Class Action Procedure

Owning a product that might malfunction isn’t enough for Article III standing—the defect must actually manifest. That’s the message from Glasscock v. Sig Sauer, Inc., __ F.4th __, 2026 WL 2054200 (8th Cir. July 16, 2026), where the Eighth Circuit vacated class certification and dismissed the case after the named plaintiff admitted his firearm had never malfunctioned.

Continue Reading No Misfire, No Case: Eighth Circuit Decertifies Gun-Defect Class Action Over Standing

Standing remains a powerful defense to putative class actions.  Recently, a New Jersey federal court relied on Article III standing to dismiss a lawsuit against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc. alleging that it made false and misleading representations about the safety and efficacy of certain cholesterol drugs despite initiating a recall of…

Continue Reading New Jersey Court Dismisses Complaint in Recalled Drugs Suit for Lack of Article III Standing

Courts are increasingly addressing putative class actions aimed at curbing allegedly illegal government conduct.  An Oregon federal court recently certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class action in a challenge to alleged ICE warrantless arrest practices, holding that plaintiffs may proceed on behalf of people arrested, or at risk of arrest, without a warrant and without pre-arrest individualized probable-cause assessments.  See M-J-M-A- et al. v. Lyons et al., No. 6:25-CV-02011-MTK, 2026 WL 1815866 (D. Or. June 24, 2026).

Continue Reading Class Certification Granted in ICE Warrantless Arrest Lawsuit

In In re Outpatient Medical Center Employee Antitrust Litigation, 2026 WL 1678954,the Northern District of Illinois recently refused to certify a proposed class of healthcare employees who alleged that their employers entered into a “no-poach agreement” that prohibited them from recruiting each other’s senior-level personnel and thereby suppressed compensation for all employees with similar qualifications.  After excluding the plaintiffs’ expert’s statistical analysis of employee compensation under Rule 702, the Court determined that plaintiffs’ remaining non-statistical evidence did not show common proof of classwide antitrust impact.

Continue Reading Non-Statistical Evidence in No-Poach Antitrust Litigation Not Enough to Certify Class, Says Illinois Court

The Fourth Circuit recently vacated a district court’s grant of class certification based on a lack of commonality and predominance.  See Overby v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, 2026 WL 1718962 (4th Cir. June 15, 2026).  The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of hourly employees asserting claims based on allegations that their employer had a corporate policy of not compensating all mandatory pre- and post-shift work.  The alleged uncompensated tasks included “donning/doffing PPE, complying with the COVID-19 health protocols, partaking in shift-handoff meetings, and securing and putting away tools.”  The district court certified a class, but the Fourth Circuit reversed.

Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Vacates Grant of Class Certification for Lack of Commonality and Predominance

A district court in the Northern District of California recently denied Lyft’s motion to dismiss a putative class action on Rule 12(b)(1) grounds after the plaintiff voluntarily amended her complaint under Rule 15 to cure standing issues raised by Lyft.  Zigler v. Lyft, Inc., 2026 WL 1557553 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2026). 

Continue Reading Federal Court Allows Plaintiff to Cure Standing Defect Through Early Amendment

In Trauernicht v. Genworth Financial, Inc., 169 F.4th 459 (4th Cir. 2026), the Fourth Circuit delivered a significant win for defendants facing ERISA class actions.  Reversing a district court’s certification order, the court held that claims under ERISA § 502(a)(2) seeking monetary relief for alleged fiduciary breaches in a defined contribution plan cannot be certified as a mandatory class under Rule 23(b)(1). The court also rejected the notion that ERISA fiduciary-duty claims “inherently” satisfy Rule 23’s commonality requirement.

Continue Reading One Plan, Many Accounts: Fourth Circuit Slams the Door on Mandatory ERISA Classes in Defined Contribution Cases

A federal court in Colorado recently confirmed that a conspicuous arbitration clause may preclude a consumer from prosecuting class claims in court even if the consumer did not affirmatively and expressly consent to the clause.

Continue Reading Prominent Arbitration Clause Signage Precludes Parking Lot Class Action

A recent decision from the Southern District of California underscores a point courts have made increasingly clear after the Ninth Circuit’s precedential decision in Popa v. Microsoft: alleging the disclosure of online activity—even activity touching on sensitive health topics—is not enough, by itself to establish Article III standing.  As the Court put it, the mere allegation that a defendant disclosed “sensitive health related” search terms, without any indication in the search terms that they “were tied to his personal medical history,” cannot establish a concrete injury.  Maghoney v. Dotdash Meredith, Inc., 2026 WL 497402 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2026) (emphasis added).

Continue Reading Sensitive Search Terms Not Enough To Establish Article III Standing Under Popa

We have routinely highlighted the proliferation of wiretapping class actions, and the variety of approaches courts have taken to address them.  One common pitfall for plaintiffs in these types of cases is standing, an issue highlighted in a recent Third Circuit case throwing out a proposed federal class action against Harriet Carter Gifts and NaviStone Inc., and remanding it to state court.  

The case, Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts, Inc., No. 25-1760 (3d. Cir. 2026), involved plaintiff’s allegations that Harriet Carter Gifts and NaviStone tracked her browsing activity on Harriet Carter’s website while she shopped for pet stairs, purportedly in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act.  After removal, the district court twice granted summary judgment for the defendants, and both decisions were appealed to the Third Circuit. 

Continue Reading Stand Aside:  Third Circuit Throws Out Harriet Carter Gifts Federal Wiretapping Case On Standing Grounds