In Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, No. 15-1776 (7th Cir. July 28, 2015), the Seventh Circuit declined to follow the Third Circuit’s recent ascertainability decisions and clarified the scope of the ascertainability doctrine in the Seventh Circuit. Plaintiffs alleged consumer fraud by the seller of a dietary supplement. The district court certified a class and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court recognized that existing law required that a class be defined clearly by objective criteria rather than, for example, a class member’s state of mind, vague or subjective criteria, or in terms of success on the merits (the “fail safe” class). The Seventh Circuit rejected the additional requirement that there be a “reliable and administratively feasible way” to identify those who fall within the class definition. The court found that this additional ascertainability requirement had the effective of skewing the balance that district courts must strike when deciding to certify classes, with the effect of barring class actions where class treatment is most often needed – cases involving relatively low-cost goods, small damage claims, or where plaintiffs are unlikely to have documentary proof of class membership – and concluded that issues relating to the appropriateness of the class can better be dealt with under the superiority doctrine or in the context of fashioning notice. The court recognized that its ruling disagreed with several recent rulings, notably those of the Third Circuit.