In Re: Evenflo Company, Inc. v., 54 F.4th 28

Background

Plaintiffs (43 named purchasers from 28 states) filed a consolidated class action alleging Evenflo misrepresented its "Big Kid" booster seat as safe for children as small as 30 pounds and as "side impact tested." They sought monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief.
Complaint alleges plaintiffs overpaid (would not have bought, would have paid less, or would have bought safer alternatives) because of those misrepresentations; no plaintiff alleged physical injury from the seat.
District Court dismissed the operative complaint for lack of Article III standing, concluding plaintiffs failed to plead cognizable economic injury or a likelihood of future injury for injunctive relief.
Plaintiffs appealed. The First Circuit reviewed standing de novo and treated allegations of overpayment as the asserted economic injury.
The First Circuit held plaintiffs plausibly alleged standing to seek monetary relief based on overpayment, but lacked standing for injunctive and declaratory relief; it remanded and directed the district court to clarify that any dismissal for lack of Article III standing operate without prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing for monetary damages (overpayment)	Overpayment is a concrete economic injury traceable to Evenflo's misrepresentations (would not have bought, paid less, or bought safer alternative).	No cognizable Article III injury because seats performed and caused no physical harm; overpayment theory insufficiently pleaded.	Plaintiffs have standing to pursue monetary relief: overpayment is a cognizable concrete injury and the complaint plausibly alleges it.
Plausibility of overpayment allegations	Allegations that misrepresentations influenced purchase decisions and price suffice at pleading stage; no precise damage formula required.	Plaintiffs failed to plausibly show they paid more or that product value was diminished (no measure, no alternative-price comparison).	Complaint, read as whole, plausibly alleges overpayment; quantification or formula not required for standing at pleading stage.
Standing for injunctive relief	Plaintiffs argue injunctive relief is appropriate to stop ongoing misleading marketing.	No likelihood of future injury: plaintiffs do not allege intent to purchase Big Kid seats again; past purchases insufficient.	No standing for injunctive relief — plaintiffs fail to allege a real or imminent future injury.
Effect of dismissal (with or without prejudice)	Dismissal for lack of Article III standing must be without prejudice so claims can be refiled if jurisdiction later exists.	District court record ambiguous; Evenflo had requested dismissal with prejudice.	Remand for district court to clarify judgment; any dismissal for lack of Article III standing must operate without prejudice.

Key Cases Cited

Gustavsen v. Alcon Lab’ys, Inc., 903 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018) (recognizes overpayment as cognizable Article III injury)
In re Asacol Antitrust Litig., 907 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2018) (economic injury from supra-competitive prices supports standing)
In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 582 F.3d 156 (1st Cir. 2009) (overpayment recognized as injury)
Hochendoner v. Genzyme Corp., 823 F.3d 724 (1st Cir. 2016) (distinguishes standing inquiry from merits review)
Kerin v. Titeflex Corp., 770 F.3d 978 (1st Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing standing pre-discovery)
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (monetary harms are prototypical concrete injuries)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (clarifies concreteness requirement for injury-in-fact)
Cole v. Gen. Motors Corp., 484 F.3d 717 (5th Cir. 2007) (economic injury at purchase supports standing even without manifestation of physical harm)
Debernardis v. IQ Formulations, LLC, 942 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2019) (deprivation of benefit of the bargain is concrete economic injury)
In re Aqua Dots Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2011) (overpayment for dangerous product confers standing despite no physical injury)