The United States Supreme Court has unexpectedly altered the landscape of federal class action litigation by dismissing a case that was poised to redefine the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. In a summary per curiam decision issued on June 5, 2025, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis, No. 24-304, labeling it as "improvidently granted." This procedural maneuver, often referred to as a "DIG," effectively leaves in place a Ninth Circuit ruling that allowed a massive class action to proceed despite allegations that many class members suffered no actual injury. The decision represents a significant, albeit temporary, reprieve for plaintiffs’ attorneys while leaving corporate defendants in a state of legal uncertainty regarding the inclusion of uninjured individuals in damages-seeking classes.
The Genesis of the Dispute: Kiosks and Accessibility
The litigation began when Luke Davis and Julian Vargas, both of whom are legally blind, filed a class-action lawsuit against Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (Labcorp). The core of the complaint centered on the healthcare giant’s implementation of self-service, touchscreen kiosks at its patient service centers across the country. These kiosks were designed to streamline the check-in process, allowing patients to bypass traditional front-desk interactions.
However, the plaintiffs alleged that these kiosks were not equipped with screen-reading technology or tactile overlays, rendering them inaccessible to blind or visually impaired individuals. The lawsuit asserted violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Unruh Act is particularly potent in such disputes because it stipulates that any violation of the federal ADA also constitutes a violation of California state law, which carries a mandatory minimum of $4,000 in statutory damages per occurrence.
Labcorp defended its practices by noting that the kiosks were merely one of several ways to check in. The company maintained that its service centers were staffed with personnel trained to assist patients at the front desk using the same underlying technology found in the kiosks. Furthermore, Labcorp argued that many blind patients preferred personal interaction or utilized online check-in procedures before arriving, meaning they were never actually hindered or "injured" by the presence of the inaccessible kiosks.
Chronology of a High-Stakes Legal Battle
The trajectory of Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis highlights the complexities of modern class action certification.
- Initial Filing and Certification (2022-2023): The plaintiffs moved for class certification in a federal district court in California. Despite Labcorp’s objections that the proposed class was overly broad, the district court certified a class potentially exceeding 100,000 individuals. This certification put Labcorp at risk of nearly $500 million in statutory damages under the Unruh Act.
- The Ninth Circuit Appeal (2023-2024): Labcorp sought an interlocutory appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. During this period, the district court clarified the class definition but did not fundamentally alter the scope of the group. The Ninth Circuit eventually affirmed the certification, holding that the presence of uninjured members did not necessarily defeat the "predominance" requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).
- Supreme Court Intervention (Late 2024): Labcorp petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The company argued that federal courts should not be permitted to certify a class for damages if it includes members who lack Article III standing—meaning they have not suffered a "concrete and particularized" injury.
- The Dismissal (June 5, 2025): After initially agreeing to hear the case to resolve a growing circuit split, the Supreme Court issued its one-sentence dismissal. By declaring the writ "improvidently granted," the Court avoided making a definitive ruling on the merits of the "uninjured class member" debate.
The Predominance Dilemma and Rule 23(b)(3)
At the heart of the Labcorp case is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which requires that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members."
For years, a circuit split has simmered over how to handle "uninjured" members at the certification stage. Some appellate courts have suggested that a class can be certified as long as the vast majority are injured, or if there is a mechanism to weed out uninjured members at the damages phase. Others, following a stricter interpretation of Article III of the Constitution, argue that if a class contains a non-trivial number of members who suffered no harm, then individualized inquiries into who was and wasn’t injured will inevitably "predominate" over common questions, making class treatment inappropriate.
In the Labcorp instance, the defense argued that determining whether a blind patient actually tried to use a kiosk, or was deterred from doing so, required 100,000 separate "mini-trials." The Ninth Circuit’s rejection of this argument—and the Supreme Court’s refusal to overturn it—means that, for now, in certain jurisdictions, classes "overinflated" with uninjured members remain a viable litigation tool.
Justice Kavanaugh’s Sharp Dissent
While the majority of the Court remained silent on the reasons for the dismissal, Justice Brett Kavanaugh penned a lone, vigorous dissent. He criticized the decision to "DIG" the case, arguing that the threshold procedural issues—such as whether the district court’s clarification of the class order mooted the original appeal—were "insubstantial."
Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent provided a roadmap for future challenges to broad class certifications. He characterized the case as "straightforward," asserting that common questions cannot predominate when a class is populated by individuals who suffered no injury. Kavanaugh aligned himself with the arguments of the United States Solicitor General’s office, which filed an amicus curiae brief stating that if class members are not injured, they cannot share a common injury with the rest of the class.
Perhaps most significantly, Kavanaugh warned of the "real-world consequences" of the Ninth Circuit’s approach. He noted that the threat of massive, aggregate liability—in this case, half a billion dollars—often forces defendants into "blackmail settlements." These settlements, he argued, are not based on the merits of the claims but on the sheer risk of corporate ruin. Kavanaugh concluded that such costs are ultimately passed on to the public in the form of higher prices for consumers and lower returns for workers’ retirement accounts.
Statistical Landscape: The Surge in ADA and Statutory Damage Suits
The Labcorp case did not exist in a vacuum. It is part of a broader trend of high-volume litigation, particularly in California. According to data tracking federal court filings, ADA Title III lawsuits have reached record highs in recent years, with California frequently accounting for nearly 50% of all nationwide filings.
The primary driver is the interplay between federal and state law. While the federal ADA generally only allows for injunctive relief (ordering a company to fix the barrier) and attorney’s fees, the California Unruh Act attaches a $4,000 "bounty" to every violation. When multiplied by a class of 100,000, a minor technical violation of kiosk accessibility standards transforms into a catastrophic financial liability.
Data from legal analytics firms suggest that approximately 10,000 class action lawsuits are filed annually in the United States. A significant portion of these involve consumer protection or employment statutes that provide for statutory damages, where the "injury" is often a technical deviation from a regulation rather than a physical or financial loss.
Implications for Employers and Corporate Defendants
The Supreme Court’s decision to pass on the Labcorp case is a setback for the defense bar, which had hoped for a clear rule mirroring the 2021 decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez. In TransUnion, the Court held that "every class member must have Article III standing in order to recover individual damages." However, TransUnion left open the question of whether this standing must be proven at the certification stage or only at the final judgment stage.
For employers and service providers, the implications are several:
- Defense Strategy: Defendants must continue to focus on the "predominance" argument. Even without a Supreme Court mandate, highlighting the need for individualized evidence to identify uninjured members remains the most effective way to defeat class certification.
- Jurisdictional Variance: The circuit split remains alive. Companies operating in the Ninth Circuit (covering much of the Western U.S.) face a much higher risk of broad class certifications than those in circuits that have adopted stricter standing requirements at the certification phase.
- Compliance Audits: The Labcorp case underscores the necessity of proactive accessibility audits. As kiosks, AI-driven hiring tools, and digital interfaces become standard, ensuring they meet ADA and state-level standards is a critical risk-management function.
- The "Next Case" Search: Legal experts anticipate that the Supreme Court will eventually take up this issue again. Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent effectively invited a more "procedurally clean" case to test the same question. Defense groups are likely already scouting for a case where the class definition remained static throughout the appeal process to avoid another "improvidently granted" dismissal.
Conclusion
The dismissal of Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis represents a missed opportunity for the Supreme Court to provide clarity on one of the most contentious issues in civil procedure. While Labcorp must now return to the lower courts to face a potentially massive liability, the broader legal community is left watching the horizon for the next test case. For now, the "uninjured class member" remains a potent, if controversial, element of the American class action system, and the debate over the limits of Rule 23 continues to evolve in the lower courts.
