A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has reversed the class certification in a case involving allegations against Folgers Coffee. The plaintiffs claimed that the coffee brand misrepresented the number of six-ounce cups that could be brewed from each can, asserting that consumers received significantly fewer servings than advertised. This decision highlights the complexities of proving consumer deception in class action lawsuits.
Class Action Allegations Against Folgers
In the case titled In re Folgers Coffee Marketing, (F.4th, 2025 WL 3292613), the plaintiffs alleged that Folgers containers misleadingly stated the number of cups per can. They contended that, when using the prescribed “Single-Serving Method,” consumers typically obtained only 70% of the promised servings. The plaintiffs, comprising a class of purchasers in Missouri, sought damages under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) for unjust enrichment and deceptive marketing practices.
The district court initially granted class certification, allowing the case to move forward. However, the Eighth Circuit’s recent reversal has raised significant concerns about the viability of such a class action based on individualized issues.
Eighth Circuit’s Findings on Individual Issues
The Eighth Circuit determined that individual issues regarding causation and harm would overshadow any common questions that may arise. Under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court stated that common legal or factual issues must predominate over individual concerns for class certification to be valid.
The court explained that claims based on fraud and deception are often ill-suited for class treatment, particularly when determining individual reliance or causation is necessary. Even though the MMPA does not require traditional reliance, plaintiffs must still establish a causal link between the alleged misrepresentation and measurable loss. The court noted, “determining who was actually deceived would require consumer-by-consumer analysis,” as many class members may not have read the packaging or understood the conditions under which the promised number of cups could be achieved.
As the court articulated, “many class members weren’t deceived,” necessitating detailed inquiries into each consumer’s individual experiences and interpretations.
Rejection of Price Inflation Claims
In addition to the individual issues concerning deception, the Eighth Circuit also dismissed the plaintiffs’ “price inflation” theory. This theory suggested that all purchasers paid an inflated price for Folgers products based on the alleged misleading representations. The court rejected this notion, highlighting that it conflicted with the statutory requirement for an “ascertainable loss” directly linked to the alleged misconduct.
The ruling emphasized that accepting such a theory could enable consumers who experienced no personal deception or loss to seek recovery, which contradicts recent appellate precedents in similar cases across various jurisdictions.
Unjust Enrichment Claims and Class Certification
The Eighth Circuit further denied class certification for the unjust enrichment claims, reasoning that the determination of whether any transaction was inequitable would depend on the specific circumstances of each case. This aligns with a broader consensus that unjust enrichment claims are generally unsuitable for class action treatment.
The court underscored the importance of individual testimony, which can significantly impact the outcome of cases like these. Even simple statements from consumers—such as one class member admitting, “I like my coffee”—can demonstrate the complexities involved in establishing class-wide claims.
The implications of this decision are noteworthy for defendants facing similar allegations of misrepresentation in marketing. The ruling indicates that when applicable law does not necessitate proof of reliance, as well as in cases involving price inflation claims, defendants may find a stronger position against class certification.
As the landscape of consumer protection law continues to evolve, the Eighth Circuit’s ruling serves as a critical reference point for understanding the challenges of proving collective harm in class action lawsuits.
