Law Center Search Results

On February 13, 2026, the NAM filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to grant cert and uphold the requirement that trial courts conduct a thorough evaluation of expert evidence at the class certification stage to prevent class actions based on dubious scientific methods from moving forward. Johnson & Johnson v. Noohi is a consumer class action involving claims of deceptive marketing targeting Neutrogena’s “Oil-Free” moisturizer. The trial court certified the class, in part, based on an untested damages theory proposed by the plaintiffs’ economics expert. The defendant appealed this ruling to the 9th Circuit, arguing the expert’s model was too speculative and that certifying a class without a thorough analysis of expert methodology violates Rule 702. Unfortunately, the 9th Circuit affirmed class certification, finding a full evidentiary analysis of expert evidence is not required at the class certification stage. A circuit split on this issue has now emerged, with the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th and 11th Circuits holding that a thorough analysis of expert evidence is required before class certification, and the 8th and 9th Circuits finding that a more limited analysis will suffice. The defendant has now petitioned the Supreme Court to address the split.

In support of the petition, our amicus brief argues that the stakes of class certification warrant the full application of the rules of evidence at the certification stage, meaning a thorough Rule 702 analysis of expert methodology is required. Manufacturers are frequently the targets of class action lawsuits, and class certification has a tremendous in terrorem effect that can force settlement of even non-meritorious cases. The 9th Circuit’s approach, which would allow classes to be certified based on expert testimony that would be inadmissible at trial, cannot stand.