Last year was an eventful one for the Fourth Circuit's class action docket. A long-gestating case involving data breaches of Marriott's computer systems finally concluded. The Court continued to grapple with the Supreme Court's consequential 2021 decision, TransUnion, LLC v. Ramirez. And the Court definitively, well, slammed the door shut on using state "door-closing" statutes, and other state procedural devices, to avoid class certification.
Below are six themes that emerged from the Fourth Circuit's 2025 class certification decisions—and what those decisions ultimately mean for attorneys, businesses, and the future of class action litigation in the Circuit.
1) The Fourth Circuit isn't afraid to take interlocutory class certification appeals, and if it does, it's likely to reverse.
For starters, in 2025, the Fourth Circuit appeared more likely to grant Rule 23(f) appeals than its sister circuits. Appellate review is ordinarily unavailable until a case reaches final judgment. But class actions are a notable exception. Once a district court grants or denies class certification, the court of appeals may permit an immediate, interlocutory appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). Because class actions are often won or lost at certification, granting review under Rule 23(f) will often functionally decide the case.
If last year's docket is any indication, the Fourth Circuit tends to grant interlocutory review more frequently than its sister circuits. The First, Second, and Tenth Circuits, for instance, issued no published opinions on Rule 23(f) review in 2025. And the Third and Fifth Circuits issued just one apiece. Meanwhile, the Fourth Circuit issued five—and that's not even counting appeals from a final order that had previously been up on Rule 23(f) review.
What's more, it didn't matter if the district court granted or denied certification; the Fourth Circuit took all comers. Of the Fourth Circuit's five published Rule 23(f) decisions, three arose from denials and two from grants. The Court, in other words, didn't reserve interlocutory review only for those cases where certification was either granted or denied; it took both types.
When the Fourth Circuit granted Rule 23(f) review, it did so to reverse. Of the published decisions that resulted from Rule 23(f) review this year, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court in all but one. That track record suggests the Court typically grants petitions when it has identified a likely error in the district court's certification order.
Bottom Line:
- The Fourth Circuit tends to hear more interlocutory Rule 23(f) appeals than other circuits.
- The Court generally grants 23(f) review equally for certification grants and denials.
- If the Court takes your case under Rule 23(f), it's likely looking to reverse the district court's decision.
2) Commonality and predominance continue to rule the docket.
When it comes to the substance of the Fourth Circuit's class certification decisions, the most consistent theme in 2025 was careful scrutiny of Rule 23(b)'s commonality and predominance requirements.
Most class actions proceed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which requires that common question of law "predominate" over other, more individualized issues. Defendants hoping to prevent certification routinely argue that individual questions outnumber common questions, making class treatment inappropriate. The Fourth Circuit's decisions this year suggest this argument is increasingly persuasive, as the Court closely scrutinized that issue in a number of its opinions.
In Freeman v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company, for instance, the district court certified a class that had alleged that an insurance company underpaid vehicle claims by using a certain formula to calculate the vehicles' "actual cash value." The Fourth Circuit reversed, concluding that common legal issues still didn't predominate. Although the company had used the same formula to calculate each vehicle's actual cash value, the formula was only part of the problem.
To determine each class member's damages, the factfinder would still need to calculate what their vehicle was worth in the first place. Without that individualized inquiry, the factfinder couldn't say whether the company had paid less than actual cash value under the formula and, thus, couldn't say whether a particular class member had actually lost money. For that reason, common questions didn't predominate and the plaintiffs couldn't proceed as a class.
Indeed, within a single case, the Fourth Circuit applied the predominance analysis claim-by-claim and decertified the class as to some claims while allowing others to proceed. In Glover v. EQT Corp., the Court affirmed certification of breach of contract claims because common questions about royalty practices predominated. But it decertified the class as to its fraudulent concealment claim because proving "reliance"—a necessary element for fraud—would require individualized fact questions that would eclipse common issues.
Bottom Line:
- Courts won't certify a class just because claims stem from the same action. Common questions still have to predominate over individual issues in litigation.
- Some claims—like fraud—are harder to pursue class-wide because they tend to require individualized proof.
- Certification of one claim doesn't mean all claims should proceed as a class.
3) Class action waivers are alive and well.
The Fourth Circuit made clear this year that it will enforce class action waiver provisions in contracts, and that plaintiffs can't wiggle out of them easily.
Consider Maldini v. Marriott International Inc., a case arising from data breaches involving hotel chain Marriott. There, Marriott had agreed to participate in multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceedings, which, somewhat like a class action, allow a single judge to manage pre-trial proceedings for countless individual suits. Later, the district court certified a damages class, concluding that, by participating in the MDL, Marriott had waived its right to enforce a class action waiver found in each plaintiff's "preferred guest" contract with Marriott.
The Fourth Circuit disagreed. It emphasized that MDLs are consistent with agreements to litigate "individually"—because unlike class actions, each plaintiff maintains her own individual action in an MDL even though cases are consolidated for administrative purposes. In other words, participation in an MDL generally won't prevent defendants from enforcing class action waivers.
The Court also reaffirmed that class action waivers are typically enforceable in federal court, rejecting arguments that the waivers conflicted with Rule 23 or were unconscionable under New York law.
