The opinion of AG Kokott in Otis reinforces the decision already taken in Kone and helps ushering in a more economic approach also in damages cases.

The article discusses how legalistic criteria such as remoteness and foreseeability are unsuited claims regulators. It further demonstrates the incoherence between efforts to curtail standing for presumably remote claimants with the often-voiced concern of letting cartels "off the hook" in case of scattered damage of dispersed victims.