The First Circuit recently revived consumer deception claims challenging the safety and testing of a car booster seat manufactured by Evenflo, in a case that potentially makes it easier for class-action plaintiffs to satisfy Article III’s standing requirements in the First Circuit when they only allege an economic injury. 

The plaintiffs — parents and grandparents who purchased the booster seats — did not seek recovery for any physical injuries caused by the seats.  Rather, they claimed that they overpaid for the seats because Evenflo misrepresented: 1) that the seats were safe for children as small as thirty pounds; and 2) the safety testing it performed for the seats.  Had they known the truth, the plaintiffs claimed, they would have not bought the seat, would have paid less for it, or would have bought a safer alternative.  The district court held these allegations were insufficient to establish Article III standing.

The First Circuit reversed.  It first rejected Evenflo’s argument that overpayment without any actual injury is not enough for Article III standing.  Such an injury satisfies Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement, the court held, even for a product “that performs adequately and does not cause any physical or emotional injury.”

Second, the court rejected Evenflo’s narrower argument that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that they overpaid for the seats.  Evenflo contended that it was implausible for the plaintiffs to allege that they would not have purchased a seat, because car seats are legally required for children.  But the court reasoned that the parents might have continued to use older models rather than purchase a new model.  Evenflo next criticized plaintiffs’ “price premium” theory for not offering a “measure” of the decrease in price.  The court, however, held that it was reasonable to infer that — but for the misrepresentations — the seat “would have commanded a lower price.”  At this stage, the court did not require “quantification of the change in market value.”  Finally, Evenflo argued that because its seats are cheaper than its main competitor, plaintiffs would have actually paid more for a different seat.  Although the court conceded that this argument “has some force,” it found there was at least a “possibility” of cheaper options.

Because the plaintiffs adequately alleged an economic injury in the form of overpayment, the court held they had standing to pursue their monetary claims.  But the court also affirmed the district court’s holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief.  Because the plaintiffs’ allegations focused on Evenflo’s “past behavior,” there was no “impending future injury that an injunction might redress.”

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Andrew Soukup Andrew Soukup

Andrew Soukup serves as co-chair of the firm’s Class Action Litigation Practice Group. He specializes in representing heavily regulated businesses in class actions, multidistrict litigation, and other high-stakes disputes.

Praised for achieving “big wins in his class action practice,” Andrew has defeated a…

Andrew Soukup serves as co-chair of the firm’s Class Action Litigation Practice Group. He specializes in representing heavily regulated businesses in class actions, multidistrict litigation, and other high-stakes disputes.

Praised for achieving “big wins in his class action practice,” Andrew has defeated a variety of advertising, consumer protection, privacy, and product defect and safety claims, with exposure ranging from millions to billions of dollars. Based on his “proven record,” Andrew has been recognized as an “attorney you want on your side in a bet-the-company case.”

Andrew’s clients include those in the consumer products, life sciences, financial services, technology, automotive, gaming, and media and communications industries. He has consistently helped his clients prevail in litigation in federal and state courts across the country against putative class representatives, government agencies, state attorneys general, and commercial entities.

With a long history of representing companies subject to extensive federal regulation and oversight, Andrew has a unique ability to help courts understand the complex environment that governs clients’ businesses. Clients turn to Andrew because of his successful outcomes at all stages of litigation, his responsiveness and attention to their matters and his deep understanding of their businesses.

Andrew’s recent successes include:

Leading the successful defense of several of the world’s leading companies and brands in class actions accusing them of engaging in deceptive marketing or selling defective products, including claims brought under state consumer protection and unfair deceptive acts or practices statutes.
Defeating claims against one of the nation’s leading consumer products companies in industry-wide, multidistrict class-action litigation challenging the company’s marketing and advertising of over-the-counter medicine containing allegedly ineffective ingredients, which earned Andrew recognition by American Lawyer as a “Litigator of the Week.”
Delivered wins in multiple nationwide class actions on behalf of leading financial institutions related to fees, disclosures, and other banking practices, including defending several financial institutions accused of violating the Paycheck Protection Program’s implementing laws, which contributed to Covington’s recognition as a “Class Action Group of the Year.”
Represented several consumer product and life sciences companies from lawsuits seeking economic damages arising out of the sale of products that allegedly caused personal injuries.
Helping several of the world’s most prominent companies from ESG-related claims accusing them of misrepresenting their practices.

Andrew has also achieved favorable outcomes for clients in commercial and indemnification disputes involving contracts, fraud, and other business tort claims. He helps companies navigate contractual and indemnification disputes with their business partners. Additionally, he provides guidance on arbitration agreements and has helped numerous clients avoid multi-district and class-action litigation by enforcing their arbitration agreements.

As a recognized thought leader on issues impacting class action litigation, Andrew regularly contributes to the firm’s blog, Inside Class Actions, and was recently featured in an interview with Litigation Daily on class-action litigation issues. In recognition of his achievements, he has been recognized by The American Lawyer as a Lawyer of the Week, and the Daily Journal recently included him on their list of Leading Commercial Litigators (2025).

Watch: Andrew shares insights on class action litigation, as part of our Navigating Class Actions video series.