No Harm, No Causation, No Standing: Hudson v. The Boppy Company Reinforces Traceability in Benefit-of-the-Bargain Class Actions

1. Introduction

The Tenth Circuit’s decision in Hudson v. The Boppy Company, LLC (No. 24-1322, decided 1 July 2025) squarely addresses Article III standing in the context of post-recall consumer class actions predicated on “benefit-of-the-bargain” economic loss. The case arises from the 2021 nationwide recall of three million Boppy newborn loungers following reports of eight infant deaths. Plaintiff–appellant Jowanna Hudson—who purchased and used the product without incident in 2018—sought class-wide relief for breach of express and implied warranties and unjust enrichment, premised on four allegedly misleading statements published on Boppy’s website.

The district court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) for failure to state a claim, largely on the ground that the challenged statements were non-actionable puffery. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed—but on the independent, jurisdictional basis that Hudson lacked Article III standing because she failed to plead traceability (causation). The panel held that absent allegations showing she saw or relied on Boppy’s statements before purchase, any claimed economic injury is not “fairly traceable” to the defendant’s conduct.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Holding: Hudson lacks Article III standing; her putative class action is dismissed. The court therefore does not reach the merits of whether the statements were puffery.
Key Rationale:
- Article III requires an injury in fact, traceability, and redressability.
- Even assuming a monetary injury (refund differential) exists, Hudson failed to allege a causal link—i.e., that but for Boppy’s statements she would not have bought the product.
- Because two statements post-dated her purchase and she never alleged exposure to any of the four statements, the “benefit-of-the-bargain” theory cannot supply traceability.
- The court may (and sometimes must) consider standing sua sponte; Boppy had “pressed” traceability in the district court, satisfying preservation concerns.
Disposition: Judgment of dismissal affirmed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The panel grounded its reasoning in a line of Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit cases emphasizing the tripartite standing requirements:

Article III Text, U.S. Const. art. III, § 2.
Bertels v. Farm Bureau Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 123 F.4th 1068 (10th Cir. 2024) – recited the modern standing formula.
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. 367 (2024) – contemporary Supreme Court expression of the same test.
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) – named class representatives must personally satisfy standing prerequisites.
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) – concrete injury requirement; footnote 6 reiterates individual standing in class context.
Santa Fe Alliance for Public Health & Safety v. City of Santa Fe, 993 F.3d 802 (10th Cir. 2021) – clarified that courts must examine standing sua sponte.
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021) – recognized monetary harm as a concrete injury.

Two additional district-level cases informed the court’s discussion:

Sanchez v. Ford Motor Co., No. 13-cv-01924, 2014 WL 2218278 (D. Colo. May 29, 2014) – advertising not seen by plaintiff cannot cause injury.
Ivar v. Elk River Partners, LLC, 705 F. Supp. 2d 1220 (D. Colo. 2010) – formula for measuring “benefit-of-the-bargain” damages; quoted by Hudson.

Together, these authorities underscore that traceability is independent from concreteness; plaintiffs bear the burden of connecting the dots between the defendant’s conduct and their personal loss.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The court’s analytical path can be distilled into four steps:

Identification of Alleged Injury: Hudson alleged economic loss—she paid $30, used the lounger five months, and later received only $9 via recall refund.
Examination of Causal Link: The panel asked whether any of the four challenged website statements induced Hudson’s 2018 in-store purchase. Two statements did not exist until 2021; no allegation showed she saw the others. Therefore, causation was missing.
Rejection of ‘Post-Purchase’ Reliance Theory: Exposure to statements after completing a transaction cannot logically cause that transaction. The court implicitly rejected arguments that safety misrepresentations create a standing injury divorced from reliance.
Procedural Posture Matters: Although the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) rather than Rule 12(b)(1), the appellate court had an “independent obligation” to confirm jurisdiction. Because traceability was “pressed” below, the argument was fair game on appeal.

Importantly, the opinion reserves judgment on whether a pure benefit-of-the-bargain theory ever suffices for standing. Instead, it clarifies that even when economic injury is alleged, traceability is a discrete hurdle.

3.3 Impact and Significance

The decision will likely reverberate across several spheres:

Consumer Product Recalls: Plaintiffs who used recalled products without physical harm must now carefully allege pre-purchase exposure to actionable misrepresentations.
Benefit-of-the-Bargain Claims: The opinion erects a high bar in the Tenth Circuit: price-premium or refund theories must be linked to specific, individualized reliance allegations—generalized “safety” marketing may not suffice.
Class Action Strategy: Pleadings must contain individualized facts for the named representative; failure risks dismissal before class certification, conserving judicial resources.
Appellate Preservation: Defendants can revisit or sharpen standing arguments on appeal if they were “pressed” below, even if a district court decided the case on other grounds.
Cross-Circuit Dialogue: Other circuits (e.g., Ninth Circuit’s Hinojos v. Kohl’s Corp.) have endorsed benefit-of-the-bargain standing with looser reliance requirements. The Tenth Circuit’s stance could feed a developing split warranting eventual Supreme Court review.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Article III Standing: A Constitutional gate-keeping rule requiring plaintiffs to (1) show an injury, (2) prove the injury was caused by the defendant, and (3) demonstrate the court can fix or compensate the injury.
Traceability (Causation): The second prong of standing. It asks: “Did the defendant’s specific actions cause my specific harm?” Not to be confused with tort causation—it is a jurisdictional prerequisite.
Benefit-of-the-Bargain: A measure of economic loss where the buyer claims the product’s true value is less than what was promised, even if it functions. Example: Paying full price for “organic” produce later discovered to be non-organic.
Puffery: Vague, superlative marketing language (“world’s best coffee”) that consumers do not reasonably rely on as factual; not actionable under warranty or fraud theories.
Sua Sponte: Latin for “of one’s own accord.” Courts have a duty to address certain issues (like standing) even if parties do not raise them.
Recall Refund Differential: The gap between the purchase price and the amount refunded during a product recall. Hudson alleged a $21 shortfall ($30 paid – $9 refunded).

5. Conclusion

Hudson v. The Boppy Company reaffirms a fundamental, yet sometimes overlooked, aspect of federal jurisdiction: plaintiffs must plausibly allege that the defendant’s challenged conduct caused their personal injury. Even in consumer-friendly contexts—post-recall litigation invoking product safety—Article III’s traceability requirement remains “irreducible.” The Tenth Circuit’s opinion serves as a cautionary precedent for litigants crafting benefit-of-the-bargain theories: without concrete allegations of pre-purchase reliance on specific misrepresentations, economic-loss class actions may founder at the standing threshold. Future consumer plaintiffs within the circuit must therefore plead not only what was lost, but also how the defendant’s statements or omissions induced the loss. The decision narrows the pathway for nationwide safety-recall class actions and signals the judiciary’s continuing vigilance in policing the boundaries of federal jurisdiction.