This case denied certification to a multistate class based
on alleged misrepresentations that Sturm’s Grove Square coffee contained fresh
ground coffee and a filter rather than “instant” or “soluble” coffee.
The court began with definiteness/ascertainability: whether
membership could be determined with objective criteria. A class is overbroad if it includes many
members who could not have been harmed at all (as opposed to a class whose
members might ultimately not have suffered actionable harm because of a failure
of proof). If a class requires
deception, then nondeceived consumers—consumers who bought for other
reasons—aren’t harmed. Under state laws
requiring causation or actual reliance, the class definitions were overbroad
because they included all purchasers, necessarily including those who knew of or
who were indifferent to the product’s insoluble coffee content. This got rid of
the Alabama, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Illinois, and South Carolina
claims.
California and New Jersey permit a classwide presumption of
reliance and causation in appropriate circumstances, but the court found those
weren’t present here, so their definitions were also overbroad. California allows a classwide presumption of
harm/reliance if the misrepresentations were material and made to the entire
class. “In general, purchasers of a
product labeled with the alleged misrepresentation have necessarily been
exposed, but all products must have contained the misrepresentation.” Presumed exposure to an ad campaign requires
the campaign to have been extensive and longterm.
Here, though, plaintiffs alleged that Sturm’s use of the
word “soluble” rather than “instant,” package design, and store placement were
deceptive. Some purchasers were
necessarily exposed to the claim on the packaging, but in 2011 Sturm changed
its label to include the word “instant.” Class members exposed thereafter,
representing nearly $4 million in gross sales and a vast majority of overall
sales during the class period, weren’t exposed to this “primary”
deception. Plus, extensive sales
occurred online. Those consumers
couldn’t have been exposed to the alleged misrepresentation prior to purchase. There
also wasn’t sufficient evidence alleged in the complaint of an extensive and
longterm ad campaign justifying a presumption of exposure. Thus, materiality couldn’t be presumed
classwide.
The New Jersey analysis was similar, though New Jersey
doesn’t require reliance for recovery, only causation. Before applying a presumption of causation, a
court must consider whether plaintiffs could have known the truth. Here, the class “potentially includes a great
many individuals who bought Grove Square Coffee products because of, or in
spite of, knowing that it contained instant coffee . . . . Moreover, numerous
class members could have known, appreciated, or easily learned that soluble
coffee is distinct from ground coffee—precluding a presumption of causality.”
To nail the coffin down, the court discussed the varying
expectations of consumers, a fatal flaw under the law of states like Illinois,
which treat deception/causation as individualized. The named plaintiffs weren’t consistent about
what they noticed—some only cared about price.
Other commenters (apparently from online fora) wanted instant coffee, were
indifferent, or were simply interested in a lower priced product, leaving
comments such as “price great compared to K-cups” and “I have no problem with
it being instant, if it tasted good.”
Given that these class members couldn’t show any damage, the proposed
class was fatally overbroad.
Similar reasoning doomed the unjust enrichment claims.
Also, the class wasn’t ascertainable because of its
subjective membership criteria: each member would be required to show
deception. And there was no typicality
because the court held that “each class member’s expectations when he or she
purchased the Grove Square Coffee product is at issue.” Some read the package, and others
didn’t. Individual issues clearly
predominated.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment