The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has reversed a lower court’s decision to certify a class action lawsuit against Folgers Coffee, which accused the company of misleading consumers regarding the number of cups of coffee that could be brewed from its products. This ruling, issued on November 26, 2025, raises important questions about consumer protection laws and the complexities of class action certifications.
Allegations of Misrepresentation
In the case titled In re Folgers Coffee Marketing, plaintiffs claimed that Folgers misrepresented the number of six-ounce cups that could be brewed per container of coffee. The lawsuit alleged that consumers were receiving only about 70% of the advertised servings when following the “Single-Serving Method,” as opposed to the “Pot Method.” The plaintiffs argued that this discrepancy constituted a violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) and sought damages for unjust enrichment.
Initially, a district court in Missouri certified a class of purchasers, allowing the case to proceed based on the alleged deceptive marketing practices. However, the Eighth Circuit found that individual issues concerning causation and harm would overshadow common questions, thus invalidating the class certification.
Individual Issues Overwhelm Common Questions
The Eighth Circuit emphasized that under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, common legal or factual issues must predominate over individual questions for class certification to be valid. The court noted that fraud-based claims, like those in this case, are often ill-suited for class treatment when individual reliance or causation is at stake.
The court highlighted that, even under the MMPA, plaintiffs must demonstrate a causal connection between the alleged deception and an ascertainable loss. This requirement necessitated a detailed, consumer-by-consumer analysis to determine who was genuinely deceived, as many individuals did not read the cups-per-can statements or understood that the advertised number of cups could vary under different brewing conditions. As stated by the court, “[w]hat matters is that many class members weren’t deceived, and figuring out who was and who wasn’t will require consumer-by-consumer inquiries into each class member’s individual tastes, interpretations, and circumstances.”
One class member even admitted her loyalty to Folgers by stating, “I like my coffee,” indicating that personal preference played a significant role in consumer behavior.
The Rejection of Price Inflation Claims
In similar cases, plaintiffs often attempt to circumvent the need for individualized reliance by alleging a theory of “overcharge,” arguing that all purchasers paid an inflated price due to the misleading representations. The Eighth Circuit rejected this approach, asserting that it conflicted with the statutory requirement of an “ascertainable loss” directly linked to the alleged misconduct.
The court cautioned that accepting the overcharge theory could allow consumers who experienced no actual deception or loss to recover damages, conflicting with established legal precedents. This stance aligns with rulings in other jurisdictions, including New Jersey, further reinforcing the court’s position.
Implications for Future Class Actions
The Eighth Circuit’s ruling serves as a critical reminder for defendants in similar class action lawsuits that involve marketing misrepresentations. It illustrates the necessity for clear evidence of individual harm and the challenges plaintiffs face in proving causation.
This case also underscores the importance of individual testimony, as the experiences and preferences of class members can significantly influence the court’s decisions. Ultimately, the Eighth Circuit’s decision may serve as a reference for other courts facing class action claims based on deceptive marketing practices, particularly when the relevant law does not mandate proof of reliance.
The reversal of the class certification in the Folgers case not only impacts the coffee giant but also sets a precedent regarding how courts evaluate consumer protection claims, particularly in scenarios where individual circumstances are key to understanding the case.
