在频发的群体性消费纠纷中，既有侵犯重大利益的大规模消费侵权，也有小额权益受损的小额分散性消费纠纷。在后一种纠纷中，双方主体一般是大型企业和消费者，具有不对等的诉讼实力。单个受害人损失微小、但加害企业最终违法所得数额巨大是该类纠纷的主要特征。小额分散性权益的救济实际上具有公益性质，其原因在于，一方面，不法企业的加害行为客观上损害了金融经济秩序和社会公序良俗，占有优势社会资源的企业一旦实施违法行为会造成很大的社会性损害，低违法成本和高收益使得加害企业继续实施侵害行为，出现劣币驱逐良币的现象，甚至对市场经济秩序造成难以弥补的灾难；另一方面，小额分散性消费纠纷涉及到众多不特定消费者的权益，客观上已经超出了私人利益的界限，而具有了一定的公益性。在立法上，我国设置了代表人诉讼和消费公益诉讼两种诉讼制度，但二者都存在不可避免的缺陷。代表人诉讼因其诉讼费用过高，时间长且操作困难，成本支出通常远大于当事人的预期可得利益，使得该制度缺乏吸引力；而消费公益诉讼是“不作为之诉”，原告只能提起停止侵害、赔礼道歉等禁止型诉讼请求，而不能就消费者损失的权益提起损害赔偿请求权，具有救济功能上的缺陷。域外德国、美国、法国和我国台湾地区等均设置了不同的诉讼制度，包括德国撇去不法收益的团体诉讼制度、美国退出制集团诉讼制度、法国损害赔偿型消费者团体诉讼和台湾的团体损害赔偿诉讼，各国诉讼制度都具有一定的公益性质，在小额分散性消费纠纷的解决方面也有独特的优势，但在司法实践中也出现了一些缺陷。在对各国诉讼制度进行借鉴时应当基于我国的立法实际，构建适合我国国情的损害赔偿型消费公益诉讼，在消费者协会的资格赋予、损害赔偿范围、审理程序的适用、赔偿金的分配方式等程序设置方面予以足够的考量。同时注重多元化的解决理念，重视和多元化纠纷解决机制的衔接，以适应群体性消费纠纷的需要。

In the frequent group consumption disputes，there are two types: large-scale infringement disputes which the major interests are infringed, and the small amount and dispersive infringement disputes. In the latter type, the two parties are usually large enterprises and consumers, who have unequal litigation strength，and it’s main feature is that the loss of a single victim is small, but the enterprise’s final illegal gain is huge. The relief of small amount and dispersive interests actually has public interest nature. The reason is that, on the one hand, the illegal activities of enterprises objectively damage the financial economic order and social public order. The enterprise has the advantage of social resources, once the illegal activities are implemented, it will cause great social damage. Low illegal cost and high profit make illegal enterprises continue to implement infringing acts, causing a phenomenon that causes bad money to expel good money. On the other hand, the small amount and dispersive consumption disputes involves a large number of unspecified consumers, so it objectively has the nature of public welfare. In the legislation, there are two litigation systems: the representative action and the consumer public interest litigation, but both systems have some defects. The representative action doesn’t have attraction to the parties, because the cost of is high and usually much larger than the expected benefit. The consumer public interest litigation has functional defects, the plaintiff can only take prohibition claims such as stop infringement and apologying, but don’t have the right of claim for damage compensation. The Germany, the United States, France and Taiwan area all have set up different litigation systems, such as the group action system in Germany, class action in USA, the group litigation System of Claiming for Damages in French and Taiwan. These litigation system have the nature of public welfare and have unique advantages in the settlement of small amount and dispersive consumption disputes, but also appear some defects in the judicial practice. When we draw lessons from other countries' litigation systems, we should be based on our legislative practice, and structure the consumer public interest litigation for damage compensation which suits for our national conditions. We should give enough consideration to the qualification of the Consumer Association, the damage compensation’s scope, the trial procedure and the compensation’s distribution. Meanwhile, pay attention to apply the application of diversified concept, and litigation mechanism connect with the diversified dispute resolution mechanism.