Another Federal Court Denies Class Certification Where Class Is Overbroad
A recent tobacco decision out of the Northern District of Illinois highlights the importance of challenging the class definition in the defense of consumer fraud cases. in Cleary v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 2010 WL 680957 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2010), plaintiffs had brought three different class actions against the tobacco industry. One was for illegal underage smoking, one was for nicotene addiction, and one was for allegedly deceptively marketing "low tar," "light," and "ultra light" cigarettes as safer than other cigarettes.
Because of summary judgments that previously had been granted, the first two classes failed for lack of a representative plaintiff. But the court considered the class certification motion for the "light" cigarettes case.
The class was defined expansively: "persons who purchased and consumed Marlboro Lights in Illinois 'from the time such cigarettes were placed into the stream of commerce until the date that the defendant publicly and adequately disclosed to consumers the true nature and effect of these cigarettes." Id. at *1.
The court found that the complaint met the numerosity and commonality requirements of Rule 23(a), but it failed to meet the typicality requirement for two reasons. First, the plaintiff did not explain how he intended to demonstrate that he suffered an injury from defendant's alleged fraud and how that was typical of the class members. Second -- and more important -- the court focused on the overbreadth of plaintiff's class definition.
As the court explained:
Class C is defined so broadly that it is likely to include persons who suffered no detriment at all due to Philip Morris's conduct. Some class members may have purchased Marlboro Lights for reasons wholly unrelated to its purportedly less-unhealthy qualities--for example, because they preferred the flavor of other brands. And other class members may have purchased Marlboro Lights despite being completely unaware of claimed differences between the adverse effects of "light" cigarettes and other, non-"light" brands. It is not entirely clear where Cleary fits in along this spectrum. Though it is true, as Cleary points out, that factual differences among the claims of class members do not necessarily defeat typicality, the likelihood that some significant proportion of class members experienced no injury at all does, at least in a case like this one in which proof of detriment is a necessary element of the claim.
Id. at *4 (citation omitted).
Whether the court treats it as part of the element of typicality, as the Cleary court did here, or whether it treats it as a fundamental problem with the class definition, "overbreadth" (i.e., including within the class people who were uninjured by the product) presents serious problems that go to the core of who is going to be bound by the verdict and how the proof is going to establish classwide truths. That is why courts increasingly are denying class certification to overbroad classes.
