Wallenstein v. Mondelez International, Inc.

Background

David Wallenstein moved to certify a class of all California purchasers of Wheat Thins from October 13, 2018, to the present. The case asserts two claims: violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and breach of express warranty. The motion concerned certification of a damages class.

Typicality and adequacy

The defendants argued that Wallenstein had unique defenses because he knew that cornstarch was a refined grain. The court found that the cited deposition testimony did not establish that Wallenstein read the ingredients label before purchasing Wheat Thins or knew before his purchases that the product contained cornstarch. The court also held that, given the “100% Whole Grain” representation, Wallenstein was not required to read the ingredients label to verify the statement. It concluded that his claims were typical of the proposed class and that he was an adequate class representative.

Common issues and reliance

The defendants argued that individual consumers had different purchasing motivations, making reliance on the representation an individual issue. The court explained that under California law, when a representation is material—meaning a reasonable consumer would consider it important in deciding whether to buy a product—an inference of reliance arises for the class. The court found that Wallenstein presented convincing evidence that a majority of consumers would consider the “100% Whole Grain” representation a reason to purchase Wheat Thins and that the representation affected the price consumers were willing to pay. The defendants did not present meaningful evidence against class-wide reliance.

Damages model and ascertainability

The defendants also argued that there was no damages model suitable for class-wide relief. The court found that Wallenstein’s expert reports described a price-premium model using conjoint analysis and that the model was sufficient at the class-certification stage. The court rejected the defendants’ ascertainability concern because, according to the opinion, the Ninth Circuit does not impose that requirement.

Disposition

The court granted Wallenstein’s motion for class certification and certified the class of all California purchasers of Wheat Thins from October 13, 2018, to the present. It held that both the Consumers Legal Remedies Act claim and the breach-of-express-warranty claim satisfied the requirements for a damages class.