Docket No . 103287.



### IN THE SUPRE ME COURT OF THE STAT E OF ILLIN OIS

BARBARA’S SAL

ES, INC., et al. , Indi

v. an d on Beha l f of Al l Others Simila r ly Si tuated, Appel

le es, v. INTEL CORPORA TION et al. (Intel Corporation, A

ppel l an t).
Opinion filed November 29, 2007.

JUSTICE FITZGE R A LDde l i v er ed th e j udgm

en t of th e c our t, wit h op inion. Justice s Fre eman, Ki lbride , Ga r man , an d K ar meie rco nc ur r ed in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. Chi ef Justice Thomas and Justice Bu r ke t oo k no par t in the dec ision.

OPINI ON

In t he early part o f this decade, Intel

Corpor ation (Intel

) engaged in a m assi ve worldwi

de advertis in

g cam pai gn tout in

g the hi gh performa nce of its “Penti

um 4” m

icropro cess o r. The all

eged di sa pp oi n tmen t of a n ati on wi de gr oupof pu rc h as er s l ed to t his class
ac ti on fi led inMadi son

Cou nty , Il l i noi s, b y na med pl ai nti f f s f rom I llino is an d M i ss ouri

ag ai n st In tel, a De l aw ar e c orp ora

ti on wi th i ts prin ci pal pla ce of busi nessin Calif ornia. W ith al ternate counts under Ca lifo rnia and Il

li nois consum er fra ud law s, pla int iffs al le ged that Intel decei ved t he ent ire clas s wit h a

fal se r epr ese nt at ion implicit in the-2- na me Pent ium 4, t hat the microproce ssor was t he best and f astest proc es sor on th e m ark et. The ci rcu i t cou r t r ule d t ha t I llino is
s ubst ant ive l aw

con trol s th i s c as e a nd certi f i ed a c l as s of

Il l i noi s cons um ers o nly. Pu r su an t t o Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le 30 8 ( 15 5 I ll. 2d R. 308), the circui

t cour t cert if

ie d questions f

or an in terlocuto ry appea

l of t his ruling. The app ellate co ur t answ er ed t hat Ca lifo rni a l aw go ver ns and tha

t the ci rc uit cour t should reco nsider its class
certi f i ca ti on order in l igh t o f Ca li forni a l aw. 367 Ill . App. 3d

101 3. We al lowed In tel ’s pe ti ti on f orle ave to appeal. 210 Il

l. 2d R. 3 15( a). For t he followi

ng reasons, we conc lude

that Illin ois l awgo ver ns this case
and tha t cl ass certif i cation wa s i

m proper.

BACK GROUND T he r ec o r d r ev ea ls t he fo llowing bac kgr ou nd infor matio n which, al thoughnot directly

relev ant to t he n

am ed pl ai n ti f f s, i s p er ti n en t to t he motion

f or cl ass certif i cation. A comput er ’s micr o pr o ce ss o ris often referred to as the “brai

n” of a c om

pute r. Th e p erf orm an ceof
m i cro pro ces sors has steadil

y i ncreased s in

ce they were fi rst introduced in the 197 0s . A

pri nc i pal mea su re of pe rf orm an cef or th e c om

mon consum er isspeed . As

the s peed of a proces sor i

ncreas es, the m

ore instr uct ions a p roce ss orcan process, resul ting i n less tim e a computer requires to open software ap pli

cations, ref

resh screen

s, and depi

ct
ever more reali stic vi

deo game character s. On

e h i stori cal mea su re of speed is calle d “cl ock speed, ” which is measured in hertz . Int el’sfi rst micro pr oc esso r, t he 400 4, ra n at 108 kiloher t z pe r se co nd (108,000 hertz), co mpar ed t o t he In tel Pen ti um 4 pr oce ss or’ s i

ni ti al sp ee d of 1.4 giga hertz per sec ond (1 .4 bi

l l i on hertz). Intel h

as m arketed various per for manc e advan

cem en ts in succeedi

ng generations o f
m i croproces sors unde r a dvanc ing bra nd nam es such as the 286, 386, 486, Pen ti um, Penti um Pro, Pentium

II, Pentium

III, and the Pentium 4. At is sue is whe t he rt he init ial ve r sio n o f t he Pe nt ium 4
m i croproces sor, kn

own wi th i n In te l as t he “Willa met t e” family (herei naf ter “Pent ium 4,” “P 4” o r “Wil lam ett e”), li ved up t o I ntel’s
ex plic it an d imp licit r ep r es en t at io ns a s t o it s a dv an ce men t in performa nce ove r t he Pe nt ium III and the proc es sor s of

a c om pe ti tor
man uf acturer, Am

erican Micro Dev

i ces (“A MD” ). Intel i n trod uc ed th e P en ti um 4 i n Nov em b er 20 00 an d sh i pp ed i ts
one m i l l i onth P en

tiu m 4 pro cess or s ometi

me i n th e f i rs t qua rter of-3- 2001. Alo ng wi

th various new features in i ts architect ure, t hese proces sors had hi

ghe r clock sp eeds than the Pentium III and AMD pro cessors. Fur t her , c omp ut er s wit h a P en tiu m 4 proces sor were pri ced, at least i

ni tial ly , at a premi

um ove r sim il arly eq uippe d
com puterscontai

ni ng a Pen tiu m II I proce ssor. However, t he actual
su periori ty of t he Wi ll am ette Pentium 4 ove

rt he Pe nt ium III and t he AMDpr oce ss or w as

i n dou b t. The re cord r ev

ea l s v ari ous i n ter n et a n d m as s m ed i a r ep orts questioned

the Pentium

4’s perf ormance im me dia tely after i t was release d. T he se r ep o r t s no t ed t ha t su pe r io rclo ck sp ee d d o es no t t ell t he wh ol e s tor y as to the actual perf orma nc e of a m i croproces sor. Several so ur ces cr iticized t he micro ar chite ct ur e und er lyi ng t he Pentium 4 as being “m

architect ure. ” In o ther wor ds, I ntel’s repre sent at ions as t o hig h c lo ck sp ee ds we r e a de liber at e ma r ke t in g attempt to ma

ke i t appear fas

ter t o t he un

in form ed consum

er t han t he slower-clocked

Pentium III and AMD pro cessors. Performance tests,
co mmo nly

kno wn as b ench

ma rks, showed that the slower cl ocked Pentium III an d an AM D proce ssor w ere“f

aster” than the Penti

um 4. The ext ent of t he sp eed discr epa ncy bet wee n t he processors depended
onth e ben

chm ark and was of

ten me asured i

n m il li seconds. Othe r ben chm arks not ed t he Will

amet t e’s e xces sive heat dissipa t ion and power usa

ge. F or exa

m pl e, t he Pe nt ium 4 wa s s lo we rat so me com mon office a pplicat ions usi

ng olde r operat in g software, but faster
at t he video game Q uak e. Anot her co mmon cr iticism of t he Wi ll amette Pent ium

4 concerned its mem

ory capabil

ities

. Inte l’s publ ic response to t hese cr

it icis m s v ari ed . Acc ordi

n g to I nt el, t est ing so ftw ar e had not been o pt imi zed for t he Pe nt ium 4. Furth er, ac co r din g t o I nt el, the P entium 4’s gr ea t es t ad va nc es we r e in areas such

as 3D gam

in g, digit al video cr eat ion, MP3 enco ding, and st re aming video. Intel als o em

phasi zed that the new

m i croarch i tecture had a hi gh pote nti al f orincrea sed per for mance a s t he manufac t ur ing pro cess im

proved. Intel ex

pla in ed that dif feren ces i n sy stem ha rdwar e and s oftware desi gn m

ay aff ect actual perf

ormance for particul

ar users, apart from the perf ormance of the ac t ua l m

i croproces sor. Fin ally, Intel em

phasi zed that the processor itself was not defecti

ve, and t hat it p er for med we ll even on t hose bench mar ks t ha t lab ele d it “s l ower.”1 The c laim s againstGatew

ay were sev ere d d ue to arbitration

agree me nts, while He wlett Pack ard an d HP Dire

ct re main nam ed defe nd antsin this lawsui t but hav e no t filed briefs i

n t hi s cas e.
-4- On June 3, 2002, plai

ntif fs fi le d a na ti onw i decl as s acti on co mplaintassertin

g consum er fraud c la

i m s ag ai nst Intel , Gatewa

y Inc ., Hewl ett Packard Compan

y, an d HP Direct, Inc. 1 The plaint i ff s’ origi nal compl ai nt all eged that Intelmisle d t he pu blic by as se r t ing in pu blic st at eme nt s t ha t t he Pe nt iu m 4 was the “h igh est performan

ce proces sor.” Intel al

so all egedl y s uppressed and conceal

ed the Penti

um 4’s lack o f per for mance g ains o ver t he Pe nt ium III . P laintiffs bro ught
consum er fraud cl ai ms under Cal

if ornia’ s Unf

ai r Competition Law ( Ca l. Bus . & Prof

. Cod e § 17 20 0 ( De er ing 20 07 ) ) , t he Ca lifo rnia Consum er Legal Rem edi es Act (Cal . Ci v. Code §1750 et seq. (D eer ing2005) ), and, al

ternativel y, un der the Ill in ois Cons ume rFraud and Decept iv e Busi

ness Practices A

ct (Consumer Fraud Act) (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq . (W

es t 200 2)) . Pl

ai nti f f s s ough t an aw ard of actual damages, re st itu t ion, at t or neys’ fees , p re judg ment and p os t

judg ment i n terest, an d t he ir c o st s o f su it , amo untin g to cum ula tivel y l ess than $75,00 0 per c l ass

mem ber. In te lfile d several

motions to dis mi ss. The ci rcuit court denied Inte l’s f i rs t m oti on to dism i ss th e Ca l i f orn i a c oun ts p rem i se d up on choi ce-of-l awpr inciples. A mo t ion t o d ismi ss bas ed u po n forum non convenienspr inc iple s w as simila r ly deni ed. Int el also moved to dismiss t he Ill in ois Co nsu me r Fra

