## Facts

- Multiple consumer actions were centralized in an MDL in the Southern District of Iowa against E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (DuPont), the manufacturer of nonstick cookware coatings sold under branded and unbranded programs.
- Plaintiffs sought certification of 23 statewide classes of consumers who acquired cookware coated with DuPont’s nonstick surface coating products over extended time periods.
- DuPont sold coatings to many cookware manufacturers but did not itself manufacture cookware.
- Plaintiffs alleged DuPont made false or misleading safety representations and omitted material risk information about the coatings.
- None of the proposed class representatives alleged present personal injury; they sought economic-loss remedies (e.g., overpayment/diminished value) and injunctive relief.
- Many putative class members lacked receipts or reliable records; and cookware could not be reliably identified as DuPont-coated through visual inspection after years of use.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed 23 statewide classes satisfied Rule 23(a)’s requirements, including typicality and adequacy of representation.
2. Whether the proposed class definitions were administratively workable, including whether class membership was ascertainable under an objective standard.
3. Whether certification was proper under Rule 23(b)(2) and/or Rule 23(b)(3), including whether common issues predominated and a class action was superior.

## Decision

- The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
- The court concluded the proposed class definitions were not ascertainable under an objective, administrable standard.
- The court found Rule 23(a) typicality and adequacy were not established given substantial variation among consumers’ purchases, exposure to alleged representations, and individualized economic-loss theories.
- The court determined individualized issues and state-law variability defeated Rule 23(b)(3) predominance for the proposed statewide classes.

## Legal Principles

- A proposed class must be defined so membership can be determined under an objective standard; certification is improper where identifying members would require extensive individualized fact-finding.
- Rule 23(a)(3) typicality and Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy are not met when named plaintiffs’ circumstances (including exposure to challenged statements and purchase circumstances) materially differ from those of absent members in ways that affect liability or damages proof.
- Economic-loss theories based on alleged overpayment or diminished value may require individualized inquiries into consumer knowledge, reliance, and valuation, undermining class treatment.
- In multi-state consumer cases, variation in applicable state laws and individualized proof of misrepresentation/omission elements can defeat Rule 23(b)(3) predominance, even if the challenged conduct is alleged to be common.

## Conclusion

The court refused to certify 23 statewide consumer classes challenging marketing of nonstick cookware coatings because class membership could not be reliably determined and the proposed representatives and claims did not support typical, adequate, and predominantly common proof across the proposed classes.


In re Teflon Prods. Liab. Litig., 254 F.R.D. 354 (S.D. Iowa 2008)