Typicality
Typicality means the named plaintiff's claim is like the claims of the rest of the class, not unusual or in conflict with theirs.
Also called: typicality requirement, Rule 23(a)(3), typical claims
Typicality means the named plaintiff's claim is like the claims of the rest of the class, not unusual or in conflict with theirs.
What it means
Typicality is the Rule 23(a)(3) requirement that "the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class." The person suing for the class has to have the same kind of claim as the people they represent.
Typical doesn't mean identical. One federal appeals court, the Ninth Circuit, asks three questions. Do other class members have the same or a similar injury? Is the case based on conduct that isn't unique to the named plaintiff? Were other members hurt by the same course of conduct? A plaintiff with an unusual story, such as a special contract, may not be typical. The case could end up being about their situation instead of the class's.
The Supreme Court has noted that typicality, commonality and adequacy tend to merge. All three help the judge decide whether the named plaintiff's claim and the class's claims are so closely tied that the class will be protected.
What it means for you
Typicality is why the named plaintiff in a case usually looks like an ordinary customer, user or patient. For you, it means a settlement is built around an experience you probably share: you bought the product, used the app or had your data exposed. If your situation differs, such as buying through a reseller or having a special contract, read the class definition and exclusions closely. Whether you are covered depends on that definition, and the settlement administrator and the court make the final call, not the lawyers or the company.
Example
Say a class covers shoppers who paid an undisclosed shipping surcharge online. The named plaintiff paid it on an ordinary order, like everyone else, so her claim is typical. Now say the named plaintiff is a reseller who bought in bulk under a negotiated contract. The company would argue she isn't typical, because her case depends on contract terms that nobody else has.
FAQ
No. The claims need to come from the same kind of conduct and rest on similar legal arguments, but they don't have to be identical. Courts look at whether the named plaintiff's claim is so closely tied to the class's claims that pursuing it will also protect the rest of the class.
Related terms
- Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Class Actions (Cornell Legal Information Institute)
- A.B. v. Hawaii State Department of Education, No. 20-15570 (9th Cir. Apr. 4, 2022)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
Updated Oct 18, 2026. Plain-English definitions for general information — not legal or tax advice.