Class action strategy in 2026 is being reshaped by:

• appellate decisions clarifying when and how courts may deny class certification early,

• rulings on multistate class manageability and Erie analysis, and

• cases governing arbitration, injunctive relief, and mid‑litigation communications with putative class members.
  Gibson Dunn's 2026 first‑quarter class action update synthesizes many of these trends.[1]

1. Early (Pre‑Discovery) Motions to Deny Class Certification

Oliver v. Navy Federal Credit Union (4th Cir. 2026)

• The Fourth Circuit held that pre‑discovery motions to deny class certification must be evaluated strictly on the face of the complaint, i.e., whether the allegations themselves fail to satisfy Rule 23(a) and (b) as a matter of law.[1]

• It affirmed the district court's decision to strike a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class based on facial intra‑class variability undermining predominance, but vacated the denial of a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class where all class members received the same loan form, finding prima facie commonality.[1]
  Strategic implications:

• For defendants:

  • Pre‑discovery motions to deny certification remain available but only where defects are clearly apparent from the pleadings (e.g., individualized reliance or injury stated on the face of the complaint).

  • Encourages more sophisticated Rule 12 practice aiming not just at dismissal but at narrowing or eliminating class theories early.

• For plaintiffs:

  • Complaints must be drafted with class criteria and commonality/predominance in mind, to survive facial challenges.

  • Uniform practices (standard forms, policies) are particularly important to plead for Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive classes.

1. Multistate Classes and Erie Analysis

Generation Changers Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Co. (6th Cir. 2026)

• The Sixth Circuit held that district courts must perform a rigorous, state‑by‑state Erie analysis when assessing predominance and manageability in multistate class actions.[1]

• Failure to analyze the relevant state law authorities for each jurisdiction implicated is an abuse of discretion.[1]
  Strategic implications:

• For plaintiffs:

  • Must be prepared with detailed, jurisdiction‑specific legal support for class claims across states, increasing upfront research and briefing costs.

  • May push plaintiffs to narrow class definitions (fewer states or more homogeneous law) to avoid manageability pitfalls.

• For defendants:

  • Can oppose nationwide or multistate classes by emphasizing meaningful variations in state law and insisting on adequate Erie analysis.

  • Have stronger appellate hooks where district courts take shortcuts on state law differences.

1. Arbitration Formation, Enforceability, and Mid‑Litigation Agreements

Several 2026 appellate decisions sharpened the contours of arbitration in the class context:[1]

• Dahdah v. Rocket Mortgage (6th Cir. 2026): Upheld an arbitration clause in a "hybrid" sign‑in wrap where the site design provided reasonably conspicuous notice, and clicking a button ("calculate") constituted assent.

• Rose v. Mercedes‑Benz USA (7th Cir. 2026): Enforced arbitration based on robust training and onboarding protocols that directed customers to online terms including arbitration.

• Avery v. TEKsystems (9th Cir. 2026): Limited defendants' ability to form new arbitration agreements mid‑litigation with putative class members when communications are misleading or coercive; courts can invalidate such attempts under Rule 23(d).
  Strategic implications:

• For defendants:

  • Web and onboarding UX design is now substantive: clear, uncluttered presentation of terms, prominent hyperlinks, and proximate disclosure to action buttons support enforceability.

  • Attempting to "cure" exposure mid‑litigation via new arbitration agreements is risky if communications could be seen as confusing or coercive.

• For plaintiffs:

  • Can challenge arbitration on notice and assent grounds (conspicuity, layout, clarity of language) rather than only unconscionability.

  • Can attack mid‑litigation outreach as improper under Rule 23(d), preserving class cohesion.

1. Injunctive Relief and Classwide Remedies

Pacito v. Trump (9th Cir. 2026)

• The Ninth Circuit held that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. did not limit district courts' ability to issue class‑wide injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2).[1]

• CASA did not curtail the capacity to certify and grant classwide injunctive relief; Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive classes remain viable.
  Strategic implications:

• For plaintiffs:

  • Can still seek classwide structural or behavioral relief (e.g., changes to policies, forms, or practices) even where individualized damages questions might complicate (b)(3) certification.

• For defendants:

  • CASA cannot be relied on to categorically block 23(b)(2) injunction classes; litigation strategies must anticipate both damages and injunctive exposure.

1. Supreme Court's Reluctance to Tackle "Uninjured Class Members" (Labcorp v. Davis)

• In Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis, No. 24‑304, the Supreme Court granted cert on the question whether Rule 23 permits damages classes that include uninjured members, then later dismissed the writ as "improvidently granted" without reaching the merits.[2]

• Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately indicating he would have ruled for Labcorp, signalling appetite among some Justices to restrict classes including uninjured members, but doctrinal clarity remains absent.[2]
  Strategic implications:

• For plaintiffs:

  • Uncertainty persists; conservative strategies will emphasize models of harm and standing that minimize uninjured members, or rely more on (b)(2) injunctive classes and issue classes.

• For defendants:

  • Can continue to press arguments that classes with uninjured members violate Article III or Rule 23, but without a definitive Supreme Court ruling, outcomes will remain circuit‑dependent.

Net Effect on Class Action Strategy

For defendants:

• Greater emphasis on front‑loaded attacks:

  • Rule 12 motions aimed at undermining class theories in the pleadings (Oliver).

  • Detailed opposition to multistate classes based on state law variation (Generation Changers).

• Need for careful arbitration program design and communications governance:

  • Front‑end UX and onboarding are critical; mid‑litigation arbitration "fixes" are fraught (Avery).

• Must plan for continued viability of injunctive classes (Pacito) even if damages classes are narrowed.
  For plaintiffs:

• Must draft complaints with Rule 23 in mind, particularly around commonality, predominance, and class definition.

• Increasingly strategic about forum and state law selection, perhaps preferring single‑state or regionally coherent classes.

• Likely to diversify tactics: combining injunctive relief, narrower damages classes, and possibly issue classes to navigate doctrinal uncertainty on uninjured members.