Standing remains a powerful defense to putative class actions. Recently, a New Jersey federal court relied on Article III standing to dismiss a lawsuit against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc. alleging that it made false and misleading representations about the safety and efficacy of certain cholesterol drugs despite initiating a recall of those drugs. Chambers et al. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., case number 2:25-cv-02984, Docket No. 23 (D.N.J. June 17, 2026) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The Chambers plaintiffs were individuals who had purchased one of the cholesterol drugs manufactured by defendant. The named plaintiffs allege that defendant later recalled certain lots for that specific drug. Plaintiffs asserted on behalf of a putative nationwide class and certain subclasses that these four drugs are “not reasonably fit, suitable, or safe for their intended purpose” and that defendant made false and misleading representations that the drugs “were safe, effective, and manufactured in compliance with applicable laws and standards” where defendant knew or should have known the drugs were subject to recall due to noncompliance with FDA regulations. Plaintiffs brought claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, among other claims.
In dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint, the court held that plaintiffs failed to establish the first element of standing—injury in fact—as to themselves for their alleged personal injuries and for the alleged injuries of the purported class members. The court therefore declined to consider the remaining standing elements, or the merits of plaintiffs’ claims. Referencing the Third Circuit’s Huertas decision for the proposition that a plaintiff must “plausibly allege that their products were [defective],” Huertas v. Bayer US LLC, 120 F.4th 1169, 1178 (3d Cir. 2024) (emphasis in original), the court reasoned that Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are conjectural and hypothetical because they do not allege that they purchased or consumed a particular drug from a recalled lot.
The Chambers decision reinforces the critical role that standing continues to play in class actions, namely that class action plaintiffs must establish an injury-in-fact that is concrete and actual, to establish Article III standing.