The dispute centers on Bayer’s Natural Fruit Bites products and allegations that the label’s use of the term “natural” was materially misleading under the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act and the New York General Business Law.
Plaintiffs Doniece Drake and Deborah Bowling alleged that the mislabeling caused them to pay an inflated premium price for the products. The Ninth Circuit held that this injury theory—based on an objective reasonable consumer standard—was susceptible to common proof.
The court rejected Bayer’s contention that the presence of uninjured class members defeated predominance. Because the alleged injury was the payment of a price premium attributable to the label claims, the court reasoned that either all class members were injured or none were.
On damages, the court upheld the district court’s reliance on Dr. Ingersoll’s proposed conjoint analysis. The panel held that plaintiffs need not execute a damages model at the certification stage, provided the model is reliable and capable of calculating damages on a classwide basis.
Regarding causation, the Ninth Circuit applied the principle that material misrepresentations to the entire class give rise to an inference of reliance. The court found that Bayer’s evidence did not rebut this inference sufficiently to defeat class certification under the objective standard.
The majority concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that common questions of law and fact predominated over individualized ones for both the CLRA and GBL claims.
Judge Forrest dissented in part, arguing that Bayer had pointed to undisputed evidence that reliance was not universal. She contended that because not all class members were misled, there was no classwide causation or legally cognizable injury for the California class.