Class Action Procedure

Expert evidence commonly plays an important role in class certification determinations.  On August 5, the Seventh Circuit addressed this issue, holding that in a proposed antitrust class action, the district court erred in certifying a class when it failed to engage with conflicting expert evidence regarding antitrust impact that could have established lack of predominance.        

The case, Arandell Corp. v. Xcel Energy Inc., — F.4th —, 2025 WL 2218111 (7th Cir. 2025) was a long-running natural gas price fixing case.  Plaintiffs moved to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class.  They argued that common questions of law or fact predominated, including “whether the class paid higher prices for natural gas[.]”  Id. at *4.  Plaintiffs and defendants had competing experts on the predominance issue as it related to impact.  Id. Continue Reading District Courts Must Address Conflicting Expert Evidence to Certify Antitrust Class Action, Seventh Circuit Rules

Extending its recent decision in Lytle v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., 114 F.4th 1011, 1032 (9th Cir. 2024), the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed class certification in a false advertising case based in part on an unexecuted and “not yet fully developed” damages model.  The panel reasoned that the expert’s explanation of the damages model he proposed to (but had not yet) run established that the model “could reliably measure damages on a classwide basis and adequately for present purposes matched [plaintiff’s] theory of harm.”  The panel also confirmed that in some cases, false advertising plaintiffs can benefit from an inference of classwide materiality and reliance under California law.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms Class Certification Based on Unexecuted Damages Model

Last month, a California federal court in Dai v. SAS Institute, No. 4:24-cv-02537 (N.D. Cal. 2025), dismissed a proposed antitrust class action complaint against six nationwide hotel operators alleging that the hotels’ common use of revenue management software to set their room prices amounted to a per se illegal “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy to fix hotel prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Continue Reading California Court Dismisses Hotel Algorithmic Price Fixing Claims

On July 17, 2025, the Fifth Circuit adopted a test for determining whether class plaintiffs meet the Article III injury-in-fact requirement for standing, resolving an open question in the Circuit.  Wilson v. Centene Mgmt. Co., L.L.C., No. 24-50044, 2025 WL 1981287 (5th Cir. July 17, 2025).Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Adopts a Test for Standing at Class Certification Stage

The Sixth Circuit recently reversed a denial of a motion to compel arbitration in an MDL, where the district court had raised the issue of waiver of arbitration rights on its own and ruled defendant had waived the right even when there was no evidence it had knowledge of the right.  In Re Chrysler Pacifica Fire Recall Products Liability Litigation, — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 1904525 (6th Cir. Jul. 10, 2025).Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Enforces Arbitration Agreement After Lower Court Sua Sponte Found Waiver

On June 25, an Illinois federal court dismissed an antitrust class action that alleged that branded drug manufacturer Biogen harmed competition by paying Pharmacy Benefit Managers (“PBMs”) not to promote generic alternatives to its treatment for multiple sclerosis, Tecfidera.  In re Tecfidera Antitrust Litigation, No. 24-cv-7387, 2025 WL 1755725 (N.D. Ill. June 25, 2025).Continue Reading Claims that Drug Manufacturer Paid PBMs to Disrupt Operation of State Generic Substitution Laws not Viable, Says Illinois Court

The Third Circuit recently reversed a district court’s decision to certify two classes against a defendant insurance company, holding that individualized issues predominated over common ones. See Drummond v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co, 2025 WL 1860993 (3d Cir. July 7, 2025). The Drummond plaintiffs represented a class of drivers…

Continue Reading Third Circuit Overturns Class Certification in Auto Insurance Case Based on Predominance Issues

In Wertymer v. Walmart, Inc., — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 1802402 (7th Cir. July 1, 2025), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss a consumer class action which was based on speculative and contradictory assertions that a product marketed as “raw honey” was not actually raw.Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Suit Based on “Raw Honey” Labeling

Plaintiffs in Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 1802667 (2d. Cir. 2025), asserted false advertising claims against a manufacturer of flushable wipes, alleging that they paid a price premium based on the representation that the wipes were “flushable” when they in fact allegedly caused plumbing damage. 

The district court granted preliminary approval for a “claims made” settlement for up to $20 million in compensation to the class.  At the claim filing deadline, only $1 million had been claimed.  After fairness hearings, the district court approved the class settlement and later approved $3.1 million in attorneys’ fees for class counsel.  A class member objected to the settlement, arguing that a disproportionate amount of the total recovery went to class counsel instead of the class.Continue Reading Second Circuit Clarifies Analysis of Attorneys’ Fees in Class Action Settlement

In Speerly v. General Motors, LLC, — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 1775640 (6th Cir. June 27, 2025) (en banc), the Sixth Circuit made it harder for plaintiffs to certify a class with multiple state-law causes of action and multiple subclasses when it vacated a district court order certifying multiple state-specific subclasses of automotive purchasers.Continue Reading En Banc Sixth Circuit Criticizes Certification of Multi-State Class