Northern District of California Decertifies Class Under Comcast Due to Inadequacy of Damages Model

28 September 2022 Consumer Class Defense Counsel Blog
Author(s): Charles W. Niemann Jonathan W. Garlough

In Freitas v. Cricket Wireless, LLC, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California recently decertified a class because of a “critical” mistake in Plaintiff’s damages model that rendered it inadequate under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Comcast v. Behrend.  Although district courts have differed in how strictly they apply the holding from Comcast, Judge Alsup’s decision in Freitas highlights how it is an important consideration for parties defending class actions.   

Comcast Holding

The Supreme Court’s decision in Comcast held that district courts must closely scrutinize plaintiffs’ damages models under Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement to ensure plaintiffs’ damages model measures only the damages attributable to plaintiffs’ particular theory of liability. However, district courts’ application of this standard has varied, with some courts applying a more lenient approach at the certification stage and simply accepting plaintiffs’ assurances and assertions regarding what their damages models will show once completed. 

Freitas Case Background and Holding

Plaintiffs in Freitas alleged that Defendant Cricket Wireless deceived consumers with advertisements for 4G capable phones and plans in markets where 4G coverage is unavailable.  They asserted various consumer protection statutory claims on behalf of a putative class. At the class certification stage, the sole-remaining named Plaintiff represented that her “expert [could] use econometric tools to isolate the value of 4G/LTE.”  The district court concluded these assurances were sufficient under Comcast because a “feasible” class-wide method of damages calculation existed and certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class. 

After Plaintiff produced her completed damages model to Defendant, the latter moved to exclude the model under FRE 702 and decertify the class.  The court granted the motion for decertification, concluding that both components of Plaintiff’s damages model were critically flawed under Comcast.

(1) Price Premium for 4G-Capable Phones

First, the expert calculated damages incurred by class members who paid higher prices for 4G-capable phones rather than purchasing similar (and cheaper) 3G-capable phones.  The expert compared similar 4G-capable and 3G-capable devices to calculate an average price premium and extrapolated this percentage to determine damages incurred across the entire class.  However, “there were significant differences between the phones that were left unaccounted for,” and the expert erroneously assumed that 100% of the price difference was attributable to the 4G capability.  For example, the damages model did not control for price differences attributable to factors like battery life, memory, storage capacity, or display size.  The model was therefore insufficient under Comcast because it failed to isolate the damages flowing from the Defendant’s allegedly deceptive advertisements regarding 4G capability.

(2) Price Premium for 4G Service Plans

The expert also calculated the purported overcharge of class members attributable to the price premiums paid for 4G service plans in areas without 4G coverage.  This was achieved by calculating a benchmark based on competitors’ service plans with low amounts of 4G data allowance, and comparing the benchmark price to the cost of Defendant’s “4G” service plans.  This model was flawed for similar reasons, as the expert did not account for other differences between Defendant’s plans and those offered by competitors.  Specifically, Defendant’s plan included free access to a music service, international text messaging, mobile hotspot capabilities, data backup, and visual voicemail.  Again, the expert erroneously assumed that 100% of the price difference was attributable to Defendant’s alleged misrepresentations.  The model therefore failed Comcast because “plaintiff’s damages model [did] not even attempt to control for confounding variables.” 


The Freitas decision underscores the importance of delivering on promises made at the class certification stage with respect to damages models to meet the requirements of Comcast and sustain certification. As Judge Alsup recognized, plaintiffs in this position should not receive a “second try, for to allow retries on such fundamentals would encourage overreaching.” Freitas demonstrates that the Supreme Court’s Comcast decision remains an important consideration not just at the certification stage, but also afterwards. 

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services


2023 M&A Outlook
05 December 2022
Foley Ignite
COVID-related Form I-9 Remote Verification Flexibilities Extended Through July 31, 2023
05 December 2022
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Learnings from Recent Physician Practice Private Equity Transactions
05 December 2022
Health Care Law Today
Get up to Speed: Blockchain for the Auto Industry
05 December 2022
Dashboard Insights
What You Should Know About Payor/Provider Convergence
25-26 January 2023
Los Angeles, CA
ATA EDGE2022 Policy Conference | American Telemedicine Association
7-9 December 2022
Washington, D.C.
CLE Weeks
5-16 December 2022
Milwaukee, WI
Foley Sponsors Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year® Program
1 December 2021 - 30 November 2022
Michigan and Northwest Ohio Region