Vince Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654

This appeal arises under Rule 23(f) to review an order certifying a consumer fraud class under Rule 23(b)(3)
Mullins sues Direct Digital for allegedly deceptive Instaflex labels and marketing, asserting multiple state-law claims
District court certified a class of Instaflex purchasers for each Class State within the applicable statutes of limitations
Direct Digital challenges the class certification on grounds of ascertainability and that common questions do not extend to efficacy, among others
The Seventh Circuit reviews an abuse of discretion standard, focusing on the legality of the ascertainability framework and the adequacy of the class definition
The court ultimately affirms the district court’s certification and rejects the heightened ascertainability rule

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ascertainability standard scope under Rule 23(b)(3)	Mullins argues no heightened ascertainability is required	Direct Digital urges a reliable/feasible method to identify class members via affidavits	Affirmed: no heightened ascertainability adopted; use traditional criteria
Commonality of questions under Rule 23(a)(2)	Common questions about falsity of labeling and advertising apply	Efficacy claims depend on individual circumstances and defeat commonality	Held commonality satisfied; misrepresentation theory supports class treatment
Due process and administrator feasibility	Affidavits plus safeguards can identify class members without violating due process	Heightened ascertainability protects due process by precise membership	Due process not violated; traditional mechanisms and court supervision suffice

Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLC, 687 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2012) (ascertainability concerns; caution against relying on self-identification)
Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013) (heightened ascertainability doctrine; discusses reliable/feasible identification)
Hayes v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 725 F.3d 349 (3d Cir. 2013) (recognizes ascertainability considerations within Rule 23 framework)
Byrd v. Aaron’s Inc., 784 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2015) (discussion on ascertainability and district court discretion)
Shelton v. Bledsoe, 775 F.3d 554 (3d Cir. 2015) (ascertainability analysis in Third Circuit context)
Grandalski v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., 767 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2014) (ascertainability considerations in certification)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S.—, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (commonality and class-wide proof framework)