Clifford Chance

I. Introduction

On June 5, 2025, after granting certiorari and holding oral arguments, the U.S. Supreme Court unexpectedly dismissed the petition in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis in a single-sentence order, declining to address whether courts can certify class actions under Rule 23(b)(3) even if the class includes individuals who suffered no actual injury. The Court’s dismissal represents a missed opportunity to resolve a critical circuit split, leaving businesses nationwide exposed to potentially massive liability from broadly defined classes. Justice Kavanaugh, dissenting alone, sharply criticized the Court’s decision, emphasizing that leaving this fundamental question unresolved increases litigation uncertainty, pressures defendants into unjustified settlements, and undermines procedural fairness in class actions.

 II. Background of the Case

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (LabCorp) operates diagnostic laboratories and patient service centers nationwide. LabCorp faced a lawsuit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Civil Rights Act, alleging that LabCorp's self-service patient check-in kiosks were inaccessible to individuals with vision disabilities.

Plaintiffs sought class certification in district court, requesting statutory damages of $4,000 per violation under the Unruh Act. Eventually, the district court certified a comprehensive class encompassing all blind individuals who visited a LapCorp facility in California during the applicable limitations period and were denied equal access because "all class members were injured by the complete inaccessibility of [the] kiosks."

LabCorp petitioned the Ninth Circuit under Rule 23(f), challenging the class definition by asserting that it included individuals who had never intended or attempted to use LabCorp’s kiosks, thereby sustaining no actual injury.

III. Ninth Circuit’s Decision

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s certification, relying on its decision in Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC. By applying its own precedent, the court held that a class could be certified even if it contained more than a de minimis number of uninjured members.

According to the Ninth Circuit's reasoning, the mere presence of uninjured class members does not preclude class certification. However, this approach ultimately raised significant concerns about Article III standing and fairness for defendants in the legal community.

IV. Supreme Court Proceedings

Given these concerns, the Supreme Court initially granted certiorari in January 2025 to resolve the question of whether Rule 23 permits class certification when classes include uninjured members. However, after hearing oral arguments, the Court dismissed the case in a brief order without addressing the substance of the issue. The Court simply stated that certiorari was "improvidently granted," with no further explanation.

V. Justice Kavanaugh’s Dissent

Justice Kavanaugh, dissenting alone, strongly criticized the Court’s decision to dismiss the case, arguing it missed a critical opportunity to clarify class certification standards under Rule 23. He emphasized the serious legal and fairness problems raised by classes that include uninjured members:

• The Predominance Requirement is Not Met: Rule 23(b)(3) requires that common questions must predominate among class members. Justice Kavanaugh stated that when classes include uninjured members along with injured members, common questions do not predominate because there is no shared injury among the members.
• Unfair Pressure is Placed on Defendants to Settle: Classes inflated by uninjured members significantly increase litigation risks, coercing defendants into settlements irrespective of merit. Justice Kavanaugh specifically warned that overly broad classes pressure businesses to settle rather than risk facing potentially catastrophic damages at trial.
• The Outstanding Issue Raises Procedural and Fairness Concerns: Justice Kavanaugh stressed that certifying classes with potentially uninjured members undermines both the fundamental procedural protections under Rule 23 and the Court’s established precedents, weakening the consistency and fairness essential to class action litigation.

Justice Kavanaugh concluded the Court should have addressed the merits of the case instead of dismissing it, given the frequency and gravity of similar class certification issues nationwide.

VI. Circuit Split Remains Unresolved

The Supreme Court’s dismissal leaves intact the existing disagreement among federal appellate courts:

• The Second and Eighth Circuits generally refuse certification if the class includes uninjured individuals.
• The First and D.C. Circuits permit certification only if uninjured members are minimal and Rule 23’s predominance requirement remains strictly enforced.
• The Ninth and Seventh Circuits take a more permissive stance, allowing certification even if classes include significant numbers of potentially uninjured members so long as they do not predominate over common questions affecting the entire class.

Without Supreme Court guidance, lower courts will continue applying conflicting standards, resulting in uncertainty and unpredictable outcomes for involved parties.

VII. Practical Implications for Class Action Litigation

LabCorp v. Davis underscores the importance of challenging class definitions early. Defendants in permissive jurisdictions face considerable exposure to potentially massive statutory damages and must proactively contest overly inclusive class definitions.

Plaintiffs, meanwhile, may continue to strategically rely on broader class definitions to pressure defendants into settling in jurisdictions favorable to more inclusive certification. However, this advantage might last only until the Supreme Court revisits the question.

A possible future vehicle for addressing this circuit split is State Farm v. Jama—a case currently pending before the Supreme Court—which deals with similar issues and may allow the Supreme Court to address the unresolved questions left by LabCorp v. Davis.

VIII. Conclusion

LabCorp v. Davis was a prime opportunity for the Supreme Court to clarify crucial class certification standards, when uninjured class members are involved. By dismissing this case, the Court leaves only uncertainty. Until the Supreme Court explicitly addresses this issue, Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent provides a compelling argument for establishing clear, consistent standards governing Rule 23(b)(3) class certifications.

Future cases, like State Farm v. Jama, may soon provide the resolution that LabCorp v. Davis did not. Until then, the unresolved circuit split will continue to affect both businesses and class action litigants, requiring defendants to remain vigilant and proactive in challenging expansive class certifications.