The court certified a California class of purchasers of Bear
Naked products marked as 100% natural that contained hexane-processed soy. Of note, the court rejected Bear Naked’s
argument that the class wasn’t ascertainable because nobody had purchase
records. The class definition wasn’t
vague or confusing: it was purchasers of the products so labeled, and because
the alleged misrepresentation was on the labels there was no issue of sweeping
in people not exposed to the misrepresentation.
There’s no requirement that class members’ identity be known at the time
of certification, and indeed that would destroy the class action
mechanism. As long as the definition is
sufficiently definite to identify members, administrative challenges don’t
defeat class certification. Relatedly,
the court rejected Bear Naked’s argument that the definition had to ensure that
all class members had standing, and that some purchasers would have been
unaffected by the misrepresentation and thus suffered no injury. Standing of the named plaintiff was enough;
causation on a classwide basis may be established by materiality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment