In Byrd v. Aaron’s Inc.,784 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2015) (No. 14-3050), plaintiffs complained that defendant, a computer lessor, had invaded their privacy by activating spyware that kept track of websites visited, keystrokes, and webcam images from the leased computers.  The district court in Pennsylvania denied certification, finding that it would be difficult to ascertain whose computers had improperly been the subject of eavesdropping.  The Third Circuit reversed.  The court concluded that the ascertainability inquiry is twofold, requiring plaintiff to show (1) that the class can be defined by objective criteria, and (2) there is a reliable, feasible mechanism for determining who falls within the class.  The Third Circuit found the class was ascertainable because the individuals who leased computers could be determined from the defendants’ records.  In an important concurring opinion, Judge Rendell suggested the Third Circuit modify its ascertainability standards.  Judge Rendell stated the second criteria – whether there is a reliable and feasible mechanism for determining whether putative class members fall within the class definition – should not be a question for class certification, but should be left to the discretion of the district court in administering the case or a class action settlement.