The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis, a case probing the boundaries of class action certification in the context of uninjured plaintiffs. The case centers around Labcorp’s introduction of automated check-in kiosks, which have sparked a class action lawsuit alleging that these kiosks are inaccessible for blind individuals, thus potentially violating certain legal standards.
Labcorp argues against the certification of a class that includes all blind individuals exposed to the kiosks, irrespective of whether they were aware of the kiosks or intended to use them. Within this argument lies the crucial question of whether a class can include members who have not suffered a direct injury, a topic bound to pique the interest of justices wary of the potent influence wielded by class certification.
However, two significant complications may impede a straightforward decision in Labcorp’s favor. Initially, the case might not be accurately presenting the certification question, as the district court had at one stage limited the class to those who had likely suffered a recognisable injury. The expanded class definition, which Labcorp now contests, emerged following their objection to the narrower class scope.
Secondly, the dilemma of where to draw the line arises. Although Labcorp advocates for a class devoid of uninjured parties, it acknowledges a need to include some uninjured individuals for pragmatic reasons. The imprecision of this argument makes it particularly challenging for the justices to evaluate.
While some justices might consider it feasible to differentiate between injured and uninjured parties when determining remedies, labeling the current debate as “much ado about nothing”, much of the argument might revolve around the appellate process and the procedural validity of the presented issues. More details on this developing legal debate can be found in this coverage from SCOTUSblog.