U.S. Supreme Court

Case Status


Docket Number



Cert. Denied


Questions Presented

Whether, in federal court, all members of a putative class – not just the named plaintiff – must have Article III standing to sue; and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit erred in choosing to follow a state’s rule that only a named plaintiff need have standing to sue, regardless of the lack of standing of putative class members, thereby disregarding the requirements of Article III standing.

Case Updates

Cert. petition granted

April 23, 2012

U.S. Chamber urges Supreme Court to clarify whether a class can be certified if some members suffered no Article III injury

March 12, 2012

The U.S. Chamber urged the Supreme Court to take this case to decide whether a putative class can be certified in federal court even if some members of the class lack standing to bring suit on their own under Article III. In this case, plaintiffs allege that advertisements featured on Ticketmaster’s Web site induced some customers to inadvertently purchase services they did not want. The Ninth Circuit held that it was no impediment to certification for a class to include persons who have suffered no “injury in fact” in their asserted California unfair competition law claims.

According to the Chamber's amicus brief, class actions cannot manufacture claims where none exists. Had those absent, non-injured class members sued individually in federal court, their claims would have been dismissed because Article III of the U.S. Constitution does not permit federal courts to hear cases where the plaintiffs have not demonstrated an actual injury. The Chamber argued that the federal rule for certifying class actions (Rule 23) cannot be a vehicle to circumvent Article III’s requirements. The Court’s decision greatly increases businesses’ exposure to liability where there has been no harm. Claims of unharmed class members—persons who would have no claim had they sued individually—could be leveraged to coerce a higher settlement than a class that is defined and confined, as Rule 23 requires, to those persons who can show actual harm.

Case Documents