ud Act coun

ts, argu i ng, inter al

ia , that pla int iffs fai

le d to state a cause of action b ecause of a fai lure to all ege pr ox i mate caus e. Spe ci f

i cal l y , Intel argue d tha

t pl ai ntif f s we re required, und

er Oliveir a v. Amoco Oil

Co. , 20 1 I ll. 2d

13 4 ( 20 02 ), to al le ge ac tua l

de ce ption of t he name d p laint iffs. As no name d p laint iff
was all egedly aware o f an

y speci fi c representa tion made by

Intel, these
re pr ese nt at ions co uld no t have pr o ximat ely caused plai

ntif fs’ i nj uries. The cir cu it co ur t ag re ed and dis misse d p laint iffs ’ I ll in ois Cons ume r Fraud Act co unts. Pla int iffs subs equ ent ly added allegat ions in t heir first amende d and
sec ond am

ended compl ai nts that they

we r e a ct ua lly de ce ive d b y In t el. The cir cu it court found, ove r y et a noth er m oti on to d i sm i ss base d on Oliveira , t hat t he se new al l eg ati ons ad eq ua tel y sta ted a c au se of-5- act ion. These allegat ions includ ed: (1 ) “P laintiffs andClass Mem bers have been a ct ually dece ived by Def endan t’s f ail ure to dis cl ose materi al i nf orm ati on and/or by their af

fi rmative m

isrepresentations, ” a nd (2) “Intel ha s c o nd it io ne d t he co nsu me r, t hro ugh it s mark et ing and naming pr ac ti ce s, to b el

i ev e th at each of

its h igh -performan

ce proces sors is

superi or in spe ed and perf ormance to the previous model .” On

A pri l 24 , 20 04 , pl

ai n ti f f s f i l ed th e cur re n t, third am

ended
com pl ai n t, wh ic h i nc lud ed an o t he rr ele va nt alle ga t io n t ha t I nt el, through its mar ket ing pr act ices, “co ndit ioned t he mark et t o be lieve that meg ah

ertz mea su res rel ati ve perf orm an cean d that a proc es sor wi th a h i ghe r clock sp eed w

i l l del i ver f aster p erf orma nc e.” Pl ai n ti f fs thereafter moved for cer tifi cation of the nationwide class. The evi dence sub

m itted by both parties i s vol

umi nous, and we highlightonly

those port ions

of the ev ide nce sub

m i tted to the court that ar e nec essa ry for t his op inion. P laintiffs relied o n ex t en siv e evi dence obtaine d in

dis covery c oncerni

ng Intel ’s m

arketing practices and the per form

ance of Pentium 4 processors. Plai

ntif fs stressed In tel ’s mas si v e adver ti si n g c am pai gn an d i ts ove ral l stra tegy f orthat campa ign. Plai

ntif fs noted that as part of Intel ’s worldwi de b illio n dollar mark et ing sche me, t he Pe nt ium 4 campa ign gar ne re d r o ug hly $300 mil lion wo rldw ide and $10 0 mill ion in t he Uni

ted Stat es. Those dollar am oun ts i nc l ude d Web

si te p rom ot ions, t elevision, ra dio and pr int advertis em ents, in form at io na l b rochures, produc t demonstrat ions, trainin

g of ret ail sales agen

ts, and pr omot ional

events. Intel ma de a num ber of pub li

c statements that

its pr oc esso r w as t he highestperf

orm i n g p roc es sor

on th e m ar ke t. Se v eral sta tem en ts ma de by com puter m an uf acturers that the

Pen tiu m 4 was the “ f astest” were also highlighte d in t he mot ion. Plai ntif fs’ es se nt ial c o mpla int co mmo n t o all cl ass m em bers i s that Intel wa s te ach i

n g th e m ar ke t th at “ 4 isbet t er t han 3. ” As su ch, pla int iff s h i ghl i ghte d seve

ral statem en ts by com puter m an uf acturers that t he Pe nt ium 4 pr oc esso r w as t he “fast est ” pr oc esso r o n t he
mar ke t. Pla int iffs r ep ea t ed ly emp ha siz ed an I nt el “c o nsu me r campa igns o ve r vie w” sl ide shown to a group at Comp USA , which th ey as se rt sum marize d I n

tel ’s core stra teg y . It state d, i

n pa rt: “I wo uld l

ike t o fo cus on w hat we w ill do t o p ro mot e t he Pentium 4 p roc es sor

th i s y ea r, w h i ch i s a t the core o f t his st r at eg y.-6- Specifi cal l y , why buy a P4P? The most impor t ant t hing is ou r Br and a nd what it stands f or. We have t aug ht the m

arket that f

our i s b etter than

three .” Pla int iffs al so directed the ci rcuit court’s att ention to several ot her pla ces i n th e r ec ord

to de mon strate t hat Int el was t rying t o t eac h t he
market that “f

our i s b etter than

three .” The “f our is be t t er t ha n t hr ee ” s ch eme o f wh ich pla int iffs c o mpla in is also refl ected, accord in

g to plai ntif fs, in the depos i

ti on te sti mony of Int el employee s Ann

Lewnes and Pam Pollace. Lewnes , Intel’s

vicepr eside nt of

sales and m

arketing an

d the director of the “In

tel Ins ide ” pr o gr am, t es t ified in he rde po sit io n “t ha t t he na me P en t iu m 4 is in tended t o c ommunicat e t hat it’s bet t er t han Pe nt ium III .” Lew ne s testifi ed that she wasun aw ar e if

I nt el h ad co mmun ica t ed t o t he pu blic that the Pentium

4 was not better for part ic ula r us age mod els. S he
was al so unawar

e if the word “

b est” w as ev er us ed i n con n ec ti on wi th t he mar ke t ing o f t he Pe nt ium 4

. Pa m P o lla ce, head of Int el’s Cor porate Marketin g Group, st ated i

n h er d ep osi ti on t hat : “Ou r int ent
wa s t ha t 4 w as be t t er in ma ny w ays than III,” and that “i

t was better f or ma ny asp ects.” Pla int iffs subm

itted ex pe rt opi ni ons con cerni ng the ef f ec t of Inte l’s mark et ing campa ign. O ne of plai

ntif fs’ ma rketing ex perts, Dr. T ule

m E r de m, o pin ed in

an af fi davi t t hat processor performanc e matte rsto
cons um ers in the pe rs ona

l com pute r m ark et a nd i s a ke y dri ve r of
consum er de ci si on ma kin g. Pro fes so rUr de m st at ed , “I nt el s t r at eg ica lly chose the Pe

nti um 4 sub -bra

nd to si gna l hi ghe r overa ll performa nce compared to Pentium

3. To ampl

if y thi s ef fect, Penti um 4 was off

ered at hi gher cl ock speed le

vels than Pentium 3.” He al so asserted, “Intel
comm unicati ons clearl

y posi tion ed Penti um 4 asIntel ’s‘b est,’ Pentium 3 as Int el’s ‘b ett er’ and Cel eron as Intel ’s ‘good’ performa nce pro cesso rs . Pentium 4 was al so depicted as t he best perf ormi ng c hi p i n the i ndu stry at the ti me.” Acco rd ingto an

othe r of pl ai ntif fs ’ m arketing ex

perts, Dr. Jo el Co hen, Intel com

mun ic ated t o p ur ch as er s t ha t t he Pe nt ium 4 pr oc esso r w as t he fastest and high est pro cessor available for PCs. In ot her word s, a cc ordi ng to Dr. Coh

en , i t is a fac t t ha t t he Pe nt ium 4 proc es sor na me u nive r sa lly

comm unicates in

creased performa nce as compared wi th th e Pe nti um III proce ss ornam

e, and that-7- repres en tation wasmaterial

to pu r ch as er s. Dr

. Co he n st at ed t ha t it
was rea son

ab l e f or pu rch as ers to b elieve the promi ses of i ncreased speed and p er for mance o f the processor. I ntel’ s m arket se gm

en tation of consum ers on a spectrum of

those havi

ng l ittle com put e r knowle dge, to those highl y kn owledgeab le , does not dim in is h the f act that I nt el’ s imp licit pr om

i se of i n cr ea se d p er f

orm an ce as soc i ate d w i

th t he Pentium

4 would b e r eas ona bly beli eved by all segment s o f the class. Fu rt her , I nt el faile d t o pr o pe rly q ua lify it s re pr ese nt at ions a nd p romi ses of i

ncreased pe

rforman ce associated with the Pen t ium 4 proces sor. Dr. Cohen

concl uded, “To the extent that Pentium 4 based personal computers do not deli

ver t hese expe ct ed r esu lts, t he nam in g, adve rt ising, mar ket ing and prom oti on effor t s by Int el are misl

ead ing
and dec epti

ve .” Each plai ntif f test if i ed i n de posi tion f orm a nd i n i nterroga tory
an swe rs that t hey

were mi sl ed by the “f our is be tt er than three” mark et ing schem e. Several nam ed pl ai ntif fs subm itted the fol lowi ng, vir t ua lly ide nt ica l, inter ro gat or y answer and affir med t he se an sw er s in de po sit io n t es t imo ny: “Pla int iff st at es t hat while she r emembers see ing advertisemen

ts, pr int ed mater ia

ls and com

me rcial s about Pe n tium 4/ P4 pr oc esso rs in pe rso nal co mput er s, s he ca nno t sp ec ifica lly

remem be r an y pa rti cul ar a

dvertisemen

t or sta tem en t. She b ased h er deci si on to purchase the com puter
on t he lab el P en t ium 4 /P 4 w hic h m eant t o he r t hat t he
com puter wa s f

aster th an the Pe nti um III or PIII.” Other nam ed plai ntif fs could n ot recall

any specif ic advertisem

ents, f rom any source, containi

ng a specifi c statement m

ade by Intel t hat t he Pentium 4 mi cropro cessor was f

asterthan the Pen

tium III proces sor. Each nam ed pl ai nti f f took advan tage of sources of i

nf ormation other than the me re nam e “Pen tium 4.” These i

ncl uded ad v er ti se men ts f rom computer manufact ur er s; co nsult at ions with f riends, fam

