As noted in a recent post, defendants in proposed class action suits commonly argue that the named plaintiff only has standing to represent those who purchased the very same product that the plaintiff bought.  This argument appeared again in Reid v. GMC Skin Care USA Inc., 2016 WL 403497 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016), with the defendant arguing that plaintiffs lacked both Article III and class standing to assert claims in connection with products they didn’t buy.  

In Reid, the court concluded that because the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged standing, individually, with respect to the product that plaintiffs did purchase, Article III standing was satisfied and dismissal was inappropriate.  The court held that whether plaintiffs could pursue claims based on other products amounted to a question of class standing, which was better “addressed at the class certification stage.”  Reid, 2016 WL 403497, at *3-4.