Retail Litigation Center Urges Supreme Court to Reinforce Safeguards Against Overbroad Consumer Class Actions

RLC and business groups urge Supreme Court review of a class action case that could reshape injury requirements and litigation risk for retailers.

The Retail Litigation Center (RLC), together with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Tort Reform Association, and Business Roundtable, today filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Drake. The case presents the question whether a damages class may be certified before plaintiffs establish that an alleged misrepresentation caused concrete injury across the class. The distinction is consequential as certification creates substantial potential liability and settlement pressure before plaintiffs have established that the challenged representation harmed the consumers they seek to represent. 

The brief argues that the Ninth Circuit improperly permitted certification based on a proposed economic model that had not been performed and could ultimately show no injury. RLC’s brief urges the Court to enforce the constitutional and procedural safeguards governing class certification, warning that inflated litigation costs ultimately burden consumers and workers.  

“Retailers should not be compelled to defend a class action before plaintiffs establish that the challenged representation caused concrete injury across the class,” said Monica Welt, President of the Retail Litigation Center. “Postponing that determination until after certification is not a neutral procedural choice. It subjects retailers to substantial settlement pressure before plaintiffs have established a necessary basis for proceeding on behalf of the class.”

The brief was authored by Candice C. Wong, Madeline Kane, and Phillip McCarthy of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP.

Tags