Steven Goldsmith v. Lee Enterprises, 57 F.4th 608

Goldsmith, a home-delivery subscriber to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, brought a putative class action alleging the paper “double-billed” subscribers by issuing consecutive invoices whose term dates sometimes overlapped.
Post-Dispatch invoiced on an eight-week pay-in-advance cycle using a billing system called DISCUS; payments post to a running account and DISCUS amortizes delivery charges each week so the same newspaper is not charged twice.
Goldsmith alleged breach of contract, breach of implied covenant, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and two MMPA claims; defendants removed under CAFA and moved for summary judgment after discovery.
Defendants produced undisputed evidence that DISCUS never deducts the daily rate twice for a single newspaper, that overlaps can create only the appearance of double-billing, and that customer credits were issued when subscribers complained.
The district court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims for failure to prove damages/ascertainable loss (Goldsmith never paid twice for the same paper); Goldsmith appealed and the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breach of contract — damages element	Overlapping invoice terms created separate unilateral contracts; paying overlapping bills can cause subscribers to pay twice for the same papers.	DISCUS amortizes payments and never charges a subscriber twice for the same day; Goldsmith received all papers he paid for, so no damages.	Affirmed — no genuine dispute of material fact on damages; Goldsmith cannot show he paid twice for the same newspaper.
MMPA — ascertainable loss & deception	Overlaps are incorrect/unethical and caused subscribers an ascertainable loss; internal acknowledgments and credits show harm.	Even if overlaps caused confusion, there is no ascertainable loss because subscribers were not charged twice and received the service paid for.	Affirmed — plaintiff failed to prove an ascertainable loss as required under the MMPA.
Evidentiary weight of employee/contractor testimony (e.g., Wright)	Testimony and customer service responses create circumstantial evidence that overlaps caused monetary harm.	Witnesses consistently explained overlaps create appearance, not double charging; some contested answers are inadmissible or only for impeachment.	Affirmed — disputed snippets do not create a genuine material fact issue given the uncontroverted record that DISCUS prevents double charging.

Chavis Van & Storage of Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. United Van Lines, LLC, 784 F.3d 1183 (8th Cir. 2015) (summary-judgment standard of review on appeal)
Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (U.S. 2009) (no genuine issue where record could not lead a rational trier of fact for nonmoving party)
Keveney v. Missouri Military Academy, 304 S.W.3d 98 (Mo. 2010) (elements of a breach of contract claim)
Murphy v. Stonewall Kitchen, LLC, 503 S.W.3d 308 (Mo. App. 2016) (elements required to state an MMPA claim)
Vitello v. Natrol, LLC, 50 F.4th 689 (8th Cir. 2022) (MMPA’s ascertainable-loss element incorporates benefit-of-the-bargain measure)
Thompson v. Allergan USA, Inc., 993 F. Supp. 2d 1007 (E.D. Mo. 2014) (explaining "benefit of the bargain" ascertainable-loss measure)