The United States Supreme Court has unexpectedly declined to resolve a pivotal question regarding the composition of class-action lawsuits, dismissing a case that many legal experts believed would set a definitive standard for federal courts. In a brief per curiam order issued on June 5, 2025, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis as "improvidently granted." The move leaves standing a Ninth Circuit decision and preserves a significant split among federal appellate courts over whether a damages class may be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 when it includes a substantial number of members who have suffered no actual injury.
The dismissal represents a temporary reprieve for plaintiffs’ attorneys but creates ongoing uncertainty for corporate defendants and employers. The central issue—whether Article III of the Constitution and Rule 23 permit the certification of a class that includes uninjured individuals—remains one of the most contentious "bread-and-butter" issues in modern litigation, particularly in the realms of employment law and consumer protection.
Background: The Labcorp Kiosk Litigation
The legal battle began when Luke Davis and Julian Vargas, both of whom are legally blind, filed a class-action lawsuit against Laboratory Corporation of America (Labcorp). The plaintiffs alleged that Labcorp’s implementation of self-service, touchscreen check-in kiosks at its patient service centers violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act.
According to court filings, Labcorp introduced these kiosks to streamline the check-in process. While the kiosks were a primary method for checking in, Labcorp maintained that its patient service centers were staffed with employees who could assist patients at the front desk using the same technology. The plaintiffs argued that because the kiosks lacked tactile buttons or screen-reading software, they were inaccessible to blind patients, thereby denying them "full and equal access" to the facilities.
However, the litigation took a complex turn during the discovery phase. Evidence emerged suggesting that many members of the proposed class—potentially tens of thousands of individuals—had not actually been harmed by the kiosks. Some class members testified that they preferred checking in at the front desk regardless of the kiosk’s accessibility, while others had never attempted to use the technology or had their appointments handled entirely through online pre-registration.
Despite these discrepancies, a district court in California certified a class estimated to include more than 100,000 blind individuals. Under the California Unruh Act, which treats any ADA violation as a state law violation, plaintiffs can seek a minimum of $4,000 in statutory damages per offense. For Labcorp, this created a staggering potential liability of nearly $500 million per year, even though a significant portion of the class may have never interacted with the kiosks or felt excluded by them.
The Procedural Path to the Supreme Court
Labcorp appealed the certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The company argued that the class was "over-inclusive" because it contained members who lacked Article III standing—the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff must have suffered a "concrete and particularized" injury to bring a case in federal court.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s certification, following its own precedent which allows for the certification of classes containing uninjured members, provided the class is not "defined" by those uninjured members and the named plaintiffs themselves have standing. Labcorp subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to answer the specific question: "Whether a damages class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) when the class includes members who lack Article III standing."
The sudden dismissal of the case on June 5, 2025, appears to have been triggered by a procedural complication. During the interval between the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari and the scheduled oral arguments, the district court issued a "clarifying order" regarding the class definition. While Labcorp maintained this order was a distinction without a difference, a majority of the Supreme Court likely viewed it as a "muddled record" that made the case an inappropriate vehicle for a landmark constitutional ruling.
Justice Kavanaugh’s Dissent and the Warning of "Overinflated" Classes
The dismissal was not unanimous in spirit. Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a solo dissent, expressing deep frustration with the Court’s decision to walk away from the issue. Kavanaugh characterized the case as "straightforward" and argued that the procedural tweaks at the district court level were "insubstantial."
In his dissent, Kavanaugh signaled his clear opposition to the certification of uninjured class members. He noted that Rule 23(b)(3) requires that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members." According to Kavanaugh, common questions cannot predominate when a class is "overinflated" with members who have no injury.
"If there are members of a class that aren’t even injured, they can’t share the same injury with the other class members," Kavanaugh wrote, echoing arguments made by the United States Solicitor General’s office, which had filed an amicus brief in support of Labcorp.
