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 Dillon Grimm Dillon Grimm

Dillon Grimm is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office, where his practice focuses on complex commercial litigation and class actions.

Dillon has experience in matters involving a range of issues, including consumer protection, breach of contract, and fraud, among others. He…

Dillon Grimm is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office, where his practice focuses on complex commercial litigation and class actions.

Dillon has experience in matters involving a range of issues, including consumer protection, breach of contract, and fraud, among others. He has represented clients in the financial services, technology, and sports industries. He also maintains a robust pro bono practice focusing on criminal justice.

Dillon was a judicial law clerk for the Hon. Rebecca Beach Smith, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the Hon. Jane R. Roth, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, before rejoining the firm in 2021.

Photo of Andrew Soukup Andrew Soukup

Andrew Soukup has a wide-ranging complex litigation practice representing highly regulated businesses in class actions and other high-stakes disputes. He has built a successful record of defending clients from consumer protection claims asserted in class-action lawsuits and other multistate proceedings, many of which…

Andrew Soukup has a wide-ranging complex litigation practice representing highly regulated businesses in class actions and other high-stakes disputes. He has built a successful record of defending clients from consumer protection claims asserted in class-action lawsuits and other multistate proceedings, many of which were defeated through dispositive pre-trial motions.
Andrew is co-chair of the firm’s Class Action Litigation practice group.

Andrew has helped his clients achieve successful outcomes at all stages of litigation, including through trial and appeal. He has helped his clients prevail in litigation against putative class representatives, government agencies, and commercial entities. Representative victories include:

  • Delivered wins in multiple nationwide class actions on behalf of large financial companies related to fees, disclosures, and other banking practices, including the successful defense of numerous lenders accused of violating the Paycheck Protection Program’s implementing laws, which contributed to Covington’s recent recognition as a “Class Action Group Of The Year.”
  • Successfully defending several of the nation’s leading financial institutions in a wide variety of litigation and arbitration proceedings involving alleged violations of RICO, FCRA, TILA, TCPA, FCBA, ECOA, EFTA, FACTA, and state consumer protection and unfair and deceptive acts or practices statutes, as well as claims involving breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and other torts.
  • Successfully defended several of the nation’s leading companies and brands from claims that they deceptively marketed their products, including claims brought under state consumer protection and unfair deceptive acts or practices statutes.
  • Obtained favorable outcomes for numerous clients in commercial disputes raising contract, fraud, and other business tort claims.

Because many of Andrew’s clients are subject to extensive federal regulation and oversight, Andrew has significant experience successfully invoking federal preemption to defeat litigation.

Andrew also advises clients on their arbitration agreements. He has successfully helped numerous clients avoid multi-district class-action litigation by successfully enforcing the institutions’ arbitration agreements.

Clients praise Andrew for his personal attention to their matters, his responsiveness, and his creative strategies. Based on his “big wins in his class action practice,” Law360 named Mr. Soukup a “Class Action Rising Star.

Prior to practicing law, Andrew worked as a journalist.