il y, an d sales clerks; and/ or feat ur e and pr ice co mpar isons at re t ail sto re s and online
sources. Intel s ubm itted a n um b er of ex pert op i n i on s i n opp osi ti on to t he
moti on fo rcla s s ce rt ifi

cat ion, which co mprise many pa ges of t he record. T h e g i st of these opi nions was, howeve

r, that a co mputer pu rchaser does not make a decisi on si mpl y b ased on the num

be r 4 being hi gher than the n

umb er 3. These experts st ated t hat the pur chase-8- of a c o mp uter was a highly indivi dua lized de cision ba sed on many f actors including price , mem ory, and the b

rand nam e of the origi

nal equ ipment man ufa ct ur er , an d a dv ice fr o m va r io u s sourc es. F urthe r, Dr. Jo hn Lynch, I nt el’s mark et ing expe rt , d isagr eed wit h t he i m pl i ca ti on that t hey were teachi

ng the m arket t hat “4 was b etter than 3.” He expl

ai ned, “I don’ t t hi

nk we’re ac

tuall y teac hi ng t he m arket that 4 is better t han

III. I thi nk we wer

e tel l i ng pe ople the b en

ef i ts of t he Pen tiu m 4.” In ot her words, plai

ntif fs could n ot have purchased a computer based on the n

am e “Pen tium 4” al one. The parties

also s ubm i tted c ontr ary opi ni ons on wh et he rit co uld be pro ve d t ha t t he Willa met t e P en t iu m 4 wa s o ut pe r fo r med by th e Pe nt ium I II and AMD pr o ce ss o rs . P laint iffs subm itted t he t est imony fro m a co mput er expe rt , D r. Ed war d Da vidso n, who op ined t hat t he speeds of the Penti

um 4 and t he Pentium

III could be com

pared under
one ben chm ark. I ntel sub m i tted an ex pert opi ni on disputi

ng Dr. Davidson’s opi

ni on th at on e b en ch mar k c oul d i n di ca te th e s up eri ori ty of any particular versi

on of the Wi

ll am ette Pentium 4 processor over particular versi ons of the Pe nti um III pro cessor and AMD pro cessors. Af ter dis covery, b

rief in g, an d a r gu men t s, t he cir cu it courtentered it s cla ss ce r t ifica t io n o r de r

. T he cir cu it co ur t fo un d t ha t I llinoi s retained the m ore si gni f i can t rel ati onsh

i p to the con

tro ve rsy over Calif ornia, thus r eq uir ing t he ap plic at io n o f I llino is la w. T he cir cu it courtals o fo un d t ha t I llino is la w c o uld not be applie d to a nati onwide class, and cl

ass certif i cation ex tended onl

y to consum

ers who lived in
orpurchased a c o mput er in Illi nois. The circu it co ur t held t he
n um erosi ty r eq uire ment w as met beca use of t he she er size o f the computer sales f

igures i n the Stat e of Ill

in ois. The cir cu it co ur t fur t he rhe ld th at, wi th re sp ec t to cla ims o f I llino is purch ase rs under the Illi

nois Consum er Fraud Act , c ommo n que st ions of fact an d la wpredom

i na ted ove r i ndi vi dual i ssues. Th

e court fou nd ninecom mon i ss ue s, i n cl udi n g: “ [w ]heth

er th e W i l l am ette 4 proc es sor is in fact f aster and m

ore po werful

than the Pen

tium II I, Celer on, and AMD A thl on proce ss or ”; “[w ]he t her t he De fendant intend ed t he pu blic to be m

i sled i nto be l i evi

ng th at the Pe nti um 4 proces sor wa s fas ter an d/or more powerful

and/or superior to t he Pen tium III a nd /or t he AMDpr oce ss or” ; an d “ wh eth er th e Def en da nt ’s co nd uc t is in vi ol ati on of the [Il l i noi s Consum

er F raud A

ct].” The circui

t co urt also noted that Intelrais ed several defenses that w ere common to all cl ass-9- mem bers, inc lud ing t ha t it s a dv er t ising , marke t ing, a nd naming practiceswere

me re puff ery that no r ea so na ble co nsu mer wo uld r ely
on. Fin ally, t he circ uit co ur t re ject ed I nt el’s ar gument t hat “que st ions
re gar ding co nsumer expe ct at ions, kno wledg e, t echni cal so ph i sti ca ti on and the a l l eged com pl exi ty of determ i ni ng th e perf orm a nce o f the Pentium 4 pr oce ss orshoul d wei

gh a gai nst certi f i cation.”Ac co r di ng ly, the tr ial cour t cert if

ied the f ollowi ng cl ass: “Allper so ns or ent ities , wh o r es ide in I llino is o rpu r ch as ed in Ill in ois, and that are end use purchasers of

‘Wi ll am ette’ Pentium 4 br anded pro cess or s o r c omp ut er s co nt aining ‘Wi ll am ette’ Pen tiu m 4 br anded process ors tha

t are us ed f or pers onal, f

am i l y or hous ehold

serv i ces .” Both parties s ought i

nterl ocutory re viewof

t his ruling, and t he cir cu it court certif

ie d the fol

lowi ng questi on for review un de r Supreme Court Ru

l e 308 (155 Il

l . 2d R. 3 08): “W hether t he circ uit co ur t er re d in cer t ify ing a cla ss o f I llino is
cons um ers un der Ill

in ois l aw, rather than certif

yi ng a nat io nwid e o r I llinois cla ss und er Ca lifor nia la w ( as pla int iffs
re que st ed) or hold ing t hat t he action should not pr oceed as a class action (as

Intel reque sted).” The appella

te court reversed the ci

rcuit court’s choice-of

-law rul i ng –n ot only as to Ill in ois residen

ts, but as to all

putat iv e class
mem bers nationw

ide –fi ndi ng that Cal if ornia l aw applie d. 367 Ill . App. 3d at 1 02 1. Th e a

pp el l ate co ur t ba se d it s d ec isio n la r ge ly on s ec ti on 6 of the Restatemen

t (Seco nd) of Conf

li ct of Laws. 367 Il

l. A pp. 3d at 1021, ci

ting R estatement (Second) of Conf li ct of Laws §6 (1971 ). The appe l l atecou

rt al so d i rected the ci rcu i t cou rt to r econsi de r i

ts
c la s s certif

ic ation order in

li ght of Cal if ornia l aw. It caut ione d, “our de ci si on today shoul d not, howev er, b e c o nsid er ed a n ew rule
re quir ing our cou rtsto al wa y s a pp l y th e c o nsu me r fr au d la w o f a foreign st at e t o a djud icat e t he cl

ai m s of Il l i n oi s res i den

ts f or p rod uc ts purchased i

n Illi nois ” and that the deci si on was “a narrow one.” 367 I ll. App. 3d at 1020. The appella te cour t also f

oun d o ur de cis io n in Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. , 216 Ill . 2d 100 (2005), “not relevan t,” as it did n

ot deal with c hoic e-of-la

w precedent. 367 Ill . App. 3d at 1021.-10- We gr an t ed I nt el’ s p et it io n f or leav e to appeal. 210 Ill . 2d R. 31 5(a). We s ubs eq ue nt ly gr ant ed lea ve t o t he “ Co nflict o f La w Pr ofe sso rs” t o file an amicus curiae bri ef i n s upport of the plai

ntif fs. Dai ml erChry sl er Cor porati on an d th e Pro duct L i ab i l i

ty A dvi sory Coun sel, Inc ., were

also granted lea

ve to file amicus curiae

br iefs in
su pp ort of de f en da n t.

DISCUSSION Our rev i ew of thi s c erti f i ed que sti on i s g ov er ne d b y Su pr eme CourtRul e 3 08 ( 155 Ill . 2d R. 3 08( a)) . W e a

re l i m i ted to the que sti on certif ie d by the tr ial cour t, which, because it must be a question of la w and not fact, i s revi

ewed de novo

. Vision Point of Sale, Inc. v. Haas , 226 Ill . 2d 334, 342 (2 007 ); Thompson v. Gordon , 221 Ill . 2d 414, 426 (2006). The certifi

ed que sti on pres en ts u s wi th two maj orissues: (1) wh ich law t o ap ply

t o p laintiffs’ nat ionwid e class act ion su it, and (2) under that law, wh

ether to al l owt he mot ion fo r c lass ce rt ifi cat ion.

I. Choice of

Law Choi ce-of-lawpr ob l em

s a ri se wh en si gn i f i ca n t as pe cts o f a la ws uit traverse stat e borders. T he se pr o ble ms a r e n ume r o us in t his case. Intel is a De la ware c o r po r at io n w it h it s p r inc ipa l pla ce o f bu sine ss in Calif ornia. T he I nt el e mplo ye es re spo nsible for des igning and mark et ing t he “W il la me tt e” versi on of the Penti

um 4 m i croproce ss or were prim aril y l ocated in Cal

if ornia, an d al so located

in Or ego n. Inte l’s deci sion to bra

nd th e W i l l am ette proces sors with the Pen tium 4 na me took pl ace

i n C al i f orn i a. Int el’s Pr ess R elat ions g ro up, t he Intel Inside pr og ra m, t he Br and C ampaign S t ra t egy gr ou p, and Resel le r Pro du cts

