In Re Aqua Dots Products Liability Litigation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the financial injury from paying for dangerous toys can support a claim even though no physical injury happened
• holding that, where a manufacturer sold a toy with adhesive that posed a hazard to children if ingested, the plaintiffs did not have to allege that their children were physically injured to have standing
• finding that a financial injury—“they paid more for the toys than they would have, had they known of the risks”—was sufficient
• acknowledging that district court erred in “departing from the text of Rule 23(b)(3)” in refusing to certify class, but nevertheless affirming district court’s ultimate decision not to certify class under Rule 23(a)(4)
• observing that “plaintiffs’ loss [was] financial: they paid more for the toys than they would have, had they known of the [health] risks the beads posed to children”
• acknowledging that district court erred in “departing from the text of Rule 23(b)(3)” in refusing to certify class, but nevertheless affirming district court’s ultimate decision not to certify class under Rule 23(a)(4)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).