Class Action Procedure

A court in the Southern District of New York recently dismissed a proposed class action alleging that consumers paid a premium for juice products advertised as “made simply” with “all natural ingredients,” reasoning that the plaintiff lacked standing in light of flaws in his testing allegations.  See Lurenz v. Coca-Cola…

Continue Reading District Court Requires Specific Testing Allegations in Dismissing PFAS Class Action

A divided Ninth Circuit panel recently affirmed a district court’s denial of class certification based on a lack of predominance.  See Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., 2025 WL 2628179 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2025).  The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of drivers asserting breach-of-contract and other related claims against an auto insurer.  The drivers alleged the insurer’s use of a “projected sold adjustment” (“PSA”) to calculate the market value of insured drivers’ vehicles after a total loss led the insurer to uniformly underestimate vehicle value, which they contended violated the terms of their insurance policies.  Agreeing with the district court’s reasoning, the Ninth Circuit held that, because the insurer’s use of the PSA did not by itself violate the terms of the policies, each plaintiff would need to adduce individual evidence to prove that the PSA had caused them measurable damages—an essential element of a claim for breach of contract under Arizona law. Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms Denial of Class Certification Finding Lack of Predominance

In Ward v. J.M. Smucker Co, No. 24-3387, 2025 WL 2613489 (6th Cir. Sept. 10, 2025), the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss a putative consumer class action regarding allegedly contaminated peanut butter because Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring their claims.  Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Rejects Food Contamination Claims for Lack of Standing

The Third Circuit recently rejected the so-called “reasonable indication” opt-out standard, which refers to whether a class member can opt out of a class action by merely providing a “reasonable indication” of their intent to do so, regardless of whether this indication adheres to the letter of the procedures established by the district court. See Perrigo Institutional Investor Group v. Papa, No. 24-2861, 2025 WL 2315977 (3rd Cir. Aug. 12, 2025).

Appellants inadvertently failed to opt out of class membership in a securities-related class action. This failure came to light on the eve of settlement in parallel litigation, which was premised on the erroneous assumption that Appellants had properly opted out. On appeal, Appellants urged the Third Circuit to adopt the “reasonable indication” standard and conclude the separate litigation was sufficient evidence of their intention to opt out of the class. The Third Circuit declined to do so, reasoning that it was contrary to the text of Rule 23 and that it would complicate administrability of class membership opt-outs.Continue Reading Third Circuit Rejects “Reasonable Indication” Opt-Out Standard

The Sixth Circuit in In Re FirstEnergy Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 23-3940, 2025 WL 2331754 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025) recently reversed and remanded the district court’s class certification ruling in a securities class action on two independent bases: (1) that the district court applied the wrong standard when…

Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Remands Class Certification Ruling Back to District Court to Conduct Rigorous Analysis Under Comcast

The Ninth Circuit in Maree v. Deutsche Lufthansa A.G., No. 23-55795, 2025 WL 2268254 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2025) recently vacated and remanded a district court’s approval of a class action settlement because it found class counsel’s fees likely represented a disproportionate amount of the settlement fund. The settlement at issue sought to resolve two class actions filed against Lufthansa based on an alleged failure to provide timely refunds to customers for cancelling flights during the COVID-19 pandemic.Continue Reading Fee-versal of Fortune

In Pop v. LuliFama.com LLC, _ F.4th _, 2025 WL 2177719 (11th Cir. Aug. 1, 2025), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss a putative consumer class action alleging that a swimwear company had failed to disclose payments to social media influencers — reasoning that the alleged fraudulent conduct was not pleaded with sufficient particularity. Continue Reading No Splash Without Specifics: Eleventh Circuit Rejects Claims Challenging Influencer Swimwear Endorsements

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