Opinion ID: 175979
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Good Faith Compliance

Text: In conducting its Rule 23(b)(3) analysis, the district court also concluded that a class action would not be a superior method of adjudication because AMC demonstrated good faith by complying with FACTA within a few weeks of the filing of Plaintiff's Complaint. This limits the deterrent effect of a class action. We hold that the district court's consideration of AMC's post-complaint good faith compliance was inconsistent with congressional intent in enacting FACTA. Congress did not include any safe harbor or otherwise limit damages for good faith compliance with the statute after an alleged violation. The mere fact that AMC changed the content of its receipts to comply with FACTA after the lawsuit was filed does not suggest that certification of the class would have limited deterrent effect. To the contrary, we are quite sure that certification of a class here would preserve, if not amplify, the deterrent effect of FACTA. Because Bateman's complaint clearly alleged that he was seeking classwide damages, we can reasonably surmise that AMC's speedy compliance with FACTA was promoted, at least in part, by the specter of a substantial damages award. Thus, to deny class certification on this ground would communicate to other potential violators that, as long as they comply with FACTA after a complaint is filed, they may avoid liability for widespread violations. In other words, to deny class certification on this ground undermines the deterrent effect of FACTA itself.