Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (Labcorp) v. Davis, a case examining whether a federal court can certify a class action that includes uninjured plaintiffs as members of the class.
In March 2025, TechNet’s Innovation Legal Center filed an amicus brief in support of Labcorp in this case. TechNet’s brief argues that allowing uninjured plaintiffs to bring class action lawsuits violates Article III of the Constitution and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and would be detrimental to American innovation and the digital economy, particularly small and midsize businesses.
As TechNet’s brief points out, the danger from allowing inflated classes filled with uninjured plaintiffs is especially acute for digital businesses, where even a small startup with only a few sales and little revenue could face massive class actions filed by everyone who had, for example, seen their product in a search result but hadn’t purchased it or had any intention of purchasing it. If the startup is backed by investors, it could present an attractive target for class action plaintiffs to force a settlement and gain access to those investment funds. In addition to violating the Constitution and federal civil procedure rules, allowing these inflated classes would be detrimental to American innovation and the digital economy.
At oral argument, the justices questioned former Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who represents Labcorp, about a procedural issue as to whether the case was properly before the Supreme Court. Specifically, they questioned which of two separate orders from the trial court was the one considered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and whether the broad class certification itself was therefore properly on appeal. Five justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—asked questions that hinted they might send the case back to the Ninth Circuit without deciding whether uninjured individuals can be members of a certified class. Justice Samuel Alito, on the other hand, voiced concern about a Ninth Circuit procedural rule that makes it difficult to determine whether class certification has been properly appealed.
On the merits, a smaller group of justices—Kagan, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Jackson—made comments or asked questions that seemed to suggest they would allow the courts to sort out who was entitled to damages later in the case, as long as at least the one named plaintiff could show an injury. The United States government countered with its own view that injury must be assessed at the initial class certification, including a feasible method by the court to exclude uninjured members.
Chief Justice John Roberts commented on the “elephant in the room,” which is that most class actions never make it to trial, and an inflated class could force defendants to settle a case due to the inflated risk of a loss even if most of the certified class could be excluded later. This is exactly the point TechNet made in its brief: If classes can be filled with uninjured members, a controversy with just one or two injured individuals can balloon into a massive action that prevents defendants from having their day in court.
The outcome of this case has broad implications for class actions and how businesses interact with customers, but whether the Court resolves the case on the merits or sends it back to the lower courts on procedural grounds is difficult to predict. A decision in the case is expected by the end of the Court’s term this summer.