One of the biggest problems faced by consumers seeking redress for financial harm is the prohibitive expense and impracticality of bringing low-value individual legal proceedings. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 introduced a new regime for collective redress for competition law infringements whereby for the first time, claims may be brought on an opt-out basis. The new regime was examined by the Supreme Court in its recent decision in Merricks v Mastercard. The Mastercard claim raises important questions about consumer remedies, access to justice, litigation funding and practical enforcement issues. This paper examines the decision through the lens of behavioural science, seeking insights into the availability and accessibility of redress for consumers and considering the implications for the regulation of lenders in the future. The influence of behavioural science on the development of the law is reviewed, the progress of the Mastercard claim and the Supreme Court’s decision is analysed, and some conclusions are proposed about possible future developments and the effectiveness of the collective redress regime from a behavioural perspective.Please confirm the inserted city name is correctly identified for affiliation [1] and amend if necessary.Yes, correct.

寻求经济损失补救的消费者面临的最大问题之一是提起低价值的个人法律诉讼的费用过高且不切实际。2015 年《消费者权益法》引入了一项针对竞争法侵权行为的集体补救新制度，首次可以在选择退出的基础上提出索赔。最高法院最近在 Merricks v Mastercard 案中对新制度进行了审查。万事达卡索赔提出了有关消费者救济、诉诸司法、诉讼资金和实际执法问题的重要问题。本文通过行为科学的视角审视了这一决定，寻求对消费者补救的可用性和可及性的洞察，并考虑了对未来贷方监管的影响。回顾了行为科学对法律发展的影响，分析了万事达卡索赔的进展和最高法院的判决，并从行为角度对集体救济制度的未来可能发展和有效性提出了一些结论。请确认插入的城市名称已正确识别隶属关系 [1] 并在必要时进行修改。是的，正确的。