, 2007 and October 26, 2007, you have certain rights, and have until January 4, 2008, to move for Lead Plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847

The settlement is part of a class-action lawsuit brought by direct purchasers, the company said.

Under the proposal, all claims will be dismissed and the class action lawsuit will be terminated for a cash payment of $9 million.

The deal is still subject to negotiation.

Google Inc faces a federal patent infringement lawsuit by Northeastern University over technology used in its core Web search system, according to legal papers filed last week. The complaint was filed on Nov. 6 in Marshall, in the Eastern District of Texas -- the U.S. court with a history of decisions that are highly favorable to plaintiffs in patent cases -- but the case only came to light over the weekend.

The plaintiffs are Boston-based Northeastern University and Jarg Corp, a start-up founded by a Northeastern University professor that is the exclusive licensee of search technology patented in 1997, a year before Google was incorporated.

A spokesman for Mountain View, California-based Google said it believed the suit was without merit.

"While we have not been served, we are aware of the complaint and believe it to be without merit based upon our initial investigation," Google spokesman Jon Murchison said.

The leading Internet company derives 99 percent of its revenue from online advertising, which is delivered in response to keyword searches Google users perform to find Web links.

Michael Belanger, president and co-founder of Jarg, said in a phone interview that his company had become aware of the infringement several years ago, but lacked the resources to press its case until it found a law firm willing to fund the case on a contingency-fee basis. Northeastern then signed on.

The plaintiffs' attorneys are from the Texas-based global law firm of Vinson & Elkins, which is paying the costs of the case, assisted by local counsel in Marshall and nearby Tyler. 

--It was brought as a class action on behalf of 32,600 Alaskan fishermen.

--ExxonMobil (nyse: XOM - news - people ) has already paid more than $3.5 billion in fines, clean-up costs and other legal settlements relating to the spill.

A jury in an Alaska federal district court had originally awarded $5 billion in punitive damages, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cut in half in a December 2006 decision. The new figure was five times the economic damages of $500 million that the jury awarded to the class. The Supreme Court is the final avenue of appeal, and its decision could have implications that go beyond Exxon, and affect the wider corporate world.

Business groups have been prominent advocates of tort reform, and had hoped that the Valdez action would provide the Court with a further opportunity to circumscribe punitive damages awards. Yet the decision's impact is likely to be limited:

--By agreeing only to consider narrow issues of maritime law raised in this case, the Court signaled that for the time being, it is content to leave the current punitive damages framework alone.

--The Court could decide to expand this initial limitation and consider larger punitive damages issues, but in that event, would allow the attorneys involved additional time to brief these issues.

Over the last two decades, the Court has extended what until relatively recently had been a novel legal theory: that the U.S. Constitution imposes limitations on punitive damages awards. This departed from the then-precedent, in which the Court had declined to enunciate any constitutional or other legal limits on these awards:

--BMW case. In BMW of North America vs. Gore (1996), the Court decided that the Constitution's due process clause imposed limitations on punitive damages awards. In the past decade, the Court has further defined and refined this framework.

--Capping damages. In State Farm Insurance vs. Campbell (2003), the Court declined to set a 'hard cap' on the level of punitive damages that would be "excessive" on constitutional grounds. Yet the Court noted that, in most cases, punitive damages that exceed compensatory damages by more than a single digit ratio violate due process requirements. It suggested that a four-to-one ratio, while not "binding," should be regarded as "instructive."

--Reducing awards. In February, the Court in Philip Morris USA vs. Williams sent back for further review a jury award of $79.5 million in punitive damages (where $821,000 of compensatory damages had also been awarded) in product liability litigation over the death of an individual smoker. The Court decided that a jury's punitive damages award set in part on the basis of a desire to punish a defendant for harming 'non-parties' to the lawsuit--in this case, for injuries to smokers other than the plaintiff--contravenes the Constitution's due process clause. Yet in a confusing twist, the court determined that harm to others could still be considered when the jury assesses the "degree of reprehensibility" of a defendant's conduct.

Constitutional jurisprudence is not the only area in which significant changes have made it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring successful claims against (usually corporate) defendants. Several legal reform initiatives have occurred over the past few years, at both the federal and state levels, which taken together have also contributed to this trend.

Yet there are signs that the tort reform movement has peaked:

--Democratic resurgence. Following a series of successful efforts to change state laws to make lawsuits more difficult, and to elect state judges who would endorse pro-business legal interpretations, consumer advocates and trial lawyers who favor more plaintiff-friendly policies were boosted by the Democratic party's victory in the November 2006 elections.

--Congressional resistance. Advocates of further 'civil justice reform' are facing a much more skeptical Congress. Congressional leaders have linked disparate areas, such as widespread recalls of Chinese products, and the subprime mortgage crisis, to the failure of the relevant federal regulators to provide effective monitoring and oversight. Congressional leaders are currently ill-disposed to any further limitations on the ability of plaintiffs to bring lawsuits when the federal government has failed to regulate effectively. Some lawmakers may be open to expanding federal legal liability into new areas.

He was decreed too emotionally unstable to carry a weapon _ a humiliation, he says, designed to corner him into quitting. For 500 days, he was ordered to sit alone in a tiny room at the Ehime Prefectural Police.

"I became a policeman because I wanted to help powerless people. But when I got in, I learned it was totally different," said Semba, 58.

He was passed over for promotions after he refused to fake receipts and is still a sergeant after 34 years. "I wear that title proudly _ like a medal," Semba said.

Whistleblowers like Semba have been especially solitary in Japan, where conformity and respect for hierarchy are venerated as tradition. They have suffered in silence, labeled as traitors.

That is gradually changing. As Japan modernizes, people increasingly see themselves as individuals and consumers, with a duty to speak up against wrongdoing.

Whistleblowers are behind the spate of recent scandals embroiling a pastry maker that forged manufacturing dates, a builder that cheated on fireproofing tests and a meat processor that sold a mixture of meats and chicken as pure ground beef.

Reports to the government of suspicious food manufacturing, nearly all from insiders, have skyrocketed from some 100 a month last year to 697 last month, food safety official Yosuke Abe said.

Semba won personal vindication in September when a court awarded him $8,800 in damages, ruling that his on-the-job treatment was retaliation for his 2004 exposure of police corruption. The police are appealing the ruling.

Semba couldn't hold back tears when his court ruling was read.

"I felt there's justice in this world," he said.

Although the award is small by U.S. standards, it is a major victory in Japan, where court-ordered damage compensation tends to be minimal and the value of whistleblowers is barely starting to be recognized.

The first law to protect whistleblowers passed only last year, but critics say it's inadequate. It requires whistleblowers to first tell their employer and wait before going public if they hope to get any protection.

Whistleblowers have been rare because Japanese companies, even major ones, are run like families, and individual workers don't see themselves as hired by contract as do American workers, says Koji Igata, business administration professor at Osaka University of Economics.

"Whistleblowers are seen as eccentrics who've turned on their parents," he said.

Japan modernized over the last half-century by fostering corporate loyalty in return for secure employment. So when a company runs into trouble, good workers are expected to defend it; exposing wrongdoing is viewed as betrayal.

Only in recent years, as Japanese companies hire lower-paid younger workers and drop job guarantees in response to global competition, has the idea of criticizing an employer started to catch on, said Igata, who studies U.S. corporate governance.

Japan is slowly starting to change as individuals start to see themselves more as consumers and investors, he said.

Calls to strengthen corporate ethics are on the rise, partly from grassroots movements but also from companies eager to catch up with the rest of the world in governance standards.

The increasing influx of part-time workers has also contributed to eroding the ties of loyalty that discouraged whistleblowers.

Akafuku, the pastry maker targeted as a result of a whistleblower, employed about 250 part-time workers, half of its work force. It was shut down after it was found to be reselling unsold pastries shipped back from stores as new ones.

Hiroaki Kushioka, who exposed price-rigging at his trucking company 30 years ago, was one of Japan's pioneer whistleblowers. He was confined for years to a closet-like office, denied promotion and pressured to quit. He often spent his time gardening or shoveling snow at work.

He sued for damages in 2002, and won a landmark victory in 2005. The attention his court case received has been critical in raising public awareness about social responsibility.

"Back in those days, we were seen as informants and rats," said Kushioka, who retired last year. "It may be happening way too late, but finally the idea of the public good is starting to take root in Japan."

The biggest corporate scandals of the last decade in Japan were brought to light by whistleblowers _ the systematic cover-up of defects at Mitsubishi Motors Corp., the illicit pocketing of government subsidies at Snow Brand Foods and the cover-up of nuclear power plant defects at Tokyo Electric Power Co.

The examples set by high-profile whistleblowers like Kushioka and Semba are providing courage for others to come forward.

But Japan still lags behind the West nations in recognizing their status.

American whistleblowers can become heroes with book deals and lecture tours. They can even collect a portion of what the federal government recovers if they expose overcharging by contractors.

The lonely tales of Japanese whistleblowers are a stunning testament to a culture that is docile on the surface but ruthless to those who dare to question authority.

Akiko Tamura, 63, a former public servant who tried to expose the misuse of donations eight years ago, recalls how hard it was to endure yelling from bosses and heckling from co-workers.

Akiko Tamura, 63, who eight years ago tried to expose the misuse of donations at a welfare section of the local government in southern Japan, recalls how hard it was to endure yelling from bosses and heckling from co-workers.

"I thought about killing myself so many times. I had to watch others get promoted. And I never thought I did anything wrong," she said.

Two years after retirement, Tamura still has nightmares. "I don't think I'll ever get over it," she said.

Semba, still a railway policeman, says he is donating his lawsuit money to an ombudsman charity because money was never the goal of his career-long battle.

But what made it all worth it was an elderly woman, who recognized him at a highway rest stop where he had stopped for a cup of coffee.

"She told me, 'You made sacrifices for us. I must thank you,'" he said. "She understood everything."