Dunn v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co.
What’s at Stake
Corporations are trying to make it harder and harder for people to bring class actions against them. When people band together through a class action to sue a corporation that has broken the law and harmed them, lawsuits that would otherwise be too expensive or too difficult to bring on an individual level can proceed as a collective or class action to successfully hold corporations accountable. One way that corporations have made it harder to bring class actions is by arguing it should be more difficult to certify class actions. If the class isn’t certified, the case dies. In this case, Public Justice is arguing against those heightened class certification standards.
Summary
This lawsuit alleges that Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company intentionally used misleading and false marketing and labeling to promote Natural American Spirit cigarettes as less harmful than other cigarettes when they are not. Sante Fe Natural Tobacco Company allegedly used labels like “100% additive-free natural tobacco” even though menthol is an additive put into cigarettes. The Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration found issue with the labeling, and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company eventually agreed to stop using the terms “natural” and “additive-free” on its packaging and in advertisements. The purchasers of American Spirits who filed this class action claim that Santa Fe was able to charge a premium for its cigarettes because it misled consumers into believing its products were healthier than other cigarettes. Plaintiffs used two theories to define the classes (or groups) of consumers involved in the lawsuit: those who purchased menthol cigarettes advertised as additive-free (the “menthol” theory), and those who purchased any American Spirit cigarettes based on the brand’s “natural” and “organic” marketing (the “safer cigarette” theory).
The district court certified some menthol state subclasses and denied class certification of all the safer-cigarette classes. The parties successfully requested immediate appellate review in the Tenth Circuit.
Core Legal Issues
Public Justice is co-counsel on appeal. The primary issue on appeal is the extent to which plaintiffs have to show class members are identifiable at the time of class certification—sometimes called “heightened ascertainability.” Public Justice has successfully tackled these issues in other courts and the Tenth Circuit is one of the last courts of appeals not to have weighed in on these critical issues for class action cases.
In addition, the Tenth Circuit will consider questions about the application of the reasonable consumer standard and the method for measuring damages in cases alleging a price premium. The Tenth Circuit will hear oral argument on July 16, 2025.