Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Sounds like exactly what it is... it's too big of a class to be managed, and therefore should not be? You missed the other 2 of the 3 parts of that argument. >In fact, the very next line is the judge saying: I'm not saying they're objectively right, just that there's more to the argument than "we've wronged too many people to be held accountable".
So it's not really a strawman at all, and it was in fact one of their main arguments. They just also made other arguments on top of that... Seems to me the parent was totally justified in calling it a wild argument.
It really wasn't. If you look at the table of contents, the part about was the class being too big was:
1. in one of the two top level arguments (II)
2. of (II), it was one of 6 sub-arguments (F)
3. of (F), the actual argument is "Plaintiffs Have Not Satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)’s Superiority Requirement.", of which the class was too big was one of three factors. For reference the other two are "the individualized issues on which their claims depend, and the overwhelming evidence that the challenged conduct resulted in lower prices in Amazon’s store"
>Seems to me the parent was totally justified in calling it a wild argument.
It really isn't. The specific legal standard is that if the total time to adjudicate all the class members is large, then class certification should be denied. This seems reasonable to me, at least in isolation. What's the point of a legal case that takes so long to resolve that by the time it's finished, everyone involved would be dead? Again, you might not agree with Amazon's argument that it's too complex to be resolved, and it's fine to deride them for thinking that the case is too complex for the court system to handle, but they're simply not making the claim that they should be let off the hook on the basis of 300 million plaintiffs alone.