16 April 2026: The Milan Court of Appeal upholds the dismissal of our claim

Incredible as it may seem, even the Milan Court of Appeal (which ten years ago had recognised non-pecuniary damages for inconvenience caused by train delays) has ruled that the fear of death caused by Philips’ communications must be dealt with through ordinary legal proceedings rather than a class action.

The reason is that everyone suffers differently when faced with the risk of developing cancer or losing their life.

On this point, we agree with the Milanese judges: it is inevitable. We are all (fortunately) different from one another.

However, we do not understand why it is not possible to discuss these damages in the form of a class action, which, by its very nature, has as its unifying element the unlawful conduct common to all.

It would then suffice to say that the sum of XXX is sufficient as a minimum common denominator to compensate everyone.

If necessary, sub-classes could be created for groups of claimants who are homogeneous within themselves.

And that if someone wants greater, personalised compensation, then in that case they may (but must not) bring their own specific claim.

But requiring every injured party to bring their own individual claim, with their own individual costs, as we know from history, ultimately prevents most people from doing so, leading to vast pockets where the protection of rights is ineffective, much to the industry’s delight.

Extending the concept further, another, more systemic consequence emerges – one that is not exactly glorious and which stands in stark contrast to the preamble of the EU Regulation on medical devices, according to which patients are guaranteed “a high level of safety and health”: in fact, without risk of legal consequences, a manufacturer can disregard the health of its customers, conceal a serious defect for years, and finally withdraw it from the market by announcing that it may cause cancer or kill, thereby terrifying millions of people worldwide… yet emerge unscathed, without a scratch, whilst patients are left holding the short end of the stick.

Since this is not the solution we want, the battle continues, as does our dialogue with the judicial authorities, to whom we will continue to present well-founded arguments for progressive change.

Check back soon on these pages for updates.