Superiority "depends greatly on the circumstances surrounding each case,'" and "[t] he rule requires the court to find that the objectives of the class-action procedure really will be achieved.'"

The Fourth Circuit has held that, "where... the qualitatively overarching issue by far is the liability issue of the defendant's willfulness, and the purported class members were exposed to the same risk of harm every time the defendant violated the statute in the identical manner", predominance is satisfied.

Common issues of law and fact have been held to predominate "where the same evidence would resolve the question of liability for all class members."

The court must compare possible alternatives to the class action to determine "whether Rule 23 is sufficiently effective to justify the expenditure of the judicial time and energy that is necessary to adjudicate a class action and to assume the risk of prejudice to the rights of those who are not directly before the court."

However, most courts (sensibly) seem to take it as a given that damages should be awarded on a "per person" rather than a "per transaction" basis.

"Where the purported class members were subject to the same harm resulting from the defendant's conduct and the `qualitatively overarching issue'in the case is the defendant's liability, courts generally find the predominance requirement to be satisfied. "

Moreover, "class certification promotes consistency of results, giving [Defendants] the benefit of finality and repose."

Because statutory damages are intended to address harms that are small or difficult to quantify, evidence about particular class members is highly relevant to a jury charged with this task

"This is not simply a matter of counting common versus noncommon questions and checking the final tally. `Rule 23 (b)(3)'s [predominance] test is qualitative rather than quantitative.'"