Whether a federal court may certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class when almost no one in the class has suffered an Article III injury, and whether a federal court may circumvent Article III and Rule 23(b)(3) by characterizing a remote risk of harm as an 'overpayment'

This case presents two important and recurring questions at the intersection of Article III standing and class action law. In its decision below, the Ninth Circuit exacerbated circuit splits on both questions. This petition offers an ideal vehicle for resolving them . The questions presented are: 1. Whether a federal court may certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class when almost no one in the class has suffered —or will suffer —an Article III injury. 2. Whether a federal court may circumvent Article III and Rule 23(b)(3) by characterizing a remote risk of harm as an “overpayment .”