United States: Proving The Retail Transaction: Ascertainability In Food And Cosmetic Mislabeling Class Actions

Co-authored by Jessica Linse

Most consumers quickly discard receipts for food or cosmetics purchases, particularly when the items bought are low cost. This truism of human nature presents challenges to class certification when the consumer is the indirect purchaser, i.e., the consumer purchases the product at retail rather than directly from the manufacturer. Should putative class members get a ''pass'' on proving the sales transaction simply because the litigation is commenced by means of class action? Should courts certify classes against manufacturers when the reasons for and possible harm from retail purchasers may differ significantly among putative class members?

Ascertainability emerged as a prominent issue for class certification after Carrera v. Bayer Corp.1 Carrera and its Third Circuit kin2 set forth a two-part ascertainability test, requiring both that a ''class must be currently and readily ascertainable based on objective criteria''3 and that a reliable and administratively feasible method exists for determining whether putative class members fall within the class definition.4

The Circuits' Differing Treatment of Ascertainability

Despite having been the class action issue de jour in the past few years, Rule 23 does not expressly mention ascertainability. It is unsurprising, then, that circuit courts have approached ascertainability differently, so much so that at one point the issue seemed destined for Supreme Court review. The circuits do concur on the need to define a class using objective criteria. The difference hinges on their views on whether the plaintiff must also show ''administrative feasibility'' – or, the ability to feasibly ascertain the members of a class.

Carrera established a high bar, rejecting plaintiffs' argument that the putative class of Bayer One-A-Day WeightSmart diet supplement purchasers could be determined through affidavits and retail records of online sales and loyalty cards.5 The Third Circuit ruled that ''the plaintiff must demonstrate his purported method for ascertaining class members is reliable and administratively feasible, and permits a defendant to challenge the evidence used to prove class membership.''6 Proof through retail records was insufficient because there was no evidence that these records could identify purchasers or even that such records existed.7 Similarly, the court criticized proposed self-identifying affidavits because plaintiff's own inconsistent deposition testimony suggested it was unlikely that class members would remember the transactions.8 The Third Circuit in City Select9 tempered Carrera and declined to pronounce that ascertainability never could be established by self-identification affidavits.

Other circuits also require the heightened showing of an administratively feasible method of establishing class membership. Although unpublished, the Eleventh Circuit so ruled in Karhu v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc.10 – a putative class action alleging false advertising brought by purchasers of a weight loss supplement. In affirming the trial court's denial of class certification based on ascertainability, Karhu instructed that ''the plaintiff must propose an administratively feasible method by which class members can be identified.''11 The Eleventh Circuit then echoed Carrera's reticence to certify a class shown by self-identification, ''without first establishing that self-identification is administratively feasible and not otherwise problematic.''12 Karhu leaned on Bussey v. Macon Cnty. Greyhound Park, Inc.,13 to counsel that identification of class members is administratively feasible when it is a ''manageable process that does not require much, if any, individual inquiry.''14 The Karhu court was concerned that due process required that defendants be given the opportunity to challenge class membership in an administratively feasible manner.15

The Fourth Circuit also requires more than a class defined through objective criteria. EQT Prod. Co. v. Adair16 involved five proposed class actions claiming the deprivation of royalty payments from the production of coalbed methane gas. Four of the five proposed classes included persons with interests in gas estates in property tracts that conflicted with interests owned by different persons in coal estates for those same tracts.17 The Fourth Circuit first explained that ''Rule 23 contains an implicit threshold requirement that the members of a proposed class be 'readily identifiable.'''18 While noting that not every class member must be identified during class certification, class members must be identifiable without resorting to ''individualized fact-finding or 'mini-trials.'''19 The EQT court concluded that it would be difficult to determine class membership based on the defendants' ownership schedules, as some had not been updated for decades, and local land records did not provide an easy method of determining ownership.20 The Fourth Circuit remanded for the district court to reconsider ascertainability, among other Rule 23 issues.21

