Conrad v. Boiron, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying proposed class representative’s motion to certify class action in claim that defendant deceptively marketed over-the-counter remedy called Oscillococcinum, where representative alleged that finished product was nothing more than placebo. Record showed that defendant was subject to prior class action involving instant product, which resulted in settlement that required defendant to provide refunds for class members and to offer future customers ability to obtain refunds within 14 days of purchase of product. As such, Dist. Ct. could properly find that proposed class representative was inadequate, since: (1) instant lawsuit would provide little benefit beyond defendant’s existing refund guarantee; and (2) instant representative lacked standing to pursue any injunctive relief under Ill. Consumer Fraud Act, since representative himself would not have been duped by defendant’s alleged misleading claims about its product. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in finding that representative’s individual claim was rendered moot, where defendant attempted to use Rule 67 by paying sum of money to court’s registry that was more than what representative could have obtained on claim in lawsuit, since: (1) instant unaccepted settlement offer did not moot plaintiff’s case; and (2) court cannot accept instrument made payable to third-party into court’s registry, as defendant attempted to do in instant case.