## Facts

- Michael Sias sued Edge Communications, Inc. on behalf of himself and a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of Edge prepaid long-distance calling cards, asserting fraud, deceit, and negligent misrepresentation.
- Edge marketed calling cards nationwide, prominently advertising a $0.19 per-minute rate.
- Sias alleged Edge effectively charged more than the advertised rate through practices such as rounding up to the next full minute and imposing additional fees (including “interconnect” fees) that were not adequately disclosed.
- The proposed class included all U.S. purchasers of Edge calling cards; Edge sold millions of cards through retail outlets and did not maintain purchaser-identifying records.
- Because the cards were disposable and commonly discarded after use, identifying class members after the fact was highly impractical.
- Edge argued that card designs, denominations, and marketing materials varied over time and place, that notice and administration for a nationwide class would be prohibitively costly, and that applying Oklahoma law to nonresidents raised due process and choice-of-law concerns.
- The trial court denied class certification, relying on superiority and manageability concerns (cost, administrative burden, identification problems, and constitutional concerns), and did not decide other certification elements.
- Sias appealed the denial of certification.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying class certification under 12 O.S. § 2023 based on superiority and manageability.
2. Whether due process and choice-of-law concerns arising from a nationwide consumer class supported denial of certification.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the denial of class certification.
- It held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a class action was not a superior method of adjudication.
- The court accepted the trial court’s reliance on severe ascertainability, notice, and administration problems for a nationwide class of anonymous purchasers.
- The court also approved consideration of due process and choice-of-law difficulties implicated by attempting to adjudicate a multistate class under a single state’s substantive law.
- The court noted that fraud-based claims commonly present individualized issues (including exposure to different representations, reliance, and damages) that can further impair manageability.

## Legal Principles

- Class certification decisions under 12 O.S. § 2023 are committed to the trial court’s broad discretion and are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- A proposed class must be adequately defined and clearly ascertainable; severe member-identification and notice barriers may justify denial of certification.
- Superiority and manageability are central to certification; a court may deny certification where costs and administrative burdens outweigh the benefits of aggregation, particularly when individual recoveries are small.
- In nationwide consumer class actions, due process and choice-of-law limitations on applying one state’s law to nonresident claimants are proper considerations in the superiority/manageability analysis.
- Potentially individualized proof of reliance and damages in fraud and misrepresentation claims may weigh against class treatment.

## Conclusion

The court upheld denial of nationwide class certification because identifying and notifying millions of anonymous calling-card purchasers was unworkable and costly, and because multistate due process and choice-of-law concerns—along with individualized reliance and damages issues—supported the trial court’s finding that a class action was not the superior method of adjudication.


Sias v. Edge Commc'ns, Inc., 8 P.3d 182 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000)