In a major win for consumer rights in Spain, the Supreme Court has ruled that mortgage holders affected by abusive ‘cláusulas suelo’—mortgage floor clauses—can pursue collective lawsuits against banks. This landmark judgment reinforces collective legal action as a valid and effective tool against widespread banking malpractice.
A long legal journey towards consumer justice
This decision stems from a decade-long legal saga initiated by Adicae (the Spanish Association of Bank, Savings and Insurance Users), which filed a collective lawsuit in 2010 on behalf of more than 800 consumers. Their target? Over 100 banks and savings institutions accused of inserting opaque floor clauses into mortgage contracts—a tactic that limited how low interest rates could fall and often worked to the exclusive benefit of financial institutions.
Initially, Spanish courts found that these clauses could be abusive—provided they weren’t transparently included or adequately explained to consumers. But what remained unclear until now was whether those affected could collectively sue banks. That changed when the Supreme Court submitted a preliminary question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 2022.
European backing paves the way
In 2024, the ECJ ruled in favour of the consumers, determining that the floor clauses being challenged were substantially uniform in both their wording and their intended effect—to cap downward interest rate variation in mortgages. This opened the door for the Spanish Supreme Court to back Adicae’s case in full, rejecting appeals from banks and savings institutions.
The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court also recognised a critical factor underpinning its decision: over time, consumers have gained better understanding of the workings and implications of floor clauses—something that was not true prior to the Court’s own precedent-setting 2013 ruling acknowledging their potentially abusive nature.
Reinforcing the class action route
The Supreme Court’s verdict confirms that mass legal action is both possible and appropriate in cases where financial institutions have engaged in systematically questionable practices. This could well set a precedent for other collective lawsuits in the financial sector—not just regarding mortgage floors, but extending to other typical banking products widely marketed without customer understanding.
The defendants had lodged extraordinary appeals on procedural and substantive grounds after losing at the trial and appeal stages. These appeals have now been definitively dismissed, sealing a legal victory for Adicae and the hundreds of affected mortgage holders it represents.
Implications for banks—and borrowers
For homeowners, this is more than just a win in court. It validates the collective power of consumers, and it offers hope of reclaiming money unjustly paid over the years in artificially-inflated interest. For banks, the ruling could spell continued reputational and financial liability at a time when scrutiny of their lending practices remains intense.
While floor clauses may seem like a thing of the past—especially with rates now firmly on the rise—many borrowers are still seeking compensation for the years during which they overpaid. Thanks to this Supreme Court decision, they now have a clearer path forward—together.
It’s taken years, courtrooms across Europe and hundreds of thousands of mortgages—but Spain’s top judges have now drawn a firm line: you can’t just bury abusive clauses in the small print and expect to get away with it.
