Plaintiffs\u27 Bar Cannot Enforce the Laws: Individual Reliance Issues Prevent Consumer Protection Classes in the Eighth Circuit, The

This Note will specifically consider the implications of In re St. Jude on class certification sought under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) in federal court. Though Missouri case law does not require reliance to be shown to bring an individual action under the MMPA, federal courts likely would require a showing of causation in which common facts of reliance exist in the class context. This is true, in part, because of the similarities in the Missouri and Minnesota statutes. Further, even though the Supreme Court of Missouri is the final arbiter of Missouri law, the MMPA adopts the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for class actions. Thus, any interpretation of Rule 23(b)(3)\u27s requirements should control class certification in Missouri courts as well. At bottom, this will result in more classes being refused certification in federal court under consumer fraud statutes. This Note will proceed by looking at the development of consumer protection statutes generally and then examine Missouri\u27s adoption and expansion of the MMPA. Next, it will consider cases from Minnesota, Arkansas, and Missouri in order to establish that the Eighth Circuit has taken a consistent approach in requiring common causation in consumer protection statutes, despite some differences between the underlying state statutes. Finally, the Note will contend that nothing in the MMPA would lead to a different result in Missouri than the Eighth Circuit reached in In re St. Jude