Nissan has managed to persuade a federal appeals court to decertify 10 class actions accusing the company of selling vehicles with faulty automatic emergency braking systems that caused unexpected stops without reason.

On 22 November, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled against grouping claims from drivers of 14 Nissan models under the laws of 10 different states. The court determined that the allegations regarding the malfunction of braking systems in scenarios such as parking garages, low overpasses, and railroad crossings did not demonstrate adequate commonality to warrant class certification.

Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, writing for the three-judge panel, noted that not all drivers experienced sudden braking issues or even sought repairs. He further emphasized that Nissan had developed unique software updates for different models, which appeared to resolve the issue for some vehicles, making a single, shared defect unlikely.

In essence, the court questioned just how “common” the defect was: “We cannot determine whether common evidence establishes Nissan’s knowledge as to the defects if the software updates remedied those defects for some cars. Nor can we determine whether, for each state class, a common question of liability exists for all claims. The plaintiffs’ argument reduces to the bare assertion that common evidence establishes each cause of action. But without a common defect, that cannot be the case.”

Class actions typically allow plaintiffs to pursue broader remedies at a reduced cost compared to filing individual lawsuits. For a class action lawsuit to proceed, however, it must meet several criteria established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There must be an adequate number of individuals in the class, they should share common legal or factual issues, the plaintiff’s claims must be representative of those of the class, and the interests of the class members must be sufficiently safeguarded.

The requirement of commonality is often intertwined with other criteria, yet it remains a separate consideration. While typicality focuses on the relationship among class members, commonality examines the characteristics of the class itself. It inquires whether there are shared legal or factual issues among the members.

It is important to note that commonality does not necessitate that every class member presents identical claims or arguments. Instead, the presence of even a single shared legal or factual issue among all members can fulfill this requirement. For example, if the resolution of one legal or factual question could influence the outcome for all participants in the class, the commonality requirement is likely met, and certification can move forward.

The appeals court sent the case back to the district court, “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” This leaves open the possibility for additional evidence to support class certification.