The First Circuit in In re Nexium Antitrust Litigation22 paid homage to Carrera, and required an administratively feasible method of ascertaining class membership.23 It nevertheless permitted self-identification affidavits as an administratively feasiblemethod.24 Nexium involved a putative class complaining about alleged agreements that prevented the market entry of a generic alternative to Nexium, an over-the-counter heartburn medicine.25 Defendants argued against certification in part because the class would include both allegedly harmed persons and unharmed persons – those brand-loyal consumers who would choose to purchase Nexium at the same price even with a generic competitor.26 Nexium confirmed that ascertainability requires that the class definition must be sufficiently definite so that it ''allow[s] the class members to be ascertainable.''27 Relying on Carrera, Nexium explained that ''the court must be satisfied that, prior to judgment, it will be possible to establish a mechanism for distinguishing the injured from the uninjured class members.''28 While deferring to Carrera on the need for administrative feasibility, Nexium concluded that it was administratively feasible to determine class membership through self-identifying affidavits.29

Other circuits disagree, concluding that Rule 23 contains no administrative feasibility requirement for determining class membership. Perhaps both the earliest and most developed opinion was that of the Seventh Circuit in Mullins v. Direct Digital LLC.30 Mullins ruled that Carrera's heightened ascertainability requirement upset the balance of interests involved in class certification of a proposed class of dietary supplement purchasers.31 While acknowledging some of Carrera's concerns, Mullins concluded that ascertainability in the Seventh Circuit is limited to class definitions that are ''too vague or subjective, or when class membership [is] defined in terms of success on the merits (so-called 'fail-safe' classes).''32

The Sixth Circuit followed Mullins in Rikos v. Procter and Gamble Co.,33 and ruled that ascertainability posed no obstacle to the certification of a class of purchasers of Align, a probiotic nutritional supplement that purportedly promoted digestive health.34 In so doing, Rikos declined to follow Carrera, noting that membership in a class need not be determined with 100% accuracy.35 Despite rejecting Carrera, the Sixth Circuit, in Rikos, noted that the factual circumstances presented were distinguishable from Carrera, as more than one-half of the supplement sales were online, evidence that could be supplemented by customer membership records and physician statements.36 The Sixth Circuit thus concluded that putative class members could be identified through traditional models and methods.37

The Eighth Circuit concurred with the Sixth and Seventh Circuits in Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Medtox Scientific, Inc.38 Sandusky involved the unsolicited receipt of a fax transmission from the defendant. The Eighth Circuit noted that the ''circuits diverge on the meaning of ascertainability,''39 but deferred to the Seventh Circuit analysis in Mullins to conclude that a class only '''must be adequately defined and clearly ascertainable''' – dispensing with any administrative feasibility argument.40

The Ninth Circuit also distanced itself from Carrera in Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,41 declining to adopt a separate administrative feasibility prerequisite to class certification. Briseno involved classes of consumers in several states who allegedly purchased Wesson cooking oils labeled as ''100% Natural.''42 Like Mullins, the Ninth Circuit recognized limited categories of class definition deficiencies, such as: 1) indefinite definitions; 2) vague definitions; and 3) fail-safe definitions.43 The Ninth Circuit required only that the class be defined by objective criteria, as in whether class members had purchased the products.44 It did acknowledge, however, that Rule 23 otherwise addressed Carrera's policy concerns.45

At one point, it looked as though the Second Circuit might follow Carrera.46 Instead, in In re Petrobras Securities Litigation,47 the Second Circuit ruled that ''administrative feasibility. . . is neither compelled by precedent nor consistent with Rule 23.''48 The Second Circuit decided that ascertainability is established by showing that a proposed class is ''defined using objective criteria that establish a membership with definite boundaries.''49 Petrobras took the position that Carrera's heightened test seemed to ''duplicate Rule 23's requirement that district courts consider 'the likely difficulties in managing a class action,''' noting that ''manageability is a component of the superiority analysis.''50 Thus, Petrobras did not discard Carrera's concerns entirely; it recategorized them in a different Rule 23 compartment.

