我國團體訴訟自消費者保護法施行以來二十餘年間，仍未發揮其應有之制度目的，且以損害賠償請求為主，不作為訴訟迄今僅有1件且原告敗訴。民事法院顯然未能藉由團體訴訟之發動而對涉及多數人之現代型集團性紛爭介入規制，並為適當之法形成。本文從宏觀之角度提出整體性考察，分別就團體訴訟之當事人適格（起訴要件）、團體之財政資助及損害賠償訴訟之程序結構予以檢討。由於消費者團體訴訟所需之人力、資金均相當龐大，有予以充實之必要，除政府補助外，可考慮立法增設消費者保護基金或團體訴訟基金，並增訂民事不法利得收取訴訟制度，而將該訴訟請求所得金額（部分或全部）歸入保護基金，以供作團體訴訟之用。團體訴訟之設計應區分重大型損害及擴散型損害予以設計，並針對個人權利及集團權利之訴訟上行使分別予以建構。對於重大型損害，現行之選定當事人制度足堪利用，但對於擴散型損害則較為不足，以消費訴訟為例，適格之消費者保護團體應得以自己名義合併提起損害賠償、不法利得或不作為請求。就不法利得請求而言，具有集體權利之性質，此同於不作為請求，具有法定訴訟擔當性質；就損害賠償請求而言，則為個人權利，仍應得個別受害消費者授與訴訟遂行權限，而為意定訴訟擔當，但得經其同意由法院為總額裁判。惟為避免延滯起訴，可考慮分階審理模式，於法院認被告負有損害賠償責任後，始依聲請或依職權公告曉示，促使實質上當事人就損害賠償請求權授與訴訟遂行權，以擴大訴訟制度解決紛爭之機能。此外，對於團體訴訟之和解，現行法之規範不足，應充實實質上當事人之程序保障，並強化法院之審查。

This paper takes a macro view in providing a thorough investigation and recommendations for the consumer collective redress system, which arose in Taiwan during the twenty-year span following the implementation of the Consumer Protection Law, but has yet to achieve its proper purpose. In particular, with respect to claim for damage compensation, there has only been one case for injunction thus far. The conditions of plaintiff's standings for collective redress under the current laws are different. The Consumer Protection Law consists of the strictest standards, but lacks legitimacy for its differential treatment. Collective Redress requires also a significant amount of manpower and monetary resources, but the resources that are available to the consumer public interest groups in Taiwan are woefully inadequate and thus there is strong need for refinement. As for monetary redress, it is ideal to distinguish between massive damages versus distributed damages. For distributed damages, the regulations according to the current law are inadequate. Taking consumer litigation for example, as claims for illegal profits have the nature of collective rights, a consumer protection group would bring suit in its own name for the protection of the entire group of consumers, which functions the same as injunction claims, and have the nature of a legal undertaking. Claims for damage compensation, on the other hand, require each victim to grant permission to carry out litigation, but to prevent delays, the procedure could be designed for a bifurcated trial, under which after the court rules that the defendant is liable for damages, on motion or on its initiative, it publishes a notice urging the substantial parties to grant permission to carry out litigation. The current law does also not adequately specify a norm for the collective settlement, and thus it is ideal to strengthen both the due process guarantee of the substantial parties and judicial review.