held that, in the fraud-on-the-market context, class treatment was not precluded just because some plaintiffs may have relied upon a person who owed the plaintiff a fiduciary duty rather than relying upon the integrity of the market itself. The securities market presents a wholly different context than a consumer fraud case, and neither this circuit'nor the Supreme Court has extended a presumption of reliance outside the context of securities cases. The “integrity of the market” is not at issue in this case, and AT&T did not owe these plaintiffs a fiduciary duty in the way that a broker may owe his client a fiduciary duty. Because the fraud-on-the-market cases are not on point, we are bound to follow Andrews and Pelletier. See Cargill v. Turpin, 120 F.3d 1366, 1386 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). 2. In addition to presuming the reliance
holding that the panel is bound by decisions of prior panels holding that a panel of this court cannot overturn a prior panels decision holding that decisions by prior panels are binding holding that a prior panel decision is binding on subsequent panels holding that one panel cannot overrule a prior panels published decision