Kavanaugh’s dissent highlighted the "real-world consequences" of the Ninth Circuit’s lenient certification standards. He argued that allowing massive, uninjured classes to proceed places an "in terrorem" pressure on defendants to settle. When a company faces a $500 million judgment based on statutory damages for individuals who were never actually harmed, the risk of trial becomes untenable. Kavanaugh warned that these costs are ultimately passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices and to workers in the form of lower wages.
Legal Context: The Shadow of TransUnion v. Ramirez
The Labcorp case was intended to be the sequel to the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez. In that case, the Court held 5-4 that "every class member must have Article III standing in order to recover individual damages."
However, TransUnion left a critical gap: it addressed the standing required for a final judgment and recovery, but it did not explicitly state whether a class could be certified earlier in the litigation if it contained uninjured members. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have since argued that as long as the named representatives are injured, the presence of uninjured members in the class is a matter to be sorted out at the damages phase, not a barrier to certification.
The dismissal of Labcorp v. Davis means that for now, the "standing at certification" debate remains a matter of geography. The Second, Ninth, and Ninth Circuits have generally been more permissive toward classes with uninjured members, whereas the Eleventh and D.C. Circuits have signaled a more restrictive approach.
Data and Industry Impact
The stakes for this legal question are particularly high in the current litigation climate. According to annual litigation reports, ADA Title III filings have hit record highs over the last three years, with California and New York serving as the primary hubs for these lawsuits. In 2023 and 2024, federal ADA filings hovered between 10,000 and 11,000 cases annually.
The intersection of the ADA and the California Unruh Act has created a "perfect storm" for high-stakes class actions. Because the Unruh Act provides for $4,000 in automatic statutory damages, a class of 10,000 people—even if none of them can prove actual emotional or physical distress—represents a $40 million liability.
In the employment context, similar issues arise in wage-and-hour disputes. Employers often face class certifications for technical violations of payroll laws (such as misformatted pay stubs) where a large portion of the workforce suffered no actual financial loss or confusion, yet the statutory penalties can reach into the millions.
Analysis of Implications for Employers and Defendants
The Supreme Court’s refusal to rule is a missed opportunity for corporate defendants seeking a "bright-line" rule to defeat overbroad classes early in the litigation cycle. In the near term, employers should expect the following:
- Increased Focus on Class Definitions: Plaintiffs will likely continue to draft broad class definitions, while defendants must aggressively use discovery to prove the existence of uninjured members early.
- Strategic Use of Individualized Inquiries: Since the Supreme Court did not ban uninjured members, defendants must rely on the "predominance" requirement of Rule 23. By showing that the court would have to conduct thousands of "mini-trials" to determine who was actually injured and who wasn’t, defendants can argue that common issues do not predominate.
- Jurisdictional Maneuvering: "Forum shopping" will likely intensify. Plaintiffs will continue to favor the Ninth Circuit for class certifications, while defendants will seek to remove cases to more restrictive jurisdictions or push for transfers when possible.
- The "Waiting Game" for a New Test Case: Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent serves as a roadmap for the next challenge. It is highly likely that a different case—perhaps one with a cleaner procedural record—will be back before the Supreme Court within the next two terms.
Conclusion
The dismissal of Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis as "improvidently granted" is a reminder of the procedural complexities that can derail even the most anticipated legal rulings. While the Supreme Court bypassed the opportunity to harmonize the circuit split, the vigorous dissent from Justice Kavanaugh suggests that the Court’s conservative majority remains skeptical of "overinflated" class actions.
For now, the legal landscape remains a patchwork. Employers must remain vigilant in their compliance with accessibility and labor laws, as the threat of massive statutory damages classes remains a potent tool for the plaintiffs’ bar in jurisdictions like the Ninth Circuit. The "uninjured class member" remains one of the most significant unresolved variables in the American judicial system, and the eventual resolution will likely dictate the future of corporate liability for years to come.
