Consumer Fraud Class Action Review – 2025

evidence, such as TD Bank’s standardized policies and business records, would provide answers common to all members of the proposed class and that individual questions would not predominate the central issue, i.e., whether TD Bank’s policy violated the EFTA. Moreover, the lead plaintiffs’ experiences aligned with those of the proposed class, and they were determined adequate to represent the class’s interests. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The plaintiff in Callantine, et al. v. 4E Brands North America, LLC , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216038 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 27, 2024), filed a class action alleging that the defendant sold hand sanitizer contaminated with methanol, despite labeling it as safe and effective with 70% ethyl alcohol in violation of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (IDCSA). The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification of a class consisting of all Indiana residents who purchased Blumen hand sanitizer containing methanol within the past two years. The court granted the motion. The defendant, a Texas-based company, distributed Blumen-branded hand sanitizer in Indiana during the COVID-19 pandemic. The product’s labeling claimed that it was made with 70% ethyl alcohol, yet some batches contained methanol, a toxic substance. In July 2020, the FDA discovered methanol in some Blumen products and recommended a recall. The plaintiff purchased Blumen hand sanitizer in July 2020, and both she and her children suffered symptoms consistent with methanol poisoning. The court determined that the proposed class was ascertainable because it was defined clearly – as all Indiana residents who purchased methanol-contaminated hand sanitizer - and based on objective criteria, such as the presence of methanol. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that determining class membership would be overly complicated, noting that ascertainability focuses on whether class members can be identified, not on the administrative difficulty of managing the class. The court found that the class was sufficiently numerous, as the class likely contained at least 10,000 members. The court agreed with the plaintiff’s contention that there were common legal and factual issues across the class, particularly whether the defendant’s deceptive representations about its product’s safety and ingredients violated the IDCSA. The court concluded that the common issues, such as whether the labels were deceptive and whether the defendant’s actions violated the IDCSA, were central to the case. The court also ruled that the plaintiff’s claims were typical of the class because her experience with the harmful hand sanitizer and its deceptive labeling was like that of other class members. The court opined that the plaintiff could fairly and adequately represent the class as her interests were aligned with the goal of obtaining class-wide relief under the IDCSA for deceptive practices. As to the Rule 23(b) factors, the court found that common issues, such as whether the defendant misrepresented the contents and safety of the hand sanitizer, predominated over individual questions, such as the precise extent of each class member’s injury. Furthermore, the court determined that a class action would be the superior method of handling the case, as it would allow for efficient resolution of the claims, particularly given the extensive evidence about the contamination and recall process. For these reasons, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. In Cohen, et al. v. Allegiance Administrators, LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186644 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 14, 2024), the plaintiffs filed a class action against the defendants Allegiance Administrators, LLC (Allegiance) and Autoguard Advantage Corporation (Autoguard) for allegedly wrongfully denying claims under their “Extra Wear & Tear Protection Waiver” (the Waiver). Id. at *2. The Waiver was sold to lessees of vehicles to cover the cost of excess wear and tear charges assessed when returning a leased vehicle. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had a practice of denying legitimate claims for reasons not supported by the Waiver’s terms and conditions. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, and the court denied the motion. The defendants argued that class treatment would not be appropriate, because the reasons for denying claims often required subjective review of the individual facts and circumstances of each claim, such as photographs or measurements of the damage, which could not be applied uniformly to all class members. The court, however, examined whether the defendants had a consistent practice of denying claims based on extracontractual reasons, such as “collision damage” or excessive scratches and dents, and found sufficient evidence in the claims reports and deposition testimony supporting the plaintiffs’ theory. Id. at *14-15. The court found that the practice of denying claims based on these reasons was improper under the terms of the Waiver and could be objectively identified in the claims data. The court opined that the proffered testimony from claims adjusters and managers, along with internal reports, confirmed that the defendants’ practice was to wrongfully deny claims for collision damage. The court also stated that the common question of whether the defendants denied claims under the Waiver for non-contractual reasons and whether such denials constituted a breach of contract could be resolved on a class-wide basis. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. A group of consumers in Moore, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC , 2024 U.S.

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online