Groupar e a

l l l oca ted i n Ca l i f orn i a. In tel made i ts mark et ing deci sions i n C al i f orn ia . It co nducted m

arketing ac

tivi ties
re lating t o t he Willame t t e P en t ium 4 t o o riginal eq uipment
man uf acturers an d c o nsu mer s t hr o ug ho ut t he na t io n. I nt el r et ain s off ic es and production pl

ants throughout t he world. Eight of the el even na med pl ai nti f f s a re I l l i noi s r es i de nts , si

x of wh om purchased thei r computers in Ill in ois. The rem

ai ni ng two Illino is p laint iffs pur chas ed t heir co mput er s o ver t he tel ep hon e f rom t he De ll C o r po r at io n i

n T exas . The other th

ree pl ai nti f f s a re f rom Mis so ur i, two of wh

om p urch ase d the i r c om p ut er s in Misso ur i, and-11- one of w hom p ur chas ed he r c omp ut er ove r t he t elepho ne fr o m De ll. All pla in tif fs recei ved an d reli ed upo n Int el’s co mmunicatio ns–t he al le ged i m pl i ci t r eprese nt at ion o f per for mance c ont ained in t he Pentium 4 n ame –in I llino is o rMis so ur i. The named p laintiffs rep re sent
a nat ionwid e class of c ons umer s who hav e m ade pur chas es a nd recei ved r ep r es en t at io ns in al l 50 s tates and the Dis

trictof Colum

bia. We ne ed no t en ga ge in a ch o ice

- o f- law ana ly si s i f the cons

ume r fraud l aw s of the states are

al l si m i l ar, i.e. , t he differenc es be t wee n t he la ws wo uld no t be out come determ in ative

. However, the parties agree
as to t he exi stence of sub stantial dif feren ces i n the l aws of the 50 stat es. See, e.g. , Tracker Marine, L.P. v. Ogle , 108 S.W.3d 349, 352- 55 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003) (surveyi ng cases). These subs

tantial dif feren ces in the states’ laws

are the vary

in g degrees to which

the la w all ows a p ri

va te ri gh t of ac ti on a nd cl as s acti ons , th e l i m i tati on s periods, wh

at c on sti tute s a v i ol ati on , w h at fo rm o f scienter is required, what form

of relia nce is requi

red , and dam

ages

. Tracker Marine , 108 S. W.3 d at 352 -5 3. As t he Su pr eme Co ur t has no t ed, “the Stat es need n

ot , and i n f act do n ot, pr ovid e su ch pr ot ect ion in a uni f orm ma nne r. *** The re sult is a pa t chwo rk of r ules r epr ese nt ing t he div erse poli cy judgm ents of lawm

akers i n 50 States.” BMW of NorthAmerica, Inc. v. Gore , 517 U.S. 559, 569-70, 134 L. Ed. 2d 809, 822-2 3, 116 S . Ct. 1589 , 1596 ( 1 996 ); accord In re B ri dgestone/Fires tone, Inc. , 288 F .3d 101 2, 1018 (7th C i r. 2002 ); Tracker Marine , 108 S.W.3d at 352-55; Lyon v. Caterpillar, Inc. , 194 F.R.D. 206, 219-21 (E. D. Pa. 2000). Hence, the confli ct among these la ws di cta tes th at w e c an

n ot a ffirm the appe l l atecou

rt’ s a ppl i ca ti on of Cal if ornia l aw on that basi s alone. Plai ntif fs’ fram in g of their cause of action narrows o ur analy sis. Al thoughthe in

stant laws

ui t imp licate s t he class members a nd
consum er fraud la ws of al l 50 s tates and the Dis

trict of Colum

bia, t he p lai ntif fs, asthe mas ters of the i r com pl ai nt, se ek rel i ef on ly unde r I llino is or Californi

a l aw. Pl ai n ti f f s h av e n ot s oug h t a s ep arate

cause of ac ti on u nd er Mi ss ouri

l aw . In de ed , th e c erti

f i ed que sti on asks o nly “W hether the c i rcui t court erre d in c er t ifying a cla ss o f I llino is
c onsu mers under Illi

nois la w, rather than certif

yi ng a n ationwi de o r Ill in ois class und

er Ca l i f orni a law (a s pl

ai ntif f s req ues ted).” F

urthe r, we ha ve re c ently hel d that t he Il

li nois Consum er Fraud Act appl

ie s o nly to fraudul

ent transact io n s which t ake place “pr imarily and-12- su bs t an t iall y” i

n Il l i noi s. Avery , 216 Ill . 2d at 186. The re for e, while the Mi ssouri and Ill i noi s con tacts are r ele va nt t o wh et he rCa lifo rnia la w shoul d be appl i ed, transactions occu

rri ng e nti rel y outsi de Il

l i noi s are not relev ant to whet he r I llinois

la w should be appl

ie d because

our de ci si on in Avery prec lude s reli

ef ari sin g out of these tr ansactions. Theref ore, we need only

concentrate on Cali

forni a and Il li nois la w. I mp o r t an t ly, the partiesco nced e t hat Illinois and Calif ornia l aws confl ict an d th i s c on fli ct may have an o ut co me-d et er minative differenc e. In sho rt , p laintiffs need no t pr ove act ual de cep t ion o f the
name d p laint iffs un de rCa lifo rnia law as fo un d in Ca lifo rnia ’s Un fair Co mpe t it io nLaw , a s t hey wo uld u nder Illinois law as fou nd in t he I llino is Consum

er Fraud Act. Com

pare 815 IL CS 505/10a (West 2002) ; Shannon v. Boise Cascade Corp. , 208 Ill . 2d 517, 525 (2005) (“d ece pt ivead

v er ti sing cannot be the proxi ma te cause of dam

ages under the Act unl

ess i t actuall y de cei vesth e p l ai

n ti f f ”) ; wi th Cal. Bus. & Pro f. Co de §1 720 0 (D eer ing 2007 ); Massa ch us et ts Mu tu al Li fe Insurance

Co. v. Superior Cou rt , 97 Ca l. App. 4th 1282, 1288, 119 Ca l. Rptr. 2d 190, 193 (2002) (indi vi dualiz ed pr oo f of de cep t ion and reli ance is not required under the Un fai r Competition Law). Stat ed di ffe r en t ly, specific cl ass m em bers proceedi

ng unde r Calif ornia l aw need prov e on l y an i nf ere nc e of “ com mon r el i an ce ” on t he par t of t he class as o pp o se d t o ac t ua l r elia nc e o n a ny pa rti cular dec ept ion. Massac husetts Mutual Life I

nsurance Co. , 97 Ca l. App. 4th at 1293, 119 Ca l . R ptr . 2d at 1 98 . B ec au se

Ca l i f orn i a a n d I l l i n oi s l aw con f l i ct,
we ne xt l ook to the confl

icts law of our f orum state, Il l i noi s. Esser v. McIntyre , 169 Ill. 2d 2 92, 297 (19 96) ; Nelso n v. Hix , 122 Ill . 2d343 (1988 ); R estatem en t (Second) of

Conf l i ct of L aws§122 ( 1971)

. I llino is has adopted the approach fou nd in t he Se co nd Re st at ement of Con f l i ct of L aws

. Morris B. Chapman & Associates, Ltd. v. Kitzman , 193 Ill . 2d 560, 568 (20 00) ; Esser v. McI ntyre , 16 9 I ll. 2d 292, 297 (1996). Following the Restatemen

t, we apply

the broad pr inc iple th at th

e ri gh ts a n d l i ab i l i ti es as to a parti cul ar i ssue are

t o be gove rn ed by the jur isdict ion which r et ains t he “mos t significant relationshi

p” to the occurrence a nd th e parti es. Kitzman , 193 Ill . 2d at 568 ; Ingers oll , 46 I l l . 2d at 4 4; Re sta

tem en t (Se con d) of Confl ict of Law s, In troducti on, at VII- VIII (19 71). We have j ettisoned the lex locidelicti rule–al so t er med t he pla ce-of-the-in

jury rule ( Ingers oll , 46 I ll. 2d a t 47) –and do no t mer ely count contact s, recognizin g that ot her-13- jurisd ictio ns may

ha ve an i nte res t i n th e c ontr ove rs y tha t are not ad eq ua t ely

re flect ed by a s imple tally. Ra t her , o ur app ro ach in see king the appropriate appli

cabl e l aw i s i nf ormed by the is sues rai sed. The par t ies ag re e t hat bot h Illinois and Califor nia have sig nifi cant relationshi

ps to this consum er fraud action, but dif

fer as to whi ch
r ela t io nsh ip is par amou nt . P laintiffs empha si ze t ha t I nt el’ s in ju rycau sing cond

uct occur

red i n C al i f orn ia and also that t he f alse
re pr ese nt at ions ema na t ed fr o m Ca lifo rnia

. I nt el a ss er t s I llino is p ossessesthe more si

gnifi cant contacts, as it is

the pla ce wh er e th e maj ori ty of the pla in tif fs recei ved the re pres en tations, the

pl ace wh ere t he ir re liance o ccu rr ed, and t he pla ce o f inju ry. T he pla int iffs u r ge t his courtto foll ow the a

ppel l ate court i

n re ly in g on s ect ion 6 of t he Re sta tem en t, whi ch appl ie s general

prin ci ple s to al l c auses of a ct ion. Pla int iffs add itio nally assert t hat sec t ion 1 45, which a ppli es general pr inci ple s to al l torts, should al so be used as the f ramework f

or o ur dec ision. Intel responds

that section 148 of the Res tatement provides t he best m

eans f or analy zi ng the i ssues presen

ted i n t his s uit , as it applies specif

ical ly to fraudulen

t mis representat ion cases. Se ction 6 of th e R estate men t se ts f orth se v en el em en tar y prin ci ple s f or c h oi ce -of

-law de ter m i n ati o ns , the f oll owi ng of whi ch are relev ant here: (a) the relev

ant poli ci es of the f

orum state, Illinois; (b) t he rel evan t pol i ci esof Cal i f orn i a a nd the rel ati ve i nte res ts of Ca lifo rnia in the d et er minatio n of t he pa rt icular issue; and (c) the ease in t he appl i ca ti on of the l aw to be appl i ed . Re sta tem en t (Se con d) of Confl ict of Law s §6( 2) ( 197 1); Kitzman , 193 Ill . 2d at 568-69 (u t ili zing relevant facto rs) ; Esser , 16 9 I ll. 2d at 299 (same) ; Nelson , 122 Ill . 2d at 350-51 ( same). As the Rest atemen t not es, the general prin ci ple s in sect ion 6 “leave *** the answer to speci f i c prob l ems very muc h at large,” and theref

ore t he Restatement provides “a sec onda ry st at ement in black let t er set t ing for t h t he cho ice o f law” r ules in a giv en sit ua t io n. Re st at eme nt ( Se co nd ) o f Co nflic t o f L aws, Int ro duc t ion, at VI I I ( 19 71 )

