In Algarin v. Maybelline, LLC, No. 12-cv-3000 (S.D. Cal. May 12, 2014), plaintiffs brought suit challenging Maybelline’s advertising of certain cosmetic products, and moved for class certification.  Defendant, relying on Carrera and other recent cases, argued the class was not ascertainable.  The district court concluded the class definition was sufficient to identify class members, but found there would be challenges in managing the class because the class members would be difficult to identify in an administratively feasible manner.  The court did not, however, deny class certification on this ground.  Instead, it denied class certification because there was a lack of commonality.  Relying on defendant’s survey evidence, the court found objective evidence demonstrated that a substantial number of class members were not misled by Maybelline’s advertising.  In addition, whether the conduct was false, misleading, or likely to deceive was not subject to common proof.  The court further found economic injury was not a common question as many class members were satisfied with the products, and a determination of a proper remedy also could not be made on a class-wide basis.