Class Action

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Economic Loss Plaintiffs v. Abbott Laboratories

Case No.: 23-2525

Officials: Rovner, Brennan, and Kirsch, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Class Action

The Seventh Circuit ruled that a potential class of consumers who bought infant formula manufactured by Abbott Laboratories lacked standing to sue for economic harm. The court determined this because they failed to show a concrete injury-in-fact, one of the necessary elements for Article III standing. The plaintiffs argued they suffered economic harm because they wouldn’t have paid if they knew the products were at risk of contamination. However, the court found their alleged injury wasn’t specific since they didn’t claim the products they bought were contaminated.

The court compared this case to past rulings, notably “In re Aqua Dots,” where a defect in a product made it worthless, giving standing, and “Wallace v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,” where the risk of harm was seen as speculation. Here, the court likened the plaintiffs’ claims more to the latter case, as there was only a potential risk, not a universal defect. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed for lack of standing.

This decision underscores that plaintiffs must show a concrete and specific injury-in-fact to establish standing in federal court. Speculative or hypothetical injuries, or those not specific because they don’t impact the plaintiff personally and individually, don’t meet the standing requirement.

Affirmed.

Decided 04/02/24

Full Text