If, like me, you grew up during (or otherwise lived through) the 1980s, you’ll recall the ever-present jingle “The best part of wakin’ up is Folgers in your cup” (and perhaps some creative modifications thereof by the children and teens of that era). My grandmother preferred Folgers, clipping coupons for it when available, and her kitchen usually smelled of coffee. Sometimes she made a full pot and on other occasions an individual cup. Had she lived to 104, I could have told her about this recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit involving allegations that Folgers misrepresented how many cups of coffee could be made per can. While the allegations here would not have passed my grandmother’s smell test, this case made it all the way to certification of a class that was reversed by the court of appeals.
Allegations and the Certified Class
The plaintiffs in In re Folgers Coffee Marketing, – F.4th –, 2025 WL 3292613 (8th Cir. Nov. 26, 2025), alleged that containers of Folgers coffee misleadingly stated the number of six-ounce cups that could be brewed, asserting that in practice consumers received fewer servings than advertised—allegedly 70% of the cups “promised” when using exclusively the “Single-Serving Method” as opposed to the “Pot Method” and following the instructions on the can precisely (without adjusting for your preferred strength). While that might have been a fourth-grade word problem in the 1980s, today you can probably take a picture of the can, upload it to your favorite AI app, and find the answer in the aisle of the grocery store. The district court certified a class of purchasers in Missouri which alleged violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) and sought damages for unjust enrichment.
The Eighth Circuit’s Reversal: Individual Issues Predominate
The Eighth Circuit reversed the class certification order, holding that the class was improperly certified because individual issues relating to causation and harm would overwhelm common questions. Under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the predominance requirement ensures that common legal or factual issues must “predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” The court explained that fraud-based and deception-based claims are generally ill-suited for class treatment when individual reliance or causation is in question.
The court drew a critical distinction—even under the MMPA, which does not require traditional reliance (as some unfair trade practices statutes do), plaintiffs must still show a causal connection between the alleged deception and an ascertainable loss. Determining who was actually deceived would require consumer-by-consumer analysis. This was because many class members did not read or care about the cups-per-can statements, and others who read it would understand that “the promised number of cups could be achieved only some of the time under certain conditions,” and, of course, “some consumers prefer relatively weak cups of coffee.” As the Eighth Circuit explained, “[w]hat matters is that many class members weren’t deceived, and figuring out who was and who wasn’t will require consumer-by-consumer inquiries into each class member’s individual tastes, interpretations, and circumstances.” As one class member admitted when asked why she was still buying Folgers, “I like my coffee.”
Rejecting the “Price Inflation” Theory
In cases like this, plaintiffs’ lawyers often try to get around the need for demonstrating individualized reliance or causation by alleging an “overcharge” theory, asserting that all purchasers paid an artificially inflated price due to the representations—regardless of whether they personally relied on. or even noticed, them. The Eighth Circuit rejected this approach, finding it inconsistent with the statutory requirement of an “ascertainable loss” resulting directly from the alleged misconduct. The court warned that accepting this theory would improperly allow consumers who suffered no personal deception or loss to recover—a position contrary to recent appellate precedent and analogous rulings in other states, including New Jersey.
Unjust Enrichment: Individual Circumstances Foreclose Class Treatment
The court also refused to allow class certification for the unjust enrichment claims. Because “[w]hether a particular transaction might be considered inequitable or unjust turns on the specific circumstances of each transaction,” class treatment was inappropriate. This aligned with a general consensus that unjust enrichment claims are “generally inappropriate for class treatment.”
Takeaways for Defending Similar Cases
Many putative class actions allege misrepresentations in marketing products or services. While the applicable substantive law varies, the In re Folgers decision will be helpful to defendants when applicable law does not require reliance, or when a price-inflation (also called price premium) theory is alleged. It also illustrates how powerful individual testimony of class members can be, even if it just confirms what a court might accept as a matter of common sense.
