Stromberg v. Qualcomm Inc.

Summary

The Ninth Circuit vacated certification of a nationwide indirect purchaser class in an antitrust suit against Qualcomm, holding that the district court erred in its choice-of-law analysis by applying California's Cartwright Act to all class members despite material differences among state antitrust laws, including Illinois Brick repealer and non-repealer states, which swamped predominance under Rule 23(b)(3). The court also vacated certification of the Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief class in light of *FTC v. Qualcomm Inc.*, 969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2020), which held that Qualcomm's licensing practices did not violate the Sherman Act, and remanded for the district court to reconsider the effect of that decision on class certification and the viability of plaintiffs' claims.

Holdings

1. The district court erred in its choice of law analysis because material differences exist between California's Cartwright Act and the antitrust laws of other states, and non-repealer states have a strong interest in applying their own laws. Therefore, common issues of law do not predominate, and the class was erroneously certified.
2. The Rule 23(b)(2) class certification order is vacated, and on remand the district court should reconsider the effect of FTC v. Qualcomm on the class's ability to meet Rule 23(a) requirements and the viability of plaintiffs' claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in its choice of law analysis when certifying a nationwide Rule 23(b)(3) class, given differences in state antitrust laws.
2. Whether the district court erred in certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) class for injunctive relief in light of this court's decision in FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2020).

Disposition

vacated_and_remanded