Opinion ID: 1449245
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: This case differs from Craft

Text: For support, Pennington relies heavily on the court of appeals decision in Craft . The plaintiffs in Craft filed suit to recover damages and other relief under the Merchandising Practices Act . . . on claims arising out of [Philip Morris'] marketing of `light' cigarettes. 190 S.W.3d at 374. The court of appeals approved the following class: All residents of Missouri who purchased and consumed Defendants' Marlboro Lights cigarettes in Missouri, at any time between the five years immediately preceding the filing of the Petition in this suit through the date the Court originally certified this suit as a class action (December 31, 2003), but who do not have a claim for personal injury resulting from the purchase or consumption of cigarettes. Id. On the surface, Craft looks similar to the case at bar. However, Pennington's reliance on Craft is of no avail. First, the economic injuries suffered in the two cases are substantially different. According to the complaint in Craft , the plaintiffs thought they purchased light cigarettes, but the cigarettes they received had the characteristics of regular cigarettes. Id. at 375. Additionally, the plaintiffs in Craft alleged that they were aggrieved and suffered ascertainable losses because they failed to receive the qualities and economic value of a law tar, low nicotine cigarette. Id. That is, all consumers suffered an economic injury that was based on an objective characteristic. Here, however, all purchasers of fountain Diet Coke received fountain Diet Coke. The alleged injury was based on a subjective preference against saccharin. Pennington does not attempt to quantify any difference in the economic value between saccharin and non-saccharin Diet Coke. Second, the management difficulties encountered in Craft pale in comparison to those that would be encountered here. The total number of class members here is unknown. At a minimum, many more individuals probably drank fountain Diet Coke than smoked light cigarettes. Recognizing that individual notice would be impossible, Pennington suggests notice by publication. When it comes time to identify the class members, if they could be identified at all, consumers would have to not only recall the amount of fountain Diet Coke they purchased out of the innumerable fountain beverages they purchased during the past five years, but also that they would not have purchased fountain Diet Coke if they had known it contained saccharin. [9]