Hedonic regression price-premium economist
Expert class library · Consumer class actions · Plaintiff side
Uses hedonic regression on market prices to isolate the premium attributable to a challenged product attribute. An alternative or complement to conjoint surveys.
What this expert is retained to answer
- Has the economist actually specified the regression, including the variables, the product attributes, and the comparator products, or only described hedonic regression in general terms?
- Does the necessary retail price data exist and is it obtainable for the class period?
- Can the regression isolate the premium caused by the challenged label statement from other meanings of the same words and from other product attributes?
- Does a regression on market prices account for supply-side factors, or does it need to be paired with a conjoint survey to tie the premium to the challenged claim?
- Is the challenged statement concrete enough that a comparator product without it can be identified?
Methods
- Hedonic regression
- Product attribute coding
- Market price data analysis
- Class-wide damages computation
How the testimony is attacked
- No model, only a description. Defendants argue the economist describes hedonic regression without building or specifying it. In the first In re ConAgra Foods class certification ruling the court struck the plaintiffs' economist's declaration under Rule 702 because he did not identify the variables, confirm that the data existed, or name the comparator products.
- Cannot isolate the challenged meaning. Defendants argue the premium for a label such as "100% Natural" cannot be split between the challenged meaning and other unchallenged meanings. The first ConAgra ruling credited this concern, and the second ConAgra ruling accepted an amended proposal only because the regression was paired with a conjoint analysis meant to isolate the challenged meaning.
- Lack of qualifications. Defendants argue an economist without a doctorate or prior testimony on hedonic models is unqualified. ConAgra and Hughes v. Ester C both rejected the attack, citing graduate coursework in regression and conjoint methods and years of applied econometric work.
- Model does not fit the liability theory. Defendants argue that no regression can value a vague claim such as "better." In Hughes v. Ester C the court denied the motion to strike and admitted the testimony for class certification, but then held under Comcast that none of the proposed models could measure a premium for so subjective a claim.
- Reliability objections that overlap with predominance. Defendants fold Rule 23 arguments into a Daubert motion. Hughes declined to resolve reliability through Daubert where the question whether the model can measure classwide damages was intertwined with predominance.
What the public record shows
A deliberately narrow CourtListener search, "hedonic regression" AND "price premium" AND (Daubert OR "Rule 702"), returned 7 opinions filed since 2015, as of October 2, 2026; broader searches return more. Three that show how courts handle this class of testimony:
| Outcome | Case | Court | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excluded | In re ConAgra Foods, Inc.302 F.R.D. 537 | C.D. Cal. 2014 | The court found the plaintiffs' economist qualified but struck his declaration under Rule 702 because he described hedonic regression and conjoint analysis without identifying variables, data, or comparator products, or performing either analysis. |
| Admitted | In re ConAgra Foods, Inc.90 F. Supp. 3d 919 | C.D. Cal. 2015 | On the renewed certification motion the court denied the motion to strike the economist's amended declaration, accepting a hedonic regression that accounted for supply and market factors when combined with a separate conjoint analysis. |
| Admitted | Hughes v. Ester C Co.317 F.R.D. 333 | E.D.N.Y. 2016 | After a Daubert hearing the court held the plaintiffs' economist minimally qualified and admitted his testimony for class certification, but found that no proposed model, including hedonic regression, could value the subjective "better" claim. |
Each case links to the free opinion text on CourtListener.
Under amended Rule 702
Since December 1, 2023, Rule 702 says expressly that the party offering an expert must show the court it is more likely than not that the testimony meets each requirement: that it rests on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the case. Questions about the basis of an opinion are no longer automatically matters of weight for the jury. For how the circuits have applied the amendment, see the Rule 702 tracker, which follows each court of appeals; for what that means for preparing or attacking this class of expert, see the guide on amended Rule 702.
Related classes
Guides
Simulating this class on a matter
Supreme Mind simulates a class of expert, never a named individual, on your fact pattern and returns the likely opinion, the ranked cross-examination weaknesses, the Rule 702 attack surface and what it means for settlement. Read how it works, or book a demo.
Last reviewed October 2, 2026. How this page is built: rulings are found by searching court opinions on CourtListener, and each one is read in the opinion before it is summarised here; outcomes are labelled by what the court did with the expert's testimony. No individual expert is named. This page summarises public decisions for orientation and is not legal advice; read the opinion before relying on any ruling.