Summary
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in a full en banc decision, raised the pleading and proof standards for plaintiffs seeking to certify multistate automotive defect class actions. The court’s June 27, 2025, ruling in Speerly v. General Motors, LLC, rejected the district court’s certification of 26 statewide subclasses of nearly 800,000 vehicle owners, demanding a more rigorous, state-by-state and claim-by-claim analysis. For automotive manufacturers, this decision provides another effective precedent to challenge the certification of sprawling, multistate class actions.
The Upshot
- Generalized Defects Are Insufficient: The Sixth Circuit held that plaintiffs cannot simply allege a common “defect” to satisfy the commonality requirement. Instead, they must prove, with evidence, how the alleged defect satisfies the specific legal elements of each state-law claim being pursued.
- Individualized Issues Cannot Be Deferred: The court rejected the “certify now, cull later” approach, holding that critical issues—such as whether a defect manifested for each owner, whether owners relied on the manufacturer’s statements, and whether arbitration agreements apply—must be resolved at the class certification stage, not deferred until summary judgment.
- State Law Variations Matter: The decision emphasizes that significant variations in state consumer protection and warranty laws, such as manifestation or reliance requirements, can create individualized questions that overwhelm common ones, making class certification inappropriate.
- Multi-Defect Classes Face Heightened Scrutiny: The court expressed deep skepticism about certifying a single class action based on two distinct and unrelated defects (a transmission “shudder” and a “harsh shift”), viewing the effort as an unmanageable “multi-leg parlay.”
The Bottom Line
The Speerly decision is a major victory for automotive defendants in the Sixth Circuit and joins persuasive authority for defendants nationwide. It signals a potential shift away from certifying massive, multistate class actions without a thorough analysis of the proofs of the underlying claims and defenses. Manufacturers facing consumer class actions can leverage this decision to demand a rigorous, element-specific analysis at the certification stage and to highlight how individualized issues of reliance, causation, and damages prevent a case from proceeding on a class-wide basis.
In a significant ruling for the automotive industry and product manufacturers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting en banc, vacated the district court’s certification of 26 statewide classes alleging defects in GM’s eight-speed automatic transmissions. Chief Judge Sutton’s opinion in Speerly v. General Motors, LLC, No. 23-1234 (6th Cir. June 27, 2025), sets a high standard for class certification, requiring a meticulous analysis of each state-law claim and rejecting attempts to gloss over critical individualized issues. The ruling offers automotive defendants a significant tool to challenge class action certification.
What Happened
The case involved claims asserted on behalf of nearly 800,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with 8L transmissions. Plaintiffs alleged two distinct defects—a “shudder” caused by moisture-contaminated transmission fluid and a “harsh shift” caused by valve body issues—and brought 59 different state-law claims for breach of warranty, consumer fraud, and fraudulent omission. The district court certified 26 statewide subclasses, finding that the existence of a “defect,” GM’s knowledge of it, and its materiality were common questions that predominated over individual issues.
Initially, on August 28, 2024, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit affirmed the class certification order. However, in a relatively rare move, a majority of the active judges on the court voted to rehear the case en banc on December 19, 2024.
The final en banc opinion, authored by Chief Judge Sutton, reversed, holding that the district court failed to conduct the “rigorous analysis” required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The court found fault with the certification analysis, emphasizing that a “one-size-fits-all” approach is improper for complex, multistate litigation. The court explained that the legal definition of a “defect” is not universal; it changes depending on whether the claim is for breach of an express warranty, an implied warranty, or a violation of a consumer protection statute. Therefore, proving a “defect” requires different evidence for different claims, undermining commonality.
The court also expressed significant skepticism about the case’s structure, which involved two distinct and unrelated defects. It cautioned against certifying such “multi-defect” classes, describing the attempt to resolve both via a single class action as an unmanageable “multi-leg parlay” that exponentially increases litigation complexity.
The court then dissected the predominance inquiry, finding that individualized questions overwhelmed any common ones. For example:
- Warranty Claims: The court noted that repair-or-replace warranties are breached only if the manufacturer fails to repair the product effectively. This requires an individualized inquiry into each owner’s repair history.
- Consumer Protection and Fraud Claims: The court conducted a detailed state-by-state analysis, finding that many states’ laws require plaintiffs to prove that a defect actually manifested or that they individually relied on a manufacturer’s misstatement. These requirements necessitate individual, fact-intensive inquiries that are incompatible with class treatment.
Finally, the court held that the district court improperly dismissed the impact of arbitration agreements that many class members signed with their dealers, which also presents an individualized defense that must be considered at the certification stage.
Further underscoring the challenges for plaintiffs, separate concurring opinions addressed the critical issue of standing for uninjured class members. Judge Nalbandian argued that Article III requires every class member, including unnamed absent class members, to have suffered a concrete injury. Judge Thapar suggested the issue of uninjured class members, while requiring a ruling from the district court, is better analyzed under Rule 23’s procedural requirements rather than as a constitutional standing question. These concurring opinions highlight the ongoing uncertainty surrounding ‘no-injury’ class actions, a topic the Supreme Court was poised to address in LabCorp v. Davis before recently dismissing certiorari as improvidently granted.
Why It Matters
The Speerly decision empowers automotive defendants to push back against the tide of sprawling, multistate class actions. It requires plaintiffs to do far more than allege a common problem. They must now affirmatively prove, with evidence tailored to each specific claim and state, that common issues predominate.
For in-house counsel, the key takeaway is that the landscape for class certification in the Sixth Circuit (covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) has become significantly more favorable for defendants. The decision also serves as powerful persuasive authority in other circuits, reinforcing the principles laid out by the Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013). It signals that courts should not shy away from delving into the merits of a case when necessary to determine if the requirements of Rule 23 have been met, and it squarely rejects deferring such questions until later in the litigation.
What Is Likely to Happen Next
On remand, the plaintiffs face an uphill battle. The district court must now re-evaluate the certification motion under the Sixth Circuit’s demanding framework. It is unlikely that the broad, 26-state class structure will survive. Plaintiffs may be forced to abandon many of their claims altogether.
More broadly, we anticipate that plaintiffs’ counsel in future automotive defect cases may shy away from filing large, multistate actions in the Sixth Circuit. This decision will likely be cited frequently by defendants across the country to argue for a more granular, defense-friendly approach to class certification that respects the variations among state laws and the individual experiences of vehicle owners.
[View source.]
