Class certification; FedRCivP 23; Whether all class members must experience an alleged defect in order to establish Article III injury-in-fact for a proposed class; Whether “diminished value” is sufficient to establish standing; Claims brought under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA); Waiver of arbitration rights

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] Considering the district court’s class certification ruling, the court held for the first time in a published case that alleging overpaying for a defective product sufficiently provides plaintiffs with Article III standing. Thus, it affirmed the district court’s order certifying the class. Plaintiffs sought class certification for their claims involving alleged defects in defendant-GM’s 8L45 and 8L90 transmissions in vehicles purchased between 2015 to 2019. The district court granted their motions to certify 26 statewide subclasses, ruling that three common questions predominated: (1) whether the transmission design has one or more defects that made it unsuitable for ordinary use; (2) whether GM knew of the defects and concealed them from buyers; and (3) whether the withheld information was “material” to a vehicle purchaser. GM argued that the decision to certify was an abuse of discretion. The court noted that it had “not yet concretely decided whether all class members must actually experience an alleged defect in order to establish Article III injury-in-fact for a proposed class.” The court had “never resolved in a published case whether diminished value suffices to establish standing,” although it had discussed the issue in an unpublished case. Here, all the named putative class members had purchased vehicles with either the 8L45 or 8L90 transmission from 2015 to 2019, had “experienced one or both of the issues with the 8L transmission in their car, and claim that they would not have bought their vehicle if they had known about these issues.” The court joined other circuits by holding that “alleging overpaying for a defective product sufficiently provides the Plaintiffs with Article III standing.” It also held that GM failed to show that “individualized issues” predominated over the common questions of law and fact. The court also agreed with the district court that “GM had acted inconsistently with, and therefore waived, its right to arbitrate various of the” claims. As to the MCPA claim, the district court concluded “that one of the central questions that would predominate in this class action was ‘proof of intentional concealment or deception by’ GM.” The court found that there was “nothing that would compel [it] to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in including the Michigan Plaintiffs in the class.”