Bottom Line:
- Properly drafted class action waivers remain enforceable, even when defendants participate in MDLs.
- Class action waivers generally hold up in the Fourth Circuit, although enforceability depends on governing state law.
4) Post-TransUnion, the Fourth Circuit will scrutinize all class members' standing.
In 2021, the Supreme Court held in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez that every class member must have Article III standing—that is, she must have suffered concrete harm, not just some abstract injury caused by the violation of a statutory right. Otherwise, she can't be part of the class.
The Fourth Circuit grappled with that holding this year in Alig v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC. There, a putative class alleged they paid for "independent" home appraisals that weren't actually independent. The Fourth Circuit held that not all proposed class members suffered sufficient injury. According to the Court, although the appraisals increased the risk of inflated mortgage debts, that risk wasn't sufficiently concrete. More specifically, it wasn't certain the appraisals actually would result in inflated debts. So those individuals couldn't comprise a class.
Bottom Line:
- When defining a class, ensure each member by definition will have suffered concrete injury. Risk of future harm isn't enough.
- By the same token, when trying to defeat certification, analyze whether each member suffered actual damage—or merely might
5) State procedural rules can't defeat certification.
This year, the Fourth Circuit effectively put the kibosh on any attempt to use state procedural rules to prevent certification.
For example, some states have enacted laws that prohibit out-of-state plaintiffs from suing out-of-state defendants for actions that didn't arise in that state—also known as "door-closing" statutes. In Grice v. Independent Bank, the defendant argued South Carolina's door-closing statute meant nonresident plaintiffs whose claims didn't arise from events in South Carolina couldn't be included in the proposed class.
The Fourth Circuit disagreed. It held that Rule 23 provides the exclusive criteria for class certification, so any state law imposing additional requirements on certification—like the South Carolina door-closing statute at issue—conflicts with Rule 23. Under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, Rule 23 (and not state law) controls when that kind of conflict exists.
Bottom Line:
- In the Fourth Circuit, defendants can't use state door-closing statutes to prevent class certification.
6) A putative class must be "defined"—providing a list of members isn't enough.
A prospective class representative might think that, given the complexities of defining a class that comports with Rule 23, he might just be better off giving the court a list of specific class members. Not so, said the Fourth Circuit this year.
In Mr. Dee's Inc. v. Inmar, Inc., the plaintiff attempted to identify a class by pointing to a list of specific businesses in an appendix. The Fourth Circuit held that wasn't sufficient. It reasoned that Rule 23 requires courts to "define" the class—that is, identify a class using descriptive terms. But a court can't certify a class based on any "definition" if the putative class never provides one and instead offers only a list of names.
Bottom Line:
- A putative class can't satisfy Rule 23 with just a list. It must instead provide the court with a carefully crafted definition.
Practical Implications for Businesses and In-House Counsel
Businesses and class action litigators alike can glean several insights from the Fourth Circuit's 2025 docket when it comes to pursuing—or defending against—a class action.
First, class action waivers remain one of the most effective tools for limiting class exposure. Maldini confirms that properly drafted waivers hold up in the Fourth Circuit, even in standard form contracts. It's always a good idea to review customer-facing agreements to determine whether they include enforceable class action waivers. And don't assume MDL participation prevents the court from enforcing a contractual waiver—it likely won't.
Second, think strategically about timing. If a district court certifies a class against you, or refuses to certify your proposed class, an immediate interlocutory appeal may be worth your time. If you're a business faced with a class action, such an appeal may be your best shot at killing the case before settlement pressure mounts. And if a defendant successfully defeated certification, plaintiffs should be willing to pursue an appeal, or otherwise risk losing their edge.
Third, invest early in developing—and building evidence to support—a predominance narrative. The Fourth Circuit's rigorous approach to commonality and predominance means a well-developed factual record at certification can be functionally dispositive. If you're defending against a class action, work with counsel to identify early whether proving liability or damages requires individualized inquiries. If so, that's your strongest argument—but only if you've built the evidentiary foundation. If the shoe is on the other foot, consider how to frame your claims and class such that it requires minimal individual analysis. Focus your factual development in the same direction.
Finally, consider TransUnion's standing requirements. Not every alleged violation of the law results in concrete harm to every person affected. If a proposed class includes members who haven't suffered actual injury—only a risk of future harm—certification may be vulnerable. Work with litigation teams to analyze whether alleged harm is truly universal or whether some putative members weren't actually damaged. Rigorous standing analysis can defeat overbroad class definitions.
Looking Ahead to 2026
If 2025 is any indication, the Fourth Circuit will continue to scrutinize class certification decisions closely, and won't hesitate to reverse district courts that get it wrong. Expect rigorous enforcement of Rule 23's requirements, particularly on commonality and predominance, and expect the Court to examine whether every putative class member has standing.
With the Fourth Circuit granting interlocutory review more frequently than most sister circuits—and reversing in most cases—parties on both sides should be prepared to fight certification battles at the appellate level while cases are still live. The key is using the tools the Court has provided early and strategically.
As we move into 2026, expect certification fights to remain as consequential as ever.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