Most recently, the Fifth Circuit in Seeligson v. Devon Energy Prod. Co., L.P.,51 declined to adopt Carrera's heightened ascertainability standard. Instead, Seeligson ruled that ''a party need only demonstrate – 'at some stage of the proceeding' – that the class is 'adequately defined and clearly ascertainable.'''52 In contrast to EQT Prod., the Fifth Circuit ruled that public records provided sufficient objective criteria from which to identify royalty owners in Texas wells producing natural gas processed by defendant.53 These decisions certainly suggest that ascertainability is a function of the circuit in which a case is pending. The Third Circuit inquiry definitely will be more searching, while the inquiry in other circuits is limited. The circuit split, however, is not the entire story, as the factual premise for determining the parameters of the class also is important. The reliability of evidence for different product transactions varies. To be sure, it may be difficult to factually harmonize Carrera with Mullins. On the other hand, Rikos involved proof other than self-identification, with significant numbers of online sales and physician statements.54 Even Petrobras would agree that the facts of the transaction (i.e., cost of product, how and where distributed and product differentiation) could impact a class action's manageability. Therefore, to some extent, the specifics of the underlying transaction will impact class certification, in some instances possibly transcending the ''circuit split.'' Thus, in the First Circuit – where a showing of administration feasibility is required – a court may find that ascertainability is satisfied with minimal proof. Or, in the Second Circuit – where manageability is an alternative focus – a court could decline to certify if proof of the transactions is overwhelmingly difficult.

To view this article in full, please click here.

Footnotes

* Jessica Linse is a recent graduate of the Emory University School of Law and was a summer associate at Duane Morris LLP in the summer of 2018.

1. 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013).

2. Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLC, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012); Byrd v. Aaron's Inc., 784 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2015); City Select Auto Sales, Inc. v. BMW Bank of North America, Inc., 867 F.3d 434 (3d Cir. 2017).

3. Carrera, 727 F.3d at 305; Marcus, 687 F.3d at 593.

4. Byrd, 784 F.3d at 166.

5. 727 F.3d at 304.

6. 727 F.3d at 308.

7. 727 F.3d at 308-09.

8. 727 F.3d at 309.

9. 867 F.3d at 440-42.

10. 621 F. App'x 945 (11th Cir. 2015).

11. Id. at 947.

12. Id. at 948.

13. 562 F. App'x 782 (11th Cir. 2014).

14. Id. at 787.

15. 621 F. App'x at 948-49.

16. 764 F.3d 347 (4th Cir. 2014).

17. 764 F.3d at 355.

18. Id. at 358.

19. Id.

20. Id. at 359.

21. Id. at 371. On remand, changes to Virginia law after the Fourth Circuit appeal simplified the analysis and the district court certified three of five classes for at least some of the causes of action asserted. Adair v. EQT Prod. Co., 320 F.R.D. 379 (W.D. Va. 2017).

22. 777 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2015).

23. Id. at 19.

24. Id. at 20.

25. Id. at 13-14.

26. Id. at 17.

27. Id. at 19.

28. Id.

29. Id. at 20-21.

30. 795 F.3d 654 (7thCir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1161 (2016).

31. Id. at 658.

32. Id. at 657.

33. 799 F.3d 497 (6th Cir. 2015).

34. Id. at 525.

35. Id. at 525-26, citing Young v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 693 F.3d 532, 539 (6th Cir. 2012).

36. Id. at 526-27.

37. Id. at 527.

38. 821 F.3d 992 (8th Cir. 2016).

39. Id. at 995.

40. Id. at 996.

41. 844 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 313 (2017).

42. Id. at 1123.

43. Id. at 1124 nn.3 & 4.

44. Id. at 1124. See also True Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 896 F.3d 923, 929 (9th Cir. 2018). Clay v. Cytosport, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-00165-L-AGS, 2018 WL 4283032, at *3, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153124, at *7-8 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2018).

45. Briseno, 844 F.3d at 1133.

46. See Brecher v. Republic of Argentina, 806 F.3d 22, 24 (2d Cir. 2015)(acknowledging that Rule 23 included an implied ascertainability requirement).

47. 862 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. 2017).

48. Id. at 264.

49. Id.

50. Id. at 268.

51. 761 F. App'x 329 (5th Cir. 2019).

52. Id. at 334.

53. Id.

54. 799 F.3d at 526-27.

Originally published by MEALEY'S LITIGATION REPORT: Class Actions.

Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions