COMPENSATION PROJECT : BAES CASE
RELATED VIDEOS
COMPENSATION CAMPAIGN : BAE Systems (BAES) Market Conduct
Have you ever felt that the vast sums spent on national defence are beyond scrutiny? For decades, the public purse has funded multi-billion-pound contracts in a closed market, shielded from the value-for-money benefits that true competition provides. Our extensive investigation has revealed a systemic failure where one dominant company has been granted an exclusive position, potentially costing taxpayers dearly in inflated prices and stifled innovation. This is not just a matter of policy; it is a matter of your money. We believe you have a right to demand accountability and compensation for this harm. We are launching a collective action on behalf of all UK taxpayers to challenge this arrangement and seek redress for the financial losses suffered. If you believe in transparency, competition, and justice for the taxpayer, join us. Your voice is crucial in this fight to hold power to account and reclaim what has been lost. Visit our project page to register your support and become part of this landmark action.
COCOO.uk is launching a compensation campaign to investigate potential claims for parties who believe they have been harmed by BAE Systems’ (BAES) market conduct, particularly in relation to historical Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) undertakings and possible infringements of UK competition law. We invite individuals, businesses, and taxpayer representatives who have concerns to come forward.
Potential affected parties primarily include competitors of BAE Systems, especially Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), who may have been unfairly disadvantaged or excluded from defence procurement opportunities due to BAES’s alleged anti-competitive practices. Additionally, UK taxpayers and the general public may have suffered indirect economic loss if BAES’s conduct led to reduced value for money, inflated costs in defence contracts ultimately borne by the public purse, or stifled innovation in the UK defence sector
COMMON HARM
The common harm that this campaign seeks to explore, particularly for businesses, is economic loss and competitive disadvantage resulting from BAES’s potential abuse of a dominant market position or non-compliance with undertakings designed to ensure fair competition. For the UK public and taxpayers, the common harm is the potential misapplication or inefficient use of public funds in defence procurement, leading to a diminished return on taxpayer investment. This could arise if BAES engaged in exclusionary practices or if the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) procurement strategies, coupled with BAES’s market position, undermined the intended competitive effects of previous regulatory interventions
BENEFITS OF JOINING
- Free access a compensation mechanism.
- Express your concerns and provide evidence: You will have a platform to detail the damages suffered.
- Propose solutions: You will be able to contribute practical and legal ideas.
- Strengthen transparency and fair competition: You will support a constructive debate on the correct application of EU rules and the promotion of competitive markets.
- Restore trust: Your participation can be decisive in restoring the integrity of the competitive framework and the confidence of economic operators
- Join a community of potentially affected parties to facilitate compensation. Subscribing to a compensation campaign does not create an attorney-client relationship and does not commit you to any obligation, fee, or cost
This campaign is necessary because concerns persist regarding BAES’s conduct in a market significantly influenced by MOD procurement policies, which increasingly favour non-competitive contracts. While MOD policy itself is difficult to challenge directly under competition law, BAES, as a commercial undertaking, remains subject to the Competition Act 1998. Historical undertakings were put in place to mitigate competition concerns, and it’s crucial to assess whether BAES’s actions have aligned with these and with broader competition law principles. Given BAES’s significant role in UK defence, and past instances of corporate misconduct resulting in substantial settlements in other jurisdictions for issues such as making false statements and inadequate accounting, a thorough investigation into its current market practices is warranted. COCOO.uk aims to gather evidence and unite affected parties to explore avenues for redress, as private actions are a vital complement to public enforcement in maintaining fair markets
ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL HARM
Potential causes of action for damages primarily arise from infringements of the Competition Act 1998, specifically Chapter I (anti-competitive agreements) or Chapter II (abuse of a dominant position). While a breach of CMA undertakings does not generally provide a direct private right of action for damages, evidence of such a breach could support a claim that the underlying conduct was anti-competitive. Potential abuses of dominance by BAES could include exclusionary conduct towards competitors, such as refusing access to essential technology or intellectual property on fair terms, or leveraging dominance in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another. Claims of exploitative conduct, such as excessive pricing, are complicated by the MOD’s procurement policies and the regulatory oversight of the Single Source Regulations Office (SSRO) for non-competitive contracts. The perjuicios, or harms, from such conduct could manifest as lost profits and opportunities for competing businesses and SMEs. For taxpayers, the harm would be indirect, through inflated defence costs and reduced value for money. Establishing a direct tort claim, such as negligence, for diffuse public economic loss is challenging; however, this campaign will explore all viable legal pathways for redress, including the potential for collective actions before the Competition Appeal Tribunal if sufficient evidence of a CA98 infringement causing widespread harm is found
ABOUT US
COCOO.uk is a British non-profit organisation dedicated to the promotion of fair competition, the protection of investors and consumers, and the safeguarding of the public interest. Our objective is collective redress on behalf of consumers and competitors to protect and promote their right to discipline responsible parties, both public and private. Oscar Moya LLedo is our Solicitor (the British equivalent of an “Abogado”) and plays a fundamental role in our mission to promote fair competition and protect the rights of consumers and businesses CASEFILES
Campaign Phases:
PHASE 1: Identification of systematic deficiencies in compliance with legislation that protects consumers, competitors, and the public interest.
PHASE 2: Identification of potentially affected parties and uniting them through this platform. Most victims never receive compensation and never find out that they are victims entitled to compensation or restitution. This creates a significant imbalance in the justice system to the disadvantage of consumers and competitors. That is why we need to unite. United, we gain power to negotiate on equal terms.
PHASE 3: Negotiation of the payment of financial compensation or restitution to the affected parties
LEGAL NOTICE
Joining a Compensation Campaign does not create a lawyer-client relationship and does not commit you to any obligation, fee, or cost. The allegations set forth herein are subject to an ongoing investigation and have not been proven before a court of law, unless otherwise indicated. All information provided will be treated confidentially in accordance with data protection regulations. This document contains the opinions, beliefs, and allegations of COCOO.uk based on currently available information and presented in good faith. These statements are subject to further investigation and should not be construed as definitive facts unless so established in a legal proceeding. COCOO.uk is a charitable society, not a law firm. The statements set forth herein are based on current information and are subject to further investigation. The basis for collective action resides in the fact that multiple entities and/or individuals may have suffered similar economic harm as a result of common conduct, for example, the overcharge paid by consumers or businesses, or mismanagement by the public sector