. T he ad mit t ed ge ne r alit y fo un d in t his
com men tary lea ds us t o co nc lud e t ha t we sho uld ap plythe “ sec onda ry st at ement in

bl ack l etter setting f

ort h the ch

oice o f la w” fo un d in
se cti on 148 . Fu rt her , w e believe “t he benc h and ba r ha ve overemph asi zed t he ge ner al sect ions o f the Sec ond Re sta tem en t of Confl ict of Laws, an

d have underva lued t he sp ecific pr esu mpt ive rules.” Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , No. 103858, slip op. at 12-14- (Novemb er

29, 2007). Nevertheless, the em pl oy men t of the se se cti on 6 pri nc i plesdo n o t co mp el the app licatio n of Ca lif or nia law in the pres en t ma tter. As t o t he r elevant po licies of t he fo ru m cons ider at ion, we ha ve r ec en t ly held t hat “Illinois co ur t s have an int er est in not being burdened with a pp l yi ng f oreign l aw i n the ab sence of

strong policy
re aso ns and a

strong connection to the case.” Gridley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins urance C o. , 217 Ill . 2d 158, 175 (2005) (r eject ingthe applic ation of L ouisi ana l aw un d er forum non convenienspr inciples). We ca n id en ti f y no s trong pol i cy rea sons or s t ro ng conn

ection to di

rect us to appl y Cal i f orni a law. F i rst, Ill i noi s mightpr efe rt o ap ply it s la w if it wo uld be t t er pr o t ec t I llino is
consumers. Howev

er, b eca use Cal i f orni a does not requ

i re “i ndi vi dualiz ed dece pti on,”Ca li forni

a l aw seem

s to bett er prot ect
consumers. Yet, it is n

ot apparen t t ha t an y ind ividua l co nsu mer will not be ab l e to p urs

uea c au se of ac ti on un de rI llino is la w fo rhis or her in div idua l i nj ur ie s caused b

y In tel or the speci fi

c computer
man uf acturer. Th

us , th ere doe s n ot appe ar t o be any inter est on t he part of Ill i noi s i n th e a ppl i ca ti on of i ts s tan da rds i n pref ere nc e or deferen ce t o Ca lifo rnia ’s st an da r ds t o pr o t ec t I lli nois consumers. Ne xt, the majo r it y of t he named plaint iff s ar e I lli nois r eside nt s who
re ceive d Int el’ s r ep r es en t at io ns a nd pu r ch as ed t he ir c o mpu t er s in I llino is o r o ve rt he ph o ne o rint er ne t fr o m t he irhome s. The rem ai nder of the nam ed pl ai ntif fs are Mi ssouri resi

dents. Conversel

y, Il li nois has
no connecti on with the n

ationwi de cl ass consistin

g of f oreign re si den ts pur chas ingco mpu t er s c o nt ain ing t he Pe nt ium 4 in a fo reign

state. Fur t her , w e have recently hel d that t he Consum

er Fraud Act appl

ie s o nly t o fr aud ulent t ra nsac t ions t hat t ak e plac e “pr imarily and
su bs t an t iall y” i

ns i de Il l i noi s. Avery , 2 16 I ll. 2d a t 186 . T hus, t he
re levant po licy int er es t o f I llino is wou l d b e to a pp l y Il l i n oi s l aw to t he cla ims of Illi

nois consum ers, whi le excl udin g those clai

ms whi ch d o not have a str ong connection t o Illi nois. Ne x t, as to th e p oli ci es an d i n terests o f

Ca l i f orn i a, i t i s un do ub t ed ly

t rue t ha t Ca lifo rnia ha s a n int er es t in r eg ula t ing I nt el, as its pri nci pal pla ce of bus in

ess i s located there. Fur ther, it is also true that Calif ornia h as a consum

er-friendl y c onsum er prot ection l

aw–as a sui t may be b rought allegi

ng “ comm

on reli ance” rather than

“actual deception”–wh

ic h may inu r e t o t he be ne fit o f pla int if f s. Howe ver,-15- nei ther C ali f or nia co nsu mer s, no rt he int er es t s o f Ca lifo rnia in
r eg ula t ing I nt el, will ne ce ss ar ily su ffer if Illinois law is ap plied in t he insta nt matter. Ca

l i f orn i a h as n o i n terest i n ex ten di n g i ts l aw s to
nonc itizens and to actions that occur red o utside of Cali fornia b ord ers. Norw est Mortgage, Inc. v. Superior Cou rt , 72 Ca l. App. 4th 214, 222, 85 Cal . Rptr. 2d 18 , 23 ( 19 99 )

. Mo r eo ve r , t he co ur t s o f Ca lifo rnia will li kel y h ave the opportunity to decide this is sue under

its own la w. The re cord r ev

ea l s a n oth er pu tati v e n ati on wi de cl as s a cti on wi th allegat ions si

m i l ar to th ose ad va nc ed i n th i s c as e. Thi

s c l as s acti

on seeks a n ati onw i deappl i ca ti on of Cal i f orn i a’ s c ons um er p rotecti on statut es and i s currently

pendi ng in C alifornia s t at e co ur t . S ko ld v. Intel Corp., Case No. RG 04 145635 (Cal . Super. Ct . Alam eda Coun ty). Fin ally, as to sect ion 6’s thi rd re levant fact or , e ase of a pplicat ion, it is se lf-evident that whil

e use of Cal

if ornia l awmay n ot b e d i f f i cul t, t he use by

a forum of i

ts o wn laws does not pre sent any further di f f i cul ty. S ee, e.g. , Tracker Marine , 108 S.W.3d at 358. The app ellate co ur t re ver sed t he circu it co ur t on a misi nt erpret ati

on of an othe r ge ne ral f ac tor f rom se cti on 6 , a f ac tor whi ch is not p articularly

relevan t t o o ur analy

sis. Witho ut cita t ion, t he appe l l ate court stated, “ [t]he n eeds of the i nterstate system

*** requi re one fo rum w it h o ne r es ult ra t her t han r esu lts in 51 jurisd ictio ns wi th the dis tinct po ss ibilit y o f co nflic t ing de cis io ns. ” 3 67 I ll. App. 3d at 10 19

. T his de cl

arati on com pl ete l y i gn ore s th e d i sti n ct i n terests of t he dif feri ng states em

bodie d in

our feder ali st syst em and
constituti onal prece den t. BMW of

North America, Inc. v. Gore , 517 U.S. 559, 570-71, 134 L. Ed. 2d 809, 823-24, 116 S. Ct . 1589, 1596- 97 (19 96) ; In re Bridgestone/Fires tone, Inc. , 288 F.3d 1012, 1018 (7 th Ci r. 2002). Fur ther , t o s at isfy due pr oc ess g uar ant ees , t he Su pr eme Cou

rt h asex pl ai ne d that a cou rt “may not ta kea tra ns ac ti on wi th l i ttl e or n o rel ati ons hi p to t he fo r um a nd ap ply the law of t he forum in order t o satisf

y the procedural requi

remen t t hat there be a ‘c om m onquestion of

la w’ ” Phillips

Petr oleum Co . v. Shutts , 472 U.S. 797, 821-23, 86 L. Ed. 2d 628, 648-49, 105 S. Ct . 2965, 2979- 80 (19 85). Moreov er, an exam

i na ti onof the rea son i ng be hi nd thi s f ac tor shows t ha t it is not f

i t f ort he ap pellat e co ur t ’s pu rp os e t o o bt ain “one forum wi th on e r es ul t.”The g oal

s of th e “ n ee dsof th e i n ter sta te-16- sys t em” pri

n ci pl e a re“ to ma ke the i nterstate and in

ternational

sys t ems work well,” to promote “harm onious rel

ations,” an

d “ to f ac i l i tate
comm ercia l i nte rcou rs e b etw een th

em .” R es tate men t (Se con d) of Confl ict of La ws §6 , C om men t d (1 97 1) . Th

e R estate men t also d i re cts
cou rtsto strive

to ad op t “the sa me c ho ice o f law ” r ule s r efle ct ed in ot her sta tes ’ prec ed en

t. Re sta tem en t (Se con d) of Confl ict of Laws §6, Com men t d (1971). The appli

cation of C alif

ornia l awor Illin

ois l aw, as pla int iffs u r ge in

thi s n ati onw i decl as s, to a ci tizen of W ashi ng ton st at e w ho pu r ch as ed his computer in Washingt on s t at e do es no t hing to impro ve t he har monio us r elat ions be t wee n t he stat es. Thus, we ar e not per sua ded t hat sec t ion 6 o f t he Re st at eme nt co mpe ls us t o ap ply Calif ornia l aw. We now turn to se cti on 1 45 of the Re sta tem en t. Se cti on 14 5 s ets f or thpr inc ip le s to be appli ed to t ort cases, but al so is cast in “great ge ne r alit y” an

d di re cts th at th e “ b est wa y to br i ng pre ci si on into t he field is by atte m pti ng to sta te spe ci al rul esf or pa rti cul ar tor

ts a nd f or particular is sues i n tort .” Restatement (Second) of Conf li ct of Laws §145, Com

men t a (1971); seealso Tow

nsend, sli p op. at 23 (st at ing that a court should begi

n a ch oice-of l aw anal ys is by asce r t ain ing whether a specifi c presum pt ive ru le app lies to t he co nfli ct ). The Rest at ement comm

entary theref

ore directs us to co nsi

der section 148 because t ha t is t he mo st pr ec ise se ct io n inv olved. Nevertheless, pla int iffs ci

