On January 24, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis, No. 24-0304, which may result in the resolution of a long-standing circuit split on a dispute key to class certification. In its petition for writ of certiorari, petitioner Labcorp sought Supreme Court review of an issue that has divided federal circuit courts: what should courts do when a putative class contains numerous members who lack any Article III injury?
The underlying class action was filed against Labcorp, a leading clinical diagnostic laboratory, alleging that Labcorp’s self-service check-in kiosks, which are not independently accessible to blind individuals, violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Act. The standing issue concerned how many members of the class were actually injured—Labcorp presented evidence that a significant percentage of visually-impaired patients were either unaware of or did not intend to use the self-service kiosks, preferring to check in with the front desk. Despite these standing issues, and applying existing Ninth Circuit law, the district court in the underlying action certified the class and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
In its petition for certiorari, Labcorp identified three Circuit blocs that answer the question of absent class member injury in different ways: (1) “the Article III Circuits,” which deny class certification where the class includes members who have suffered no Article III injury; (2) “the De Minimis Circuits,” which apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and not Article III to reject classes where there are more than a de minimis number of uninjured members; and (3) “the Back-End Circuits” (including the Ninth Circuit), which do not deny class certification based on Article III issues with uninjured class members and only deny class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) if the class contains a large number of uninjured members.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question: “Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.” Notably, both the district court and Ninth Circuit’s decisions were unpublished. This suggests that the Court is likely poised to address the Circuit split and provide a definitive answer to the question whether any or many uninjured class members may be encompassed within a class in at the time of class certification. An answer restricting class certification to those who suffered harm from the alleged legal violation would be a game-changer for defendants facing lawsuits challenging practices that affect few people but present large potential exposure—such as those under the ADA and those concerning labels on consumer products that do not drive consumer purchasing decisions.
