Plaintiffs in a consumer class action alleged that a pet food company misled consumers about the amount of avocado in its products. The plaintiffs sought to certify subclasses of consumers in California and Washington. The defendants retained Mr. Sushrut Jain to provide an expert report and deposition testimony on class certification and damages.
The plaintiffs’ expert proposed a conjoint survey-based damages model to measure the price premium allegedly attributable to the challenged representations.
Mr. Jain showed that the plaintiffs’ damages model did not align with their theory of liability. While the plaintiffs claimed that consumers were misled into believing avocado was a main ingredient, their expert’s proposed conjoint survey sought to measure the premium associated with a product containing any avocado. Mr. Jain explained that the model could therefore not isolate the value attributable to the alleged misrepresentations.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, finding that the proposed damages model was not tied to their theory of liability, as required under Comcast v. Behrend.