te to th i s p as sa gef rom se cti on 145 , c omment f

: “the pl ace of i nj ury does not play

so im port ant a role f

or choice-of-l

aw purposes in the case of fal se advertisi ng *** as in

the ca se of othe r ki nds of to rts. Instead, the prin

ci pal locati on of the def

endan t’s conduct is the contact that wil

l us ua lly be given t he gr eat est weight in det er mini ng t he sta te who se lo cal law d et er mines the rights and l iab il ities that ar ise f rom f alse ad v er ti si n g.” Re sta te me nt (Second) of Confl

ict o f L aws §145, Co mment f

(19 71) . How ever, thi

s is a m i sl eadi ng di scus si on of t he Restatemen

t co m men tary discussi

ng “f alse adv ertisin g” clai ms. The “fa ls e a dver

ti si n g” addr es se d i

n com men t f to section 145 invo lve s a sin

gle-busi ness plain

tiff in jured i n m ultipl e stat es as a consequenc e of a competito r’s “ fal se a dver ti si n g.” A s c om men t f exp lains , in

such a ci

rcumstance the place of i nj ury has l

ess signifi cance because the in div idua l pl ai ntif f ’si nj ury o cc ur s in mu lt iple juri sdictions: “The injury suffere d t hro ugh fa lse ad ver t ising is the l oss of cu stom ers orof trade. Suchcus t omer s o r t ra de w ill freq uent ly be-17- lost i n two or m

ore s tate s.” Re sta tem en t (Se con d) of Confl ict of Laws §145 com

men t f (1971 ). The

ref ore, our re ad in g o f sect ion 6 and
se cti on 145 reveals that section 148 is mo r e a pp r o pr iat e b ec au se it is
a pplied mor e pr ecisely t o c laims based o n false re pr ese nt at ions a nd thus provides

the proper analy

tical fram

ework for our “m

ost significant r elat ionship” app ro ach. Sec ti on 14 8 a pp l i es to “act i ons b

rough t to recover p ecun

i ary d am ages suffer ed o n acc ou nt of false r epr ese nt at ions, whe t he r f ra ud ul en t, ne gl i ge nt or in nocent.” Restatemen

t (Seco nd) of Conf

li ct of La ws §1 48 , C om

men t a (1971). According to this s ection, “[w]h en t he pla in tif f’ s action i

n rel ia nce t o o k p lac e in wh o le o rin p ar t in a state ot her t han t hat wher e t he f

al se re pres en tations we

re m ade,” we ar e to consider these relevan

t factors: (a) t he state wh er e p laint iff ac t ed in reli ance upon defendant’s representat ions, (b ) the state whe re pla int iff
re ceived t he r epr ese nt at ions, (c ) t he st at e whe re defend ant made t he representat ions, (d) t he do micil , r eside nce, place of inco rp or at ion, and pla ce of bus i ne ss o f t he pa r t ies , an d ( e) t he pla ce wh er e a t an gib le t hingwh ich is the subj ect of the transaction b etween the parties was si tuate d at the time . Restatement (Second) of Conf li ct of Laws §148(2) (1971) . Followi

ng these fact or s, t he na med pla int iffs’ law su it pr es en ts us w ith t he maj ority of contact s in Ill in ois, while also pr ovid ingcontacts in Mis souri, Delaw are, Ca lifo rnia , an d p o ss ibly Texas. As we d o no t re so lve this issu e by a mere counting of contact s, butra th er b y th e iss ue s raise d, we ex am

i n e th e l i ste d f ac to rs in
con j un cti on with the c omm

ents accompa

ny in g R es tate men

t se cti on 148. Fo llowing f

ac tors(a), (

b ), a n d ( c) ab ov e, pl

ai n ti ffs ac t ed in reli ance in Illinois and Misso ur i; plaintiffs rec eived t he r epr ese nt at ions inIl lino is a nd Mis so ur i; a nd I nt el ma de t he r ep r es en t at io ns in Calif ornia. Com

men t g states that t he pl

ace wh ere pla

in tif f recei ved t he repr es en

tati on s “con sti tute s a pp rox i mate l y as i m por tan t a contact
as do es t he plac e whe re t he defendan t made the repr esentations. On t he o t he rha nd , t his p lac e is no t so impo r t an t a c o nt ac t as is the pla ce wh ereth e p l ai

n ti f f ac ted i n re l i an ce on th e def

endant’s repre sen tations.”Restatemen

t (Seco nd) of Conf

li ct of Laws §148, Co mment g

( 19 71 )

. He r e, it is und isp ut ed t hat pla int iffs both receiv ed
and relied on t he r epr ese nt at ions in t heir ho me st at es, t hus favo ring the applic ation of Il

li nois or Missouri

la w.-18- U nder factor (d) o f s ection 148, plai ntif fs were domi

ci le d i n I llino is and Missouri, while Intel’s pla ce o f inc o r po r at io n is Del

awar e an d p r inc ipa l pla ce o f bu sine ss is Califor nia. Co mment iexplains t he relative i mportance o f the parties’ domicil es: “The pla int iff’s do micil o rr es id ence ** * a re c onta ctsof substantial

sig nific an ce wh en t he lo ss is pecu ni ary ** *. T his is so because a

financial loss w ill

usu ally be

of g reatest conce

rn to t he st at e wit h which the per so n suffer ing t he los s has t he closestrelationshi

p. *** Th e dom

i ci l , re si de nc e a nd pl ac e of busi nessof the plai

nt iff are more i

mportant than are si

mi la r con tacts on the part o f the def

endan t.” Restat em

ent (Second) of Con f l i ct of La ws §1 48 , C om

men t i(1971 ). T he fi nan ci al loss h ere was the Illi

nois and Missouri resi

de nts’ an d busi nesses’ pa yment o f mo ne y, w hic h o cc ur r ed in I llino is o rMis so ur i, not C al i f orni a. W e agre e w i

th th e R es tate men t tha t thi s c onta ct i s of subs tantial

significance a nd is t he gr eat est co ncer n t o I lli no is o r Mi ssouri because the perso ns suf feri ng the loss hav

e the closest
r ela t io nsh ip t her e. Fur t her , t he pl ai nti f f s’ dom i ci l , Il l i noi s or Mis so ur i, is “m ore im port ant than are si

mi la r contact s o n t he pa r t o f” I nt el in Calif ornia. Rest at ement (Se con d) of Con f l i ct of Law s §1 48, Co mment i(1971 ). Acc or ding to factor (e), t he pl ace where the tangi

ble thin g that
was t he su bje ct o f t he dis pu t e w as lo ca t ed in I lli noi s a nd Mis so ur i. The record is not cle ar as to where t he co mput er s pu rc hase d o ver t he t elepho ne from

Dell we re located at the tim

e of the tra nsac t ion, al thoughDel

l i s headq uartere d i n Texa s. Accordin g to c om men t i , “pl ace wh ere the thing i s situated at the time of the transaction is a contact of some i mportance provided, at l east, that both parties w ere awar e t hat t he thing was si

tuat ed in this pl ace at t hat time.” Because it is not apparent that Int el had a ny spec ifi c no t ion whe re t he nam

ed plai ntif fs’ co mput er s and m

i croproces sors w erel oca

ted at the ti m e of the purchase, the contact is of l ittle s ign if ic ance. The general

approach to sect ion 148 is found i n com men t j , a nd f av ors t he ap plic at io n o f I llin oi s l aw . Ex pou n di n g th at n o “ de f i n i te
rule s” ca n be st at ed , it ass erts, “If an y two of the

*** c ontacts , apart fr om the de f en da nt’ s * ** p l ac e of

bu si ne ss , are l

oca ted wh ol ly i n a si n gle sta te, th i s wi l l

usual l y b e th e state of th e a pp l i ca b l e l aw wi th respectto most i ssues.” Restatement (Second) of Conf li ct of Laws-19- §148, Com

men t j( 1971) . U nque st ionably, mo re t han t wo of t he
con tacts f oreach Il li nois and Missouri n

am ed pla int iff ar e lo ca t ed in I llino is an d M i ss ouri , not Ca

l i f orn i a. A s c om

men t jfurther explai

ns, when a p laint iff pu rc h as es good s i n th e p l ai n ti f f ’s h om e state base d on
re pr ese nt at ions received i

n pl ain tiff s’ home state, t he law o f t ha t ho me state– no t t he de fen da nt ’s pr inc ipa l pla ce o f bu sine ss –w ill us ua lly go ver n: “So when

the pla in tif f acted in rel iance upon t he defendant’s
re pr ese nt at ions in

a sin gle state, t hi s s t at e will usua lly be t he sta te of th e a pp l i ca b l e l aw , w i th re sp ec t to most issues, if (a) t he defend ant ’s r epr ese nt at ions w er e r ece ived by t he p laint iff in th i s state , or (

b ) th i s state i s th e state of th e p laint if

f’s do micilor princi

pal pla ce of bus in

ess.” Restateme

nt (Second) of Con f l i ct of La ws §1 48 , C om

men t j(1971 ). Here, co mment jdir ec t s u s a wa y fro m Ca lifo rnia law , as I llino is and Mi ssouri were t he pl aces of

pla int iffs’ r elian ce , w her e p laint iffs recei ved the representations, an

d t he sta te of pl ai nti f f s’ dom i ci l e or place of b usin ess. We reject several of pl

ain tiff s’ arguments against the

us e of se cti on 148. Fi rst, plai ntif fs argue that se cti

on 1 48 waswri

tten wi th c om mon la wfraud cases, rather t han consum er pro tect ion cases, in

mi nd. Thus,
acc or ding to pla

in tif fs , it should be di scounted because “ rel ia nc e” is not at i ss uehe re. Th at there

wa s s ome l

oose f orm of r elia nc e in t his
case is so unavoidabl e that p lai ntif fs eve n argue i

n thei r bri efs that “Ev ery pla in tif f testif ie d that he or she purch ased Pe nt ium 4 proces sors in r elia nc e o n, an d w as de ce ive d b y, Intel ’scond uct.” The “actual deception” and “as a

r es ult o f” r eq uir eme nt o f I llino is la w (see 815 I LC S 5 05 /1 0a ( We st 20 02 ) ) is di re ctl y an al ogou s to the broad u se of “rel ia nce” i n th e R estate men t; i.e. , t o id ent ify

t he plac e whe re t he pla int iff “p ur ch as ed ” a “t an gib le thin g” based upon the repres en tati on at issue. Rest at ement of

