consumer class settlement can't include injunctive relief unless there's Art. III standing to seek injunctive relief

Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, --- F.4th ----, 2023 WL 2906311, No. 22-11232 (11^th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023)

The court of appeals reversed approval of a settlement that would have provided injunctive relief and up to $8 million in monetary relief to a class of individuals who purchased one or more “brain performance supplements” manufactured and sold by defendants. Given that the named plaintiffs alleged that the products were worthless, there was no reasonable probability that they’d want to buy them again, so they lacked standing to seek injunctive relief—and apparently even to agree to it as a settlement offer, which seems different.

I’m not a standing expert, but I don’t understand why, even if claims for injunctive relief couldn’t be maintained, one couldn’t settle claims for monetary relief with non-monetary remedies. The case the court of appeals discussed, Local No. 93, International Association of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501 (1986), seems very different (it’s about a consent decree that arguably violated a rule against issuing race-conscious court orders, and says “a consent decree must spring from and serve to resolve a dispute within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction”). Here, the money damages provide the jurisdiction for the damages class, so why can’t the damages class agree to accept injunctive relief?

I assume that next on the chopping block is cy pres remedies for nonexhausted settlement funds, since plaintiffs can’t seek that as a remedy to be awarded either.

FWIW this was not a great settlement in terms of injunctive relief—it didn’t require anything meaningful—but this ground of reversal might be worse for consumers overall if such settlements do provide meaningful relief.