Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs from twenty-six states sought class certification in their lawsuit against General Motors, LLC (GM) for alleged defects in the 8L45 and 8L90 transmissions of vehicles purchased between 2015 and 2019. Plaintiffs experienced "shudder" and shift quality issues that persisted despite repairs. GM argued that the class lacked standing and that individualized issues would predominate over common issues in the class-action suit.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan determined that the Plaintiffs had standing and could satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, thus certifying the class. GM appealed, claiming the district court abused its discretion in certifying the class.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the Plaintiffs had standing, as they alleged overpayment for defective products, which suffices for Article III standing. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class, as the common questions of law and fact predominated over individualized issues. The court addressed GM's arguments regarding state laws requiring manifest defects, reliance, causation, and merchantability, concluding that these issues did not preclude class certification. The court also held that GM had waived its right to arbitration by engaging in litigation and seeking dispositive rulings on the merits.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's class certification, allowing the class-action lawsuit against GM to proceed. View "Speerly v. General Motors, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, dog owners, alleged that Nutramax Laboratories falsely marketed their product, Cosequin, as promoting healthy joints in dogs, despite evidence suggesting it provided no such benefits. They claimed this violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The district court certified a class of California purchasers who were exposed to the allegedly misleading statements on Cosequin’s packaging.The United States District Court for the Central District of California certified the class, relying on the proposed damages model of Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Jean-Pierre Dubé, who had not yet executed his model. Nutramax challenged this, arguing that the model needed to be applied to the class to demonstrate that damages were susceptible to common proof. The district court found Dr. Dubé’s model sufficiently reliable for class certification purposes and concluded that common questions predominated regarding injury. Nutramax also contended that the element of reliance was not susceptible to common proof, but the district court found that classwide reliance could be established through proof of material misrepresentation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that there is no general requirement for an expert to apply a reliable damages model to the proposed class to demonstrate that damages are susceptible to common proof at the class certification stage. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Dr. Dubé’s proposed model sufficiently sound. Additionally, the court rejected Nutramax’s argument regarding reliance, affirming that classwide reliance could be established under the CLRA through proof of material misrepresentation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of class certification. View "LYTLE V. NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES, INC." on Justia Law

The case involves the plaintiffs, including the estate of Carson Bride and three minors, who suffered severe harassment and bullying through the YOLO app, leading to emotional distress and, in Carson Bride's case, suicide. YOLO Technologies developed an anonymous messaging app that promised to unmask and ban users who engaged in bullying or harassment but allegedly failed to do so. The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against YOLO, claiming violations of state tort and product liability laws.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, holding that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunized YOLO from liability. The court found that the claims sought to hold YOLO responsible for third-party content posted on its app, which is protected under the CDA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' misrepresentation claims, holding that these claims were based on YOLO's promise to unmask and ban abusive users, not on a failure to moderate content. The court found that the misrepresentation claims were analogous to a breach of promise, which is not protected by Section 230. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' product liability claims, holding that Section 230 precludes liability because these claims attempted to hold YOLO responsible as a publisher of third-party content. The court concluded that the product liability claims were essentially about the failure to moderate content, which is protected under the CDA. View "Estate of Bride v. Yolo Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

A group of Google Chrome users who chose not to sync their browsers with their Google accounts alleged that Google collected their personal data without consent. They believed that, based on Google's Chrome Privacy Notice, their data would not be collected if they did not enable sync. The users filed a class action lawsuit against Google, claiming violations of various state and federal laws.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Google. The court found that the data collection was "browser-agnostic," meaning it occurred regardless of the browser used. It concluded that Google's general privacy policies, which the users had consented to, governed the data collection. The court held that a reasonable person would understand from these policies that Google collected data when users interacted with Google services or third-party sites using Google services.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court should have determined whether a reasonable user would understand Google's various privacy disclosures as consenting to the data collection. The court found that the district court erred by focusing on the technical distinction of "browser agnosticism" rather than the reasonable person standard. The appellate court noted that Google's Chrome Privacy Notice could lead a reasonable user to believe that their data would not be collected without enabling sync. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings to determine whether the users consented to Google's data collection practices. View "CALHOUN V. GOOGLE LLC" on Justia Law

A consumer of a glucosamine-based dietary supplement filed a putative class action lawsuit against the supplement’s manufacturer and retailer under New York law. The plaintiff alleged that the supplement was mislabeled because it contained a different formulation of glucosamine than what was displayed on the front of the label and disclosed as the main ingredient on the side. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the product contained blended glucosamine rather than single-crystal glucosamine, which she believed to be more effective for alleviating joint pain.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted summary judgment for the defendants on federal preemption grounds. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s state law mislabeling claims were preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which establishes national standards for the labeling of dietary supplements. The district court found that the FDCA’s comprehensive regulatory scheme and its broad preemption clauses foreclosed the plaintiff’s state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the plaintiff’s state law mislabeling claims were expressly preempted by the FDCA. The court reasoned that the FDCA preempts any state law that imposes labeling requirements not identical to those set forth in the FDCA and its regulations. The court found that the product’s labeling complied with the FDCA’s requirements, as the dietary ingredient “glucosamine sulfate potassium chloride” was identified using methods endorsed by the FDA. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claims were preempted, and the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Jackson-Mau v. Walgreen Co." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, a group of consumers, filed a class action lawsuit against Amazon.com, Inc., alleging that the company violated Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA) by charging grossly inflated prices for essential goods during the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs claimed that Amazon's price increases, which they defined as 15% or more on any consumer good or food item after a declared emergency, were unfair. They also alleged negligence and unjust enrichment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington reviewed the case and Amazon moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that price gouging is not an unfair trade practice under the CPA. The District Court then certified two questions to the Washington Supreme Court: whether the CPA's prohibition on "unfair" acts or practices includes price gouging as alleged, and if so, whether the court or jury determines what percentage increase in price is "unfair."The Washington Supreme Court held that price gouging, as alleged in the plaintiffs' complaint, may be considered an unfair act or practice under the CPA. The court applied the substantial injury test from federal law, which requires that the act causes substantial injury to consumers, is not reasonably avoidable by consumers, and is not outweighed by countervailing benefits. The court found that the plaintiffs adequately alleged substantial injury, lack of reasonable alternatives, and no countervailing benefits.However, the court declined to establish a rigid 15% price increase threshold as a predicate for a price gouging claim, stating that such economic policy decisions are best left to the legislature. Finally, the court determined that whether an act is unfair is generally a mixed question of law and fact for the jury to resolve, unless the facts are undisputed, in which case it is a question of law for the court. View "Greenberg v. Amazon.com, Inc." on Justia Law

Jonathan Michel, a sophomore at Yale University during the Spring 2020 semester, filed a putative class action against Yale after the university transitioned to online-only classes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Michel sought tuition refunds, claiming promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment under Connecticut law, arguing that Yale's refusal to refund tuition was inequitable since the online education provided was of lower value than the in-person education promised.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted Yale's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Michel did not present evidence of financial detriment caused by the transition to online classes, a necessary element for both promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment claims. The court dismissed Michel's suit on January 31, 2023.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that Michel's quasi-contract claims were barred by a "Temporary Suspension Provision" in Yale's Undergraduate Regulations. This provision, which acted as a force majeure clause, allowed Yale to transition to online-only classes during the pandemic without issuing tuition refunds. The court concluded that Michel and Yale had a contractual relationship governed by this provision, which precluded Michel's quasi-contract claims. Therefore, Yale was entitled to summary judgment. View "Michel v. Yale University" on Justia Law

The case involves a consumer class action against Premier Nutrition Corporation, which marketed Joint Juice, a dietary supplement drink, as effective for relieving joint pain. Mary Beth Montera, representing a class of New York consumers, alleged that Premier's advertising was deceptive and violated New York General Business Law (GBL) §§ 349 and 350. These laws require proof that the defendant engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that was materially misleading and caused injury to the plaintiff.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California certified the class and the case proceeded to trial. Montera presented evidence, including studies showing that Joint Juice's key ingredients, glucosamine and chondroitin, were ineffective for joint health. Premier countered with industry-funded studies supporting the product's efficacy. The jury found Premier's statements deceptive and awarded statutory damages based on the number of units sold in New York during the class period. Premier's post-trial motions to decertify the class and for judgment as a matter of law were denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's rulings on class certification, liability under GBL §§ 349 and 350, and the initial calculation of statutory damages. The court rejected Premier's arguments that its statements were not materially misleading and that Montera's injury was not cognizable under New York law. The court also upheld the jury's finding that the class members' injuries were caused by Premier's misrepresentations.However, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's award of prejudgment interest, ruling that statutory damages under GBL §§ 349 and 350 are not compensatory and thus do not warrant prejudgment interest. The court also remanded the case for the district court to reconsider the statutory damages award in light of the factors identified in Wakefield v. ViSalus, Inc., which addresses the substantive due process limits on aggregate statutory damages. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated and remanded in part. View "MONTERA V. PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION" on Justia Law

Cybercriminals hacked into T-Mobile's computer systems, stealing personal information of approximately 76.6 million customers. Several customers filed class action lawsuits against T-Mobile, which were centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The parties reached a settlement, with T-Mobile agreeing to create a $350 million fund for affected customers and to spend an additional $150 million on data security improvements. Class counsel requested $78.75 million in attorneys' fees, which two class members, Cassie Hampe and Connie Pentz, objected to as excessive.The district court struck Hampe's and Pentz's objections and overruled them on the merits. The court found Hampe's objection to be in bad faith, influenced by her attorneys' history as serial objectors, and struck it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Pentz's objection was struck as a discovery sanction after she refused to cooperate with class counsel's discovery efforts. Both objectors appealed the district court's decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in striking Hampe's objection, as Rule 12(f) does not apply to objections and there was no evidence of bad faith in this case. The court also found that the district court erred in awarding attorneys' fees, determining that the fee award was unreasonable given the relatively short duration and limited discovery of the case. The court affirmed the decision to strike Pentz's objection but reversed the decision to strike Hampe's objection and the award of attorneys' fees, remanding for further proceedings. View "Daruwalla v. Hampe" on Justia Law

J.M., an 11-year-old student, filed a class action lawsuit through his guardian ad litem against Illuminate Education, Inc., an education consulting business. J.M. alleged that Illuminate obtained his personal and medical information from his school to assist in evaluating his educational progress. Illuminate promised to keep this information confidential but negligently maintained its database, leading to a data breach where a hacker accessed the information. Illuminate delayed notifying J.M. and other victims about the breach for five months, during which J.M. began receiving unsolicited mail and phone calls.The trial court sustained Illuminate's demurrer, concluding that Illuminate did not fall within the scope of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) or the Customer Records Act (CRA) and that J.M. failed to state a cause of action. J.M. filed a proposed second amended complaint with additional facts and a motion for reconsideration. The trial court reviewed the amended pleadings but maintained that J.M. had not stated a cause of action and could not amend to do so, thus sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and entering judgment for Illuminate.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that Illuminate falls within the scope of the CMIA and CRA. The court found that J.M. stated sufficient facts to support causes of action under both statutes. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. The judgment of dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court, allowing J.M. to file an amended complaint with additional facts. View "J.M. v. Illuminate Education, Inc." on Justia Law