Con f l i ct of La ws §1 48 , C om

men t c (1971 ). Furth er, it is undis puted that at least

som e f orm of reli ance is requi

red under t he laws o f C alif

ornia, Il li nois , and vari

ous ot her states t hro ugho ut t he nat ion. Plai ntif fs’ fur t he rat t emp t t o t ie t his c as e t o Ca lifo rnia law b ecause Inte l’s repres en tation em anated f rom there does not acc or d wit h any previous pre ce de nt of

an y Il l i noi s court. Th

us, we arenot persuaded by pla in tif fs ’ ci tation of our de cision in Martin v. He inhold-20- Commodities, Inc. , 117 Il l. 2d 67 ( 19 87 ) , wh er e w e a pp lied I llino is la w to a na t io nw ide cla ss

. As w e e xp laine d r ec en t ly, t he de cis io n in Martin wa s “s pe cific ally ba se d” o n c er t ain ke y fac t s no t pr es en t in t his
case. Avery , 2 16 I ll. 2d a t 189 . I n Martin , de f en da nt’ s p l ac e of bu sine ss wa s inIllinois and wa s “ mad e m an i f es t to ea ch

mem be r” of t he plai ntif f cl ass. S pe cif

ica lly, th i s c our

t n oted th at Martin was bas ed
on t he fact t hat : “( 1) t he con

tra cts con tai n i n g th e dec ep ti v e state men ts
were all e xe cu t ed in I llino is; ( 2) t he de fen da nt ’s pr inc ipa l pla ceof busi nesswa s inIll

in ois; (3 ) t he c o nt ra ct co nt aine d e xpr es s c ho ice -o fla wand fo ru m-selec t ion clau ses s pec ify ing t hat any litigat ion w ou ld be cond ucted i n Il l i noi s un der I lli nois law ; (4 ) c omp laints r ega rd ing t he defend ant ’s pe rfo rmance wer e t o be directed to its Ch ic ago offi ce; and (5) paymen

ts for t he defen

dant’s services wereto b e s en t to i ts Chi cago off i ce.” Avery , 21 6 I ll. 2d at 189, citin g Martin , 117 Ill . 2d at 82-83 . Indeed, a

pa r t fr o m t he simple fact t hat bot h Int el and t he defend ant in Martin were headq uartere d in

the state whose law pla int iffs sought to appl

y, there are n

o ot her si mi la riti es i n the f ac t s. Thi s c onc l

us i on i s i nd i sti ng ui sh ab l e f rom our pr oc lamatio n in Avery , wh erewe st at ed , “T he ap pe llat e c o ur t ’s co nc lus io n t ha t a s ch eme to de fr aud was ‘diss emi

nated’ from Stat e Farm’s headquart ers i s in suf fi ci ent.” Avery , 216 Ill . 2d at 189. Plai ntif fs’ re liance o n Ingers oll v . Klein , 4 6 I ll. 2 d 4 2 ( 19 70 ) , is also in apposite. That case concern ed a traditional

t or t : a d ro wning in t he Iowa t errito rial

boundaries of the Mi ssis sippi Ri ve r. We stated there t hat “the local

la wo f t he St at e w he r e t he inju ry o cc ur r ed sho uld det er mine th e ri gh ts an d lia bilit ies o f t he pa r t ies , un les s I llino is has a
more significant relationshi p with the occurrenc e and with the parties, in wh i ch ca se , th e l

aw of Ill in ois sh ould appl y.” Ingers oll , 46 Ill . 2d at 45. Here, Il l i

noi s an d Missouri

are the locati ons w

here pl ai ntif f s we re alle ge dly decei ved i nto purchasi

ng a product, and this tran sac t io n is b oth t he plac e o f the “injury” and t he plac e wit h t he most “significant relati onsh i p wi th the occurre nc e an d the parties.” While eit he rI llino is o rMis so ur i law co uld po ss ib ly ap ply
se pa r at ely to the na med pl ai nti f f s’ i nd i vi dua l ca us esof ac ti on acc or ding to the in

di v idua l f acts, plai ntif fs have onl y s ought reli ef under Ill in ois l aw. Further, the ce rti fied qu est ion p re sent s us wit h a choi ce bet wee n only Illinois and Calif ornia. W e therefore ans

wer that I llino is la w applie s he re. Hence, w e agre e with the c ircuit co urt ’s-21- ru ling an d re verse the appel

la te court ’s rul

in g on this is sue. Af ter finding that Il l i n oi s l aw appl i ed to this case, the ci

rcuit court cert if

ie d
a class s olel

y cons isting o f Illinois co nsumer s. P laintiffs make no further ar gu men t t ha t I llino is la w s ho uld be ap pli ed to a nationw

ide class. Neverthel

ess, we agr ee t hat t he cir cu it co ur t wa s c o rr ec t t o limit t he class to Illi

nois consum

ers onl y , as the Illi

nois Consum er Fraud Act appl i es to t r an sa ct io ns t ha t o cc ur “p r imar ily an d s ub st an t ially” in Ill in ois. Avery , 216 I ll. 2d at 18 6. We no w r ev iew t he pr o pr iet y o f t his certif ic ation rul in g under Illi

nois la w.

II. C l as s C erti

f i ca ti on The Co de o f Civ il

Pro cedure allows the mai ntenance of a class ac ti on only if : (1) t he class is

so nu merou s th at j oi nd er of al l mem bers is im practicab le ; (2) there

ar e qu est ions o f fact or law co mmon t o t he class, wh ich co mmo n q ue st io ns p r ed o min ate ov er any que st ions affe ct ing o nly

in div idua l m em bers; (3) t he r ep r es en t at ive pa r t ies will fair ly and adequ at ely pro t ect t he inte re st s o f the class; a nd ( 4) t he class action i s an appr

opriat e met hod for t he fair a nd efficient ad j udi ca ti on o f t he co nt r o ve r sy. 735 ILCS 5/2 –801 (West 200 2) . T he pa rty see ki ng c erti f i cation b ears

t he bu r de n o f de mo nst r at ing t ha t it is appropriate. Gridley , 2 17 I ll. 2d a t 167 . We need no t det er mine whether plai ntif fs satis f y class r eq uir eme nt s be ca us e, as a t hr es ho ld
matter, t he r epr ese nt at ion ident ifi ed by t he plaint iff

s do es no t for m the b as i s of an ac ti on ab l e c l ai

m un der the C on su

mer Fr aud A ct. Sect io n 10a(a) o f the Consumer Fraud Act author izes causes o f
ac ti on f orde ce pti ve bu si ne ss pra cti ce s p rohi bi ted by the A ct. S ec ti on 10a(a) st at es, in relevant part: “ An y pers on wh

o suf f ers actual dam

age asa re sul t of a v i ol ati on of [th e] A ct c om m i tted b y an y othe r pe rs on ma y br i ng an ac ti on agai nst such pers on.”815 ILCS 505 /10a(a) (West 2002)

. A pri

vate cause of a

ction brought under sec

tion 10a(a) requi

res proof of “ac tual dam age.” 815 ILCS 505/10 a(a) (West 200 2). Sec ti on 10a(a) re quir es p ro of t hat t he damag e o ccu rr ed “a s a r esu lt o f” t he dec ept iveact or pr actice. 815 ILCS 505/10a(a) (We st 200 2). To ad eq ua t ely

ple ad a priv

ate cause of acti on for a vi olat i on of se cti on 10a of the A ct, a plaint iff must allege: (1 ) a dec ept iveact or pr actice by the defe nda nt, (2) the

de f en da nt’ s i nte nt th at the p l ai nti f f rel y on t he dec ept ion, (3 ) t he o ccu rr ence of t he de cep t ion i nth e c ours e of conduct invo lvi

ng t ra de o r c ommer ce, and ( 4) act ual da mage t o t he-22- pla int iff, (5) proxi

matel y caus ed b y the dece pti on. Avery , 216 Ill . 2d at 180. The “as

a resul t o f” l anguage i n section 10a(a) im

poses an obl i ga ti on up on a p ri v ate individual see king ac t ual da mages unde r t he Act to “dem onstrate t hat the fraud

compl ai ned of proxi ma tely caused” those dam

ages i n ord er to recover f

or hi s i nj ury

. Oliviera , 201 Ill . 2d at 140, ci ting Zekman v. Direct American Marketers, Inc. , 182 Ill . 2d 359, 373 (1998). Plai

nt if f s a rgue that the u

ni f orm repres en tation implic it in t he na me “P en t ium 4 ”– alle ge dly t ha t t his pr oc esso r w as t he bestand fas t est on t he mark et –wa s su ffi cient to aff

ord recovery

under t he Cons

um er F raud A

ct. Intel re spo nd s t ha t t his imp licit
repr es en tati onis n othi

n g m oreth an pu f f er y , a n d th er ef orei s n ot a “d ec ep t ive ac t ” w it hin t he pu r vie w o f t he Ac t

. We ag r ee wit h I nt el. Pu ffi ng denotes the exaggerati ons reasonab ly expected of a se ll

er as to th e deg

re e of qu al i ty of h i s or h er pr oduct, the

truth or f alsi ty of whi ch can not be preci sel y determ i ne d. Avery , 216 Ill . 2d a t 173 -74. “Puff in g in the usual sense

signifi es m eani ngless superl

ative s that no r ea so na ble person wo uld take seriously, and so it is not actionabl e as f raud.” Speakers of Sport, Inc. v. Proser v, Inc. , 178 F.3d 862, 866 (7 th Cir. 199 9) , c iting Noll v. Peterson , 338 Il l . 552 (1 930); see also Black’s Law Dictionary

1269 (8th ed. 1999) (“the expressi on of an exaggerated

opini on–as opposed to a f

ac tual m i srep re se n tati on –w i th t he intent t o s ell a go od or ser vice. • Pu ffi ng invo lves exp re ssing
o pin io ns, no t as se r t ing so met hing as fac t

