Class Action Law | Business Litigation | South America

As Dieselgate claimants rise, a UK law firm faces fire in Brazil over misleading tactics and murky contracts

They built their name chasing global giants.
Now, the law firm that promised to deliver justice for more than a million wronged diesel car owners and victims of Brazil’s worst environmental disaster is facing legal fire of its own.

Pogust Goodhead, the UK-based class action firm behind headline-grabbing litigation against car manufacturers and mining conglomerates, stands accused by Brazilian prosecutors of misleading claimants, discouraging access to compensation, and employing contracts described as “abusive.” The fallout could ripple across the world of mass litigation, litigation funding, and global access to justice.

The irony hasn’t gone unnoticed.

“They’ve turned the promise of class action justice into something dangerously close to corporate capture,” said a Brazilian legal analyst familiar with the investigation. “The claimants may have swapped one powerful actor for another.”

From Diesel Fumes to Dam Collapse

Pogust Goodhead, formerly PGMBM, rose to prominence in the aftermath of Dieselgate, the emissions scandal that engulfed Volkswagen and other automakers in the mid-2010s. The firm launched multi-billion-pound group actions in the UK, representing more than 1.2 million claimants against companies like Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Peugeot, and Ford for allegedly installing defeat devices in diesel vehicles.

Simultaneously, the firm took on one of the largest environmental lawsuits in the world: a UK class action against mining giants BHP and Vale over the 2015 collapse of the Fundão dam in Mariana, Brazil. That disaster killed 19 people and destroyed entire communities in a toxic sludge flood that stretched for hundreds of kilometers.

In both cases, Pogust Goodhead positioned itself as a global justice pioneer: giving ordinary people tools to challenge corporate wrongdoing across borders.

But in Brazil, prosecutors are now asking: at what cost?

Allegations: What Pogust Goodhead Is Accused Of

The Brazilian Federal Public Ministry and state prosecutors have filed complaints and opened investigations into Pogust Goodhead’s practices, particularly regarding its representation of dam victims in the BHP case.

The charges are serious:

• Misleading Claimants: Authorities allege that Pogust Goodhead misrepresented the nature and strength of its legal claims in the UK, while failing to explain the risks, delays, or downsides involved in pursuing damages overseas.
• Discouraging Better Compensation: Claimants were allegedly pressured to avoid Brazil’s official compensation programme (known as PID) — a faster, state-endorsed payout scheme — because it could disqualify them from participating in the UK class action.
• Punitive Contracts: Claimants reportedly signed agreements that included steep penalties for withdrawal and contractual obligations to pay the firm even if it didn’t win or represent them in court. In some cases, those terms were in effect even if claimants never received a settlement.
• Opaque Fee Structures: Brazilian authorities suggest Pogust Goodhead’s contracts were unclear about legal fees and how much of a successful settlement would ultimately go to the firm, litigation funders, and the claimants themselves.

One judgment issued by a Brazilian court said the firm engaged in “propaganda” rather than fair legal advertising.

The Firm’s Response

Pogust Goodhead has denied wrongdoing, defending both its legal model and mission. In a statement, the firm said:

“We remain committed to securing full justice for our clients in the UK and around the world. Our contracts are lawful, and our communications are intended to empower victims, not mislead them.”

Privately, the firm sees the Brazilian investigations as politically motivated—a move, it argues, to protect Brazilian corporations and discourage litigation abroad. Pogust Goodhead has also alleged that BHP and Vale are behind a broader campaign to discredit their UK case.

Still, the public backlash is growing—and the legal profession is watching closely.

Legal Ethics or Legal Tactics?

For class action lawyers, Pogust Goodhead’s situation underscores a fundamental tension:

How do you scale access to justice without compromising its integrity?

The business of mass litigation—particularly across borders—requires enormous funding, technology infrastructure, and aggressive marketing. Litigation funders often front the cost, and lawyers take a percentage of the final settlement. But that financial model introduces pressure to retain clients, control narratives, and maximize payouts—sometimes at the expense of client autonomy.

In this case, critics say Pogust Goodhead blurred the lines.

• By allegedly dissuading clients from local payout schemes,
• By inserting clauses that restrict exit or penalize independent action,
• And by framing its UK action as the only path to full justice—

…the firm may have crossed from advocate to gatekeeper.

“You cannot offer global legal aid with the playbook of a multinational,” said one ethics expert. “Representation becomes control when transparency disappears.”

Why This Case Matters — Far Beyond Brazil

While the controversy centers on Brazil, its implications go far wider:

1. Class Action Regulation in the UK
   The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) may face pressure to scrutinize Pogust Goodhead’s fee arrangements, disclosures, and funding partnerships. A broader regulatory framework for mass claims could follow.
2. The Future of Litigation Funding
   As more firms rely on external funders to pursue high-risk, high-reward cases, questions around control, consent, and claimant rights are becoming urgent. Do claimants know what they’re signing up for?
3. Global Jurisdiction Challenges
   Can UK courts fairly adjudicate mass harms suffered in Brazil? Are local remedies being undermined by distant promises? The BHP case already raises jurisdictional concerns—with the Court of Appeal reinstating the case in 2023 after a lower court dismissed it for being “unmanageable.”
4. Trust in Mass Claims Law
   Perhaps most importantly, if law firms offering “justice at scale” lose public trust, the model collapses. The very people who need protection—low-income victims of corporate misconduct—will stop engaging if they fear exploitation by their own representatives.

Conclusion: A Crossroads for Class Action Law

The accusations against Pogust Goodhead are not just about one firm. They’re a test for the global class action industry—a stress test for the ethics, transparency, and business models that now drive some of the most powerful litigation on the planet.

If Pogust Goodhead is found to have violated ethical norms or misled its clients, the backlash could reshape regulation of law firms operating across borders. If the allegations are unfounded or overblown, it may reveal how fragile the bridge is between international justice and domestic systems trying to protect their own.

Either way, it’s clear: the revolution in mass litigation is here. But so too are its growing pains.