In In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, 725 F.3d 244 (D.C. Cir. 2013), the district court certified a class to pursue an antitrust claim. The certification debate was a battle of the experts. Plaintiffs’ expert proposed a model that would permit class-wide computation of damages; defendants’ expert argued the model was not acceptable. The D.C. Circuit concluded that the potential liability in the case could threaten the financial stability of defendants, justifying interlocutory review. As to the merits, the court stated “common questions of fact cannot predominate where there exists no reliable means of providing classwide injury in fact.” In this case, plaintiffs’ damage model had a propensity towards false positives. That is, it calculated damages in instances in which no damages were available. Because the district court had ruled before Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), in which the Supreme Court reversed the certification of a class where damages resulting from the unlawful conduct could not be shown on a classwide basis, the D.C. Circuit remanded the case for consideration of the impact of Comcast on class certification in light of the flaws in the damage model.