Applied Marketing Science, Inc. (AMS), a leading-edge market research and consulting firm, is pleased to announce that a recent court ruling marks a milestone in the use of conjoint analysis as a basis for calculating damages in class actions.
United States District Judge William H. Orrick granted class certification in the Johnson et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00517 (N.D. Cal.) panoramic sunroof case. This marks the 20th class certification ruling supporting conjoint analysis as a basis for plaintiffs’ damages models in cases supported by AMS and affiliated expert Steven P. Gaskin. The Johnson ruling bolsters the court's acceptance of conjoint surveys as a common method to assess damages in class actions.
Class action surveys conducted for plaintiffs measure the extent to which putative class members did not receive the fair market value for a product because of the defendant’s alleged misconduct, such as material omissions or misrepresentations. Gaskin and other AMS-affiliated survey experts use a widely-adopted market research technique called choice-based conjoint analysis to calculate the value that consumers place on a product feature and, therefore, the price premium that the defendant was able to extract from consumers due to the alleged misconduct.
"This latest ruling further solidifies the court’s acceptance of conjoint analysis as a basis for calculating damages in class actions,” said Patty Yanes, Principal and Discrete-Choice Methodology Lead at AMS. “The experienced team at AMS has a well-established track record of designing and implementing conjoint analysis surveys able to withstand the rigors of high-stakes class-action litigation.”
Yanes added, “We are proud of the work Mr. Gaskin and AMS have done to advance the acceptance of the methodology in litigation.”
AMS and Gaskin’s first favorable class action ruling using this method together came in 2014 in Khoday v. Symantec Corp. and Digital River, Inc., No. 0:11-cv-00180 JRT (D. Minn.). In this latest ruling from Johnson et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00517 (N.D. Cal.), United States District Judge William H. Orrick certified the class and accepted Gaskin’s methodology for damages, stating that “the plaintiffs’ damages model satisfied Rule 23 and Comcast.”
Among the 20 cases where class certification was granted with conjoint analysis as a basis for damages were the following:
Bailey v. Rite Aid Corporation, No. 4:18-cv-06926 YGR (N.D. Cal.)
Banh v. American Honda Motor Co., No. 2:19-cv-05984 RGK (C.D. Cal.)
Bechtel v. Fitness Equipment Services, LLC, DBA Sole Fitness, No. 1:19-cv-00726 (S. D. Ohio)
Braverman v. BMW of North America, LLC, No. 16-cv-00966 TJH (C.D. Cal.)
Cardenas v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 18-22798-Civ-Moreno (S.D. Fla.)
Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Company, No. 5:16-cv-04955 LHK (N.D. Cal.)
Hudock v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., No. 16-cv-01220 JRT (D. Minn.)
In Re Arris Cable Modem Consumer Litigation, No. 17-cv-1834 LHK (N.D. Cal.)
In Re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, No. 5:15-md-02624 RMW (N.D. Cal.)
Johnson et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-00517 (N.D. Cal.)
Kaupelis v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., No. 19-cv-1203 JVS (C.D. Cal.)
Khoday v. Symantec Corp. and Digital River, Inc., No. 0:11-cv-00180 JRT (D. Minn.)
Koenig v. Vizio, Inc., No. BC702266 (Cal. Sup. Ct.)
Krommenhock v. Post Foods LLC, No. 3:16-cv-04958 WHO (N.D. Cal.)
Maldonado v. Apple, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-04067-WHO (N.D. Cal.)
Milan v. Clif Bar and Company, No. 3:18-cv-02354-JD (N.D. Cal.)
Prescod v. Celsius Holdings, Inc., No. 19STCV09321 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. County)
Sanchez-Knutson v. Ford Motor Co., No. 14-civ-61344 WPD (S.D. Fla.)
Smith v. The Ohio State University, No. 2020-00321JD (OH)
Weiman v. Miami University, Nos. 2020-00614JD (OH) and 2020-00644JD (OH)
AMS collaborates with a network of survey research experts who have expertise in areas such as consumer behavior, social psychology, advertising, branding, marketing strategy, economics, content analysis and other related areas. Experts design and conduct surveys to analyze consumer perceptions and behavior in litigation—including trademark and trade-dress infringement, deceptive advertising, class actions, patent infringement and damage calculations—and testify in both deposition and at trial.
For additional information on AMS Litigation Support services, please send inquiries to email@example.com or contact Jason Och at (781) 250-6317.
ABOUT APPLIED MARKETING SCIENCE
Applied Marketing Science (AMS) provides market research and consulting to improve product and service innovation and deliver expert witness testimony in business litigation. Established in 1989 with roots in the MIT Sloan School of Management, AMS offers an array of services to meet client needs and specializes in developing customized solutions for each situation. For more information, please visit http://www.ams-inc.com.