Vince Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that courts may rely on “techniques tailored by the parties” to mitigate the risk of “mistaken or fraudulent claims”
• holding that whether the defendant’s statements were “false or misleading” was “a ‘common contention’ that is ‘capable of classwide resolution’”
• holding that classes must \be defined clearly and based on objective criteria\
• finding that whether \statements would have misled a reasonable consumer\ is a common question suitable for class treatment
• noting that fail-safe class definitions are impermissible because they cannot satisfy the requirement of ascertainability
• finding that whether “statements would have misled a reasonable consumer” is a common question suitable for class treatment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).