Class Certification

The Third Circuit recently vacated and remanded a district court’s decision granting class certification for a class of third-party payors (“TPPs”) pursuing Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claims against GlaxoSmithKline LLC (“GSK”). See In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig., 2026 WL 2093904 (3d Cir. July 21, 2026). The TPPs’ claims are based on GSK allegedly misrepresenting Avandia’s cardiovascular risks and benefits.

The central issue on appeal was whether the class of TPPs satisfied Rule 23’s requirements for class certification.

Continue Reading Third Circuit Raises the Bar for Proving Causation Through Statistical Evidence in RICO Pharmaceutical Fraud Class Actions

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

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 Ninth Circuit partially reversed an order certifying multiple state‑law classes in litigation alleging that certain Ford Super Duty trucks suffer from a steering defect. See Lessin et al. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 25‑2211 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2026). While the Ninth Circuit affirmed parts of the class certification order, it held that the district court abused its discretion by certifying several classes without adequately evaluating whether plaintiffs could demonstrate the alleged defect with common evidence.

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Partially Reverses Certification of Classes Challenging Ford Trucks’ Alleged Steering “Shimmy”

In many privacy and other technology-related class actions, the question of whether consumers consent to the practice at issue is central.  In these cases, class action defendants have defeated motions for class certification by successfully arguing that consent is an individualized issue that is not susceptible to common proof.  And though class action plaintiffs may try and avoid this problem by excluding consenting individuals from their class definition, that solution can create new problems, including impermissible “fail-safe” classes—i.e., classes that cannot be defined until a case is resolved on the merits.

Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Denies Permission to Appeal Class Certification Order Raising Questions of Consent and Fail-Safe Classes

An oft-litigated issue in false-advertising class actions is whether a plaintiff can show that each class member relied on the challenged statement when they made their purchasing decision.  The Eighth Circuit recently offered an example of how this issue can pose a significant roadblock to class certification in In re…

Continue Reading Eighth Circuit Ices False Labeling Class Action on Predominance Grounds

Whether the presence of uninjured class members can defeat class certification is a hot-button topic in class action litigation.  Just four days after the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis regarding whether class certification is permissible under Rule 23(b)(3) when some members of the putative class are uninjured (we described this case here), the Sixth Circuit affirmed class certification in Pickett v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, despite defendant’s argument that up to twenty percent of the class did not suffer an economic injury.  — F. 4th —-, 2025 WL 1622110 (6th Cir. June 9, 2025).
Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Affirms Class Certification Despite Potential Presence of Class Members Who Did Not Suffer Economic Injury

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis presented a question central to modern class action litigation: whether class certification is permissible under Rule 23(b)(3) when some members of the putative class are uninjured. We previously highlighted the Supreme Court’s decision to hear argument in the case, which had the potential to resolve a widening circuit split on this issue—some courts have held that uninjured class members preclude certification entirely, others ask whether uninjured class members can be identified and excluded without requiring predominance-defeating “mini-trials,” and others (incorrectly, in our view) defer the inquiry until later stages of the case unless a “great many” of the class members are uninjured.  Despite its clear interest in resolving this split, the Supreme Court ultimately determined that Laboratory Corporation had too many procedural quirks to reach the question presented, holding in an 8-1 decision that certiorari was “improvidently granted” and dismissing the appeal.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Delays Resolution of Uninjured Class Member Debate

The Third Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s ruling in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) case that rejected class certification because individualized questions about consent precluded predominance.  Conner v. Fox Rehabilitation Servs., P.C., 2025 WL 289230 (3d Cir. Jan. 24, 2025).

In Conner, a plaintiff brought a…

Continue Reading Third Circuit Affirms That Individual Inquiries Into Consent Preclude Class Certification

On January 24, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis to address a long-unsettled issue central to class-action litigation: “Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.”

Continue Reading Supreme Court to Decide If Presence of Uninjured Class Members Defeats Class Certification