Generally we cheer when class certification are reversed. But not this time. Check out what the court actually said:
The district court’s analysis in its Order on Motion for Class Certification is sound and in accord with federal and state law. . . . And, if the definition of the class had been in accord with the legal analysis, we would have readily affirmed. . . . In its analysis, the district court repeatedly stated that a plaintiff need not prove reliance on the allegedly false statement to recover damages under FDUTPA . . . [a]nd, this is correct.
The court reversed because the class definition was too narrow - that it "takes into account individual reliance." Id. at 9. The proper definition, according to the court, should simply have been "all purchasers . . . in the state of Florida." Id. at 8 n.1.
We don't know when we've last seen a class certification reversed on this basis - if ever.Slip op. at 8-9. Not what we like to see.