Consumer Fraud Class Action Review – 2025

was inappropriate because the plaintiffs’ expert needed more data to finalize his damage estimates. Regarding the requirements of Rule 23 class certification, the court found that the lead plaintiffs’ claims were typical to those of the proposed class, and that the lead plaintiffs and their counsel could adequately represent the sub- classes’ interests. With typicality and adequacy met, the court examined numerosity and commonality. The court determined that choice-of-law issues would be present if a national class were certified given differing state laws applicable to consumers’ individual contract claims, and therefore individual inquiries would predominate over common ones in a nationwide class. However, as to the California-specific sub-class, the court found that Apple failed to show that other states’ interests would be more impaired than California’s interests because all devices were purchased in California. Accordingly, the court determined that choice-of-law issues defeated predominance for the plaintiffs’ proposed nationwide sub-classes but did not defeat it for the California-pre- install sub-class. As a result, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in part and denied it in part. The court also granted class certification in part in Rushing, et al. v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32868 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2024). The plaintiffs filed a consumer class action alleging that the defendant, Williams-Sonoma, advertised and marketed the thread count in certain of its Bedding Products that was contrary to industry-accepted standards, and was false, deceptive, or misleading to reasonable consumers. The plaintiffs sought to certify: (i) a nationwide class of consumers who purchased bedding, including sheets, sheet sets, pillowcases, duvet covers, and/or shams, directly from Williams-Sonoma; and (ii) a sub-class of California consumers. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion, in part, certifying a class of California consumers. The court ruled that the claims of the representative plaintiff were not typical of those of the proposed class because the lead plaintiff purchased the Bedding Products in 2011, years before Williams-Sonoma implemented an arbitration agreement in 2016 which required mandatory arbitration for disputes regarding most online purchases. The court disagreed. It reasoned that the lead plaintiff previously challenged the arbitration agreement’s applicability and succeeded in arbitration, and therefore, the plaintiff’s defenses were aligned to those potentially faced by many class members. The court also determined that the proposed classes’ on-going purchases and interest in accurately labeled products were sufficient for standing to seek injunctive relief. The court found that the class consisted of over 50,000 consumers, and thus was sufficiently numerous. The court also determined that the plaintiffs identified several legal and factual questions common to the class, including whether Williams-Sonoma made misleading thread count representations and violated industry standards. The court opined that these questions could be resolved through common evidence. However, the court ruled that certification of a nationwide class seeking injunctive relief was inappropriate because there existed a lack of clear guidance on applying California’s consumer protection laws to a nationwide class against a California defendant. When it evaluated the Rule 23(b) requirements for the California sub-class, the court found that the question of deception regarding thread count and exposure to misleading advertising would predominate over any individual questions. Finally, the court concluded that a class action would be superior to other methods for adjudicating the controversy, considering efficiency and economy. For these reasons, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in part and denied it in part. In Corbett, et al. v. PharmaCare U.S., Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58336 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2024), the plaintiffs filed a class action against the defendant alleging consumer protection and breach of warranty violations related to its Sambucol product, a dietary supplement containing black elderberry extract. The plaintiffs asserted claims under the California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act (MPA), as well as claims for breach of express and implied warranties. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that the defendant’s product labels featured misleading statements regarding immune system support and scientific testing. These statements, the plaintiffs claimed, were deceptive because they claimed that the products contained a new dietary ingredient requiring FDA notification before sale (the NDI claim), and because the products were marketed as disease-mitigating without FDA approval (the disease claim). The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The plaintiffs successfully argued that the merits of their case could be proven through common evidence and that damages could be calculated on a class-wide basis. In support of their arguments, the plaintiffs offered testimony from expert witnesses, who provided reports that opined on common methods of proof for each proposed class. The court found that the proposed methodologies were sufficient to establish commonality. As for damages, the plaintiffs suggested a model with a survey prepared by their expert witness that measured the market price premium attributable to the challenged misrepresentations. The court agreed that the damages model sufficiently incorporated supply-side factors. The court determined that both classes satisfied predominance

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