## Facts

- Direct Digital sold Instaflex Joint Support, a dietary supplement marketed as “clinically tested” and “scientifically formulated” to provide joint relief.
- Vince Mullins alleged the advertising was deceptive because the product’s primary active ingredient (glucosamine sulfate) was ineffective, making the marketing claims false or misleading.
- Mullins filed a putative class action under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and related theories for purchasers of Instaflex in specified states and time periods.
- Most purchases were low-dollar retail transactions lacking reliable retailer records identifying buyers; many consumers would not have kept receipts or other documentation.
- Direct Digital argued class certification should be denied because there was no reliable, administratively feasible way to identify all class members, and because claims would rely on affidavits.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 23(b)(3) requires a plaintiff to prove at class certification a “reliable and administratively feasible” method for identifying all class members, beyond an objectively defined class.
2. Whether the lack of purchase records and potential reliance on class-member affidavits defeats certification on manageability or due process grounds.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class.
- The court held Rule 23(b)(3) does not impose a heightened ascertainability requirement demanding proof of an administratively feasible identification method at certification.
- The court concluded the class definition was sufficiently definite because it used objective criteria (purchasers within specified places and times) and was not vague, subjective, or fail-safe.
- Concerns about identifying claimants and preventing fraudulent claims were treated as matters for Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance/superiority/manageability analysis and ordinary claims administration tools, not as a separate bar to certification.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23 contains an implicit requirement that a proposed class be defined clearly and by objective criteria; definitions that are vague, subjective, or fail-safe are improper.
- Rule 23(b)(3) does not add a separate prerequisite that plaintiffs prove an administratively feasible mechanism to identify every class member at certification.
- Administrative difficulty in identifying claimants and distributing relief is evaluated through Rule 23(b)(3) superiority and manageability, and can be addressed with claim forms, audits, challenges to suspect claims, and other procedures.
- Due process for defendants is protected through opportunities to contest individual claims and defenses during claims administration, rather than by categorical denial of certification based solely on absent purchase records.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit rejected a heightened ascertainability doctrine for Rule 23(b)(3) classes and affirmed certification where the class was objectively defined, holding that practical identification problems should be handled within Rule 23’s existing predominance, superiority, and case-management framework.


Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015)