Because the district court did not appropriately analyze the class certification requirements, according to the dissent, Tyson Foods could be held liable to a large group without proof that each individual within the class was injured. The dissent suggested that the majority also opinion improperly construed the predominance inquiry, relaxed the rule for representative evidence, and failed to adhere to prior precedent. Implications Tyson Foods made headlines when it reached the Supreme Court. Legal commentators also blogged about the case. Though relatively recent, it has already been cited in other cases and been a popular topic of legal scholarship. Experts continue to discuss Tyson’s legacy, particular how the case will impact the predominance inquiry and whether the use of representative evidence will expand. Selected Supreme Court and Federal Courts of Appeals Cases FTS USA LLC v. Monroe, 137 S. Ct. 590, 590 (2016) (Supreme Court granted, vacated, and remanded in light of Tyson Foods). Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 136 S. Ct. 2198, 2241 n.19 (2016) (citing Tyson Foods for the proposition that you could use representative samples when needed because employers did not keep sufficient records). Vaquero v. Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc., 824 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Tyson Foods for the proposition that needing to calculate individual damages does not per se defeat the predominance inquiry for class certifications). Day v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 827 F.3d 817, 833 (8th Cir. 2016) (similar). In re Petrobras Sec., 862 F.3d 250, 270-71 (2d Cir. 2017) (describing the predominance inquiry laid down in Tyson Foods). Taha v. County of Bucks, 862 F.3d 292, 308 (3d Cir. 2017) (similar). Selected Scholarship Michael G. McLellan, Statistical Evidence, Antitrust Impact, and Class Certification: Tyson Foods and Antitrust Class Actions, ANTITRUST, Fall 2017, at 51 (discussing the issues present in Tyson in the antitrust context and how Tyson’s holding might influence antitrust litigation). Daniel Yablon, Note, Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo: A Murky Future for Representative Evidence in Rule 23(b)(3) Class Actions and FLSA Collective Actions, 38 BERKELEY J. EMP. & LAB. L. 327 (2017) (describing Tyson Foods and speculating on the difficulties lower courts may have in determining when and how to use representative evidence). Hillel J. Bavli & John Kenneth Felter, The Admissibility of Sampling Evidence to Prove Individual Damages in Class Actions, 59 B.C. L. REV. 655 (2018) (proposing a method to determine when to use sampling