SCOTUS rejects manufacturers’ push to impose limits on class action suits
Though the sitting Supreme Court has a track record that is decidedly pro-business when it comes to class action lawsuits, it has declined to weigh in on a case that would have wide ranging ramifications on the ease with which consumers can sue businesses.
February 25, 2014 at 08:29 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Though the sitting Supreme Court has a track record that is decidedly pro-business when it comes to class action lawsuits, it has declined to weigh in on a case that would have wide ranging ramifications on the ease with which consumers can sue businesses.
On Feb. 24 the SCOTUS rejected challenges to an ongoing lawsuit surrounding the growth of mold in washing machines, in which defendants sought to place new restrictions on class action procedure. The rejection could open up the possibility for a wider range of people to be included within a class, and even the possibility of different types of class actions relating to a single issue.
Plaintiffs contend that a design flaw in certain brands of front-loading washing machines caused excessive mold growth, compromising the usefulness of the machines and undermining the premium cost consumers may have paid for them. While the case in question centered on a lawsuit brought by consumers against Whirlpool Corp., a number of similar suits are currently pending against Sears and Bosch as well. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also backed the appeal.
While defendants in this case had hoped to capitalize on similar decisions like those in cases involving WalMart Stores and the Comcast Group that came in 2011, the were unable to gain a win solely on the Court's track record.
Manufacturers say that the design flaw impacted only a small percentage of machines, and that many of the consumers incorporated into the class action suit had joined because of the possibility of a problem rather than a potentially damaging event.
Bloomberg reports that Sears was concerned that an initial appellate court decision “opens the door to class actions based on any mass-produced product's failure to meet expectations of a handful of consumers, no matter how few other buyers had the same problem.” The decision by the SCOTUS could very well solidify those concerns.
For more on the developing landscape of class action lawsuits check out these stories:
Though the sitting Supreme Court has a track record that is decidedly pro-business when it comes to class action lawsuits, it has declined to weigh in on a case that would have wide ranging ramifications on the ease with which consumers can sue businesses.
On Feb. 24 the SCOTUS rejected challenges to an ongoing lawsuit surrounding the growth of mold in washing machines, in which defendants sought to place new restrictions on class action procedure. The rejection could open up the possibility for a wider range of people to be included within a class, and even the possibility of different types of class actions relating to a single issue.
Plaintiffs contend that a design flaw in certain brands of front-loading washing machines caused excessive mold growth, compromising the usefulness of the machines and undermining the premium cost consumers may have paid for them. While the case in question centered on a lawsuit brought by consumers against Whirlpool Corp., a number of similar suits are currently pending against Sears and Bosch as well. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also backed the appeal.
While defendants in this case had hoped to capitalize on similar decisions like those in cases involving
Manufacturers say that the design flaw impacted only a small percentage of machines, and that many of the consumers incorporated into the class action suit had joined because of the possibility of a problem rather than a potentially damaging event.
Bloomberg reports that Sears was concerned that an initial appellate court decision “opens the door to class actions based on any mass-produced product's failure to meet expectations of a handful of consumers, no matter how few other buyers had the same problem.” The decision by the SCOTUS could very well solidify those concerns.
For more on the developing landscape of class action lawsuits check out these stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllApple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1U.S. Supreme Court Has No Jurisdiction Over Trump's New York Criminal Case: Prosecutors
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: With KPMG's Proposed Entry, Arizona's Liberalized Legal Market is Getting Interesting
- 3Womble Bond Dickinson Adds New Leaders as Merger Is Completed
- 4Family's Disability Discrimination Suit Cleared to Go Forward Against Six Flags
- 5Turning Over Legal Tedium to AI Requires Lots of Unglamorous Work on Front End
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250