In Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., an opinion issued on January 3, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 does not require plaintiffs challenging the labeling of food and beverage products under state consumer protection laws to demonstrate an administratively feasible way to identify class members as a prerequisite to class certification.

Background -

The Briseno case is one of hundreds of putative class-actions challenging allegedly false or misleading labeling on food and beverage products. In this case, plaintiffs contended that a “100% Natural” label on Wesson oils—which ConAgra manufactures, markets, and sells—was false or misleading because the oils contain genetically modified organisms (or “GMOs”) that plaintiffs argued were “not natural.” The plaintiffs moved to certify eleven state-based classes of consumers of the oil, and ConAgra objected on the ground that there would be no administratively feasible way to identify members of the proposed classes because consumers would not be able to reliably identify themselves as members of the classes. As ConAgra pointed out, consumers do not generally save receipts proving their purchases and would probably not remember details regarding their purchases. The district court rejected this argument, and held that, at the certification stage, it was enough that an objective criterion defined the class: whether class members purchased Wesson oil during the class period.