This article studies the strategic use of collective negotiation in multiplaintiff litigation. Compared with one-on-one negotiation, collective negotiation can change the distribution of per-plaintiff damages in a manner that influences the defendant's bargaining incentive. Informational asymmetry among the members of collective action and delegation of bargaining to a self-interested representative can yield a tougher bargaining position. A plaintiff's decision to join the collective action can signal his type, which in turn influences the defendant's bargaining behavior. In equilibrium, some plaintiffs join the action for fear of sending a bad signal.