Recently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court (the court) held that under the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA), a defendant can avoid a class action for damages by offering an appropriate remedy to the named plaintiff alone, and is not required to make an offer to the entire putative class. The case arose from a debt collection letter that a consumer alleged violated the WCA and the federal FDCPA by creating a false impression that the consumer might be sued. After the consumer moved for class certification seeking monetary and injunctive relief, the debt collector offered individual relief consisting of actual damages and the WCA’s maximum $1,000 statutory penalty, which the consumer rejected. The circuit court certified the class, reasoning that the remedy must extend to the whole class to avoid rendering class actions meaningless, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. In a 6-1 decision, the court reversed the lower courts’ decision and remanded the case to the circuit court.

Under § 426.110(4)(a), a customer must provide written notice notifying the defendant of the alleged claim or violation and demanding it correct or otherwise remedy the basis for the claim at least 30 days prior to filing a class action for damages under the WCA. The majority of the court held that the statutory structure of § 426.110(4) distinguishes between the named plaintiff under paragraph (c) and a remedy to the putative class under paragraph (d), and that the requirements to pursue a class action for damages are not met if the defendant offers the customer who provided the required notice to the defendant a timely and appropriate remedy. The court explicitly acknowledged that its interpretation allows a class action for damages to be stopped “before it even begins” but reasoned that the legislature chose to incentivize making an affected customer whole quickly, while preserving the class action mechanism if the customer does not receive an appropriate remedy.