The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court’s decision to certify a class action lawsuit against Folgers Coffee, which alleged that the company misrepresented the number of cups of coffee that could be brewed from its containers. The ruling, delivered on November 26, 2025, emphasized that individual issues related to consumer experiences would overshadow common questions, rendering class certification inappropriate.
The case, titled In re Folgers Coffee Marketing, revolved around claims that Folgers containers misleadingly stated the number of six-ounce cups that could be made. Plaintiffs argued that consumers typically received far fewer servings than advertised, specifically only 70% of the promised cups when utilizing the “Single-Serving Method” as opposed to the “Pot Method.” The original class was certified by a district court in Missouri under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), which allows for claims of unjust enrichment.
Key Findings of the Eighth Circuit
The Eighth Circuit concluded that the class certification was flawed due to the predominance of individual issues concerning causation and harm. Under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, common legal or factual issues must outweigh questions affecting only individual members. The court pointed out that fraud and deception claims are generally unsuitable for class treatment when individual reliance or causation is in question.
The court highlighted a crucial distinction: even though the MMPA does not require traditional reliance, plaintiffs still need to demonstrate a causal link between the alleged deception and a measurable loss. This necessitates analyzing each consumer’s experience. Many class members either did not read the cups-per-can statements or understood that the advertised number of cups was not guaranteed under all conditions. The court noted that determining who was actually deceived would require extensive individual inquiries.
As one class member candidly stated, “I like my coffee,” indicating a preference for the product despite the allegations.
Challenges to the Price Inflation Theory
In similar cases, plaintiffs’ attorneys often propose a “price inflation” theory to sidestep the need for demonstrating individualized reliance. This theory asserts that all purchasers paid an inflated price due to misleading representations, regardless of personal reliance. The Eighth Circuit rejected this argument, stating it contradicted the statutory requirement for an “ascertainable loss” directly stemming from alleged misconduct.
The court cautioned that accepting the price inflation theory would allow consumers who experienced no personal deception to seek recovery, contradicting established precedents in other jurisdictions, including New Jersey.
The court also dismissed class certification for claims of unjust enrichment, affirming that whether a transaction was inequitable depends on the specific circumstances of each case. This aligns with a broader consensus that unjust enrichment claims are typically unsuitable for class treatment.
The Eighth Circuit’s decision provides valuable guidance for defending against similar putative class actions, particularly those alleging misrepresentations in product marketing. The ruling underscores the importance of individual consumer experiences and the limitations of collective legal action in cases involving personal interpretation and reliance.
Ultimately, this case illustrates how individual testimonies can significantly influence legal outcomes, reaffirming the necessity for a clear understanding of consumer behavior in class action litigation.