. Alt ho ug h t he r e is so me le eway in puff in g goods , a s ell er may

not mi srepresent them

or say that t he y have at t ribut es t hat t hey do not po sses s”) . I n Avery , t his courthel d that t he s t at ement th at th e p rod uc t wa s a

“ qu al i ty
re place ment part” was pu f f i n g. W e a l so c i ted to a strin g of cases that ide ntif ie d t he fo llo win g p hr as es as pu ffer y: “ hig h -qual i ty,” “expe rt workm an sh i p,” “custom qualit y,” “p er fec t , ” “ mag nif i cen t,” “co m f or tabl e,” and “ picture perfect.” Avery , 216 Ill . 2d at 174. I mp o r t an t ly, wef

urth er n oted tha t word s s

uc h as “ be st” are not
ac t io na ble repre sen

tations of f act. Avery , 216 Ill . 2d at 174 (st at i ng “ ‘A general statement thato ne ’s pr o du ct s a r e b es t is no t ac t io na ble
as a m is representat io nof f

act’ ”), quot in

g Stat e v. A merica n TV & Appliance of

Madison, Inc ., 146 Wi s. 2d 292, 302, 430 N.W.2d 709, 712 (1 988). Pla int iffs contend that Intel condi tioned the m

arket t o belie

ve that each gene ra t ion o f the “P en t ium” pr oc esso r w ou ld be bet t er t han t he-23- last and th at t he Pentium

4 was “the best,” as it was t he latest ge ne rati on proces sor. In

su ppor t of t hat po sitio n, p laintiffs highli ght
a n um b er of sta tem en ts made b y In tel sh owi n g th at i t so ug h t to teach t he ma rket t hat “f our is be t t er t ha n t hr ee

. ” P laint iffs a lso po int t o t he ir i nterroga tory answ er s and dep os itio n t est imony which st at e t hat t he in div idua l name d p laint iffs rel

i ed on t he name “P ent ium 4” in making t he ir purchases . But pl aint iffs can o nly i dent ify one st at ement , t he
na me “Pent ium 4,” t hat was communi cated t o t he entire cl

ass. Becau se t his is

in dis tingui shab le from the use of the term

“b est,” a st at ement we found n

ot ac t ionable a s pu ffery in Avery , w e also find that t he implicit re pr ese nt at ion inher ent in t he na me P en t ium 4 i s m ere pu ffe ry. Avery , 216 Ill . 2d at 174, quo ting American TV &Appliance of Madison, Inc. , 146 Wi s. 2d at 302, 430 N.W.2d at 712. Our pr ec ed en t dis allo win g s uc h a ct io ns p r emis ed o n p uffe ry is based on t he so und re aso ningt ha t no r ea so na ble co nsu mer wo uld r ely on such an implic it as se r t io n a s t he so le basis f or maki ng a purchase. A reasonabl

e consum er wou l d n ot rel y on it bec aus e t her e is no t hing spe cific or expli

ci t about t he n

am e “Pen tium 4,” or even i

ts all eged implic it mea

ni ng of “ 4 i s b ette

r than 3” or “ b est,”th at c an

b e s ai d to have a specifi

c attr ib ute ot her than

the actual processor itself

. One can say almo st an yt hing is t he “be st ” b ec au se it i s a m ere sugg esti

on, a belie f, or a

n opi n i on . It i s n ot, st anding al

on e, a r ep re se

n tati on of f ac t. Though plaint iff s may have co rr ect ly f

elt t hat “4 meant better t han 3,” it i s m er el y , a s p l ai n ti f f s c al l i t, “ i m pl i ci t” that i t wa s b est. N o con

cr ete i nf eren ces may be made. F urthe r, an i m pl i ci t repres en tation is not an affirmative o ne, and p laintiffs po int t o no affirmative re pr ese nt at ions
ma de un ifor mly to t he c lass as a w ho le. In de ed , n o name d p laint iff
so lely co nsu lt ed t he na me “P en t ium 4 ” bef ore maki ng the purchase. For exam ple , plai ntif f Donal d Braddy consul ted a De ll adver t isement t ou t ing t he Pentium

4’s h igh performa nce as wel l a s vi

ewed different
com putersin reta i l store s b ef

ore m ak i ng hi s purchase

on Dell’ s Web si te. Pla int iffs mistak enly make much o f the ir exp er t ’s o pinion t hat t he “perf ormance ” o f an y Pe nt ium 4 can be co mpar ed t o a ny Pen tiu m III
ac cord i ng to asi n gl e b en ch mar k. Th i s is a

n i ss ue th e p ar ti es di spute and, if this case we re to go forward, wo uld n eed to be resolved a

t t rial. H ow ever , t her e is no t hingin the “4 i s better than

3” mar ket ing f orm ul ati on that presents more than a v ague p ro mise of so mething-24- better. Notably

, the word “pe rforman

ce” was n

ot a word t hat was
comm unicatedt o t he entire clas s. As suc h, pl ai ntif fs ’ theory requi

res vaguesug ges t ion u p on va gue sug ges t ion: t hat “best ” means “p erf orma nc e,” t hat “per for mance” means “speed,” an d that “speed” can b e tested for all

P4s and P3s ac cording to one benc hm ark. An exam ple il lus trat es our point. The partiesagree that it ca n be determi ned whether t he 1.4 Ghz Wi

ll am ette Pentium 4 i

s “f aster” at t he vi deo gam e Qua ke th an a sp eci f i c Pen tiu m III ru n o n t he sa me computer model with the s am

e confi guration. But this stands i

n f ie rce re l i ef wi th a cl ai m that the Penti

um 4 i s “b etter ” or “best,” a

clai m so vagueas t o lea ve the

sta nd ard s f ori nte rpreta ti on op en to a n um be r of pla us ible cr it er ia fo rjud gme nt

. T his co uld mean t hat t he Pe nt ium 4 is che aper, sm

al le r, more reli

abl e, of hi gher qual ity, better for res ale , more durable, creates less heat, uses less el

ect r icit y , i s m

ore co mpa t ible with s ome versi ons of sof tware, or is simple the lat es t in
a t emp o r al li ne o f

proces sors. B eca

use the term “b etter” as

a m ere sugge sti on in the name “

Pentium 4” is not capable of precise
mea su r ing , it is

me re puff ery an d therefore not actionabl

e under our pr ec eden t. That is true even

if , as the appel

la te court concl

uded, “Intel sp ec ifica lly

set ou t t o s how [t he mark et ] t hat t he Pe nt ium 4 was t he best processor to date.” 367 Ill . App. 3d at 1015. T an ge nt iall y, we al so note t hat a num ber of addi

tional sta tem en ts
ma de by Intel are n

ot actionab le

because n o pl ai n ti f f wa s a wa re of these statem

en ts. Un der Oliveira and i

ts pro geny , plai

ntif fs m ust pr ove that eac h and e ver y cons umer who seeks redress a ctuall y s aw and w as d ece ived by

the statem

en ts i n qu esti on. Avery , 216 Ill . 2dat 200, citi ng Oliveira , 201 Ill . 2d

at 1 55;se e al so Zekman , 182 Ill . 2d at 373 ; Shannon , 208 I l l . 2d at 52 5. I

n th ei r brief s, pl ai n ti f f s c i te in ternal do cument s re lating to Intel’ s role i n developing n

ew ben chm arks as a llegedly dec ept ive to co ns um ers . Internal In tel doc um en ts al so show that Intel was aware of the Pentium

4’ s i n f eri ori ty on certain tests. Neverthel ess, i t is n ot apparent that Intel
ever mad e a ny fa lse pu blic c laim s a s to be nchm arki ng. F urthe r, pla int iffs do not ar gue t hat Int el made a ny un i f orm m i sr ep res en tation re gar ding cl

ock sp ee d, or fal sel y c la im ed that its product possessed a cl ock sp ee d t ha t it di

d n ot have. Intel m

erely asserted that its product
was the hi ghest perform

ance mi cropro cessor, a representation whi ch t he class members d o no t allege t hey all rece ived in co mmon.-25- Ac co r di ng ly, t he cla ss membe r s’ un ifo r m r epresentation–p lai ntif fs’ al l eg ati on that “Intel

h as con di ti on ed th e c on su

mer th rough i ts mark et ing and na ming pra ct ices, t o be lievetha t ea ch ge ne rati on of it s hi gh-perf ormance pr o ce ss o r s is superi or in spe ed and perf ormance to t he pr ev io us ge ne r at io n” an d t he na me “P en t ium 4 ” w as an implic it repres en tation of proces s o rpe r fo r man ce t ha t de ce ive d a ll
consum ers–i s not actionabl

e under t he Il l i n oi s C on su

mer Fr aud A ct. Theref ore, we ov er tur n th e c i rc ui t c our t’s decisi

on regard in

g class
cer t ifi cat ion. Avery , 21 6 I ll . 2d at 125 -26 ; Smith v. Illinois Central R.R. Co. , 22 3 I ll. 2d 44 1 ( 20 06 )

. Be ca us e t his is an adeq ua te b as i s to
re so lvet his dispu t e, we d o no t co nsider Int el’s o t her ar gument
re gar ding t he ind ividua lize d p ur ch as ing de cis io ns o f pla int iffs pr event ing

any predo mi nant questions and damages. We find tha t t he law su it as pr es en t ly co nst it ut ed sho uld not pr oc eed as a class a ct ion.

CONCLUSION For the foregoin

g reasons, we an swe r the certif ie d question as foll ows: I llino is l aw

govern s th e i ss ue s of liabil ity and d amage s in the pr ese nt cas e; t he ac t ion sho uld no t pr oc eed as a class a ct ion. Ac co r di ng ly, we reverse the j udgme nt of the appe lla t e co ur t and
re man d th e c au se to th e c i rc ui t cou rt.
Certified question answ ered; appellate court rever

sed; cause remanded

.
CHIEF JUSTICE THOM

AS a nd J USTICE B URK

E took no part in the consideration or decis ion of this case.