failure to follow the requirements of a complex regulatory scheme, subject to different reasonable interpretations. In addition, the plaintiffs suffered no economic harm. Under such circumstances, even though economic harm is not an element of the Florida common law claim for restitution, it may be required for superiority under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This is especially likely when, as in the present suit, the defendants’ potential liability would be enormous and completely out of proportion to any harm suffered by the plaintiff. See Kline v. Coldwell, Banker & Co., 508 F.2d 226, 234-35 (9th Cir.1974) (noting that class treatment lacks superiority when damages "shock the conscience”); Wilcox v. Commerce Bank of Kansas City, 474 F.2d 336, 341-47 (10th Cir.1973) (<HOLDING>); In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy Litig., 211
holding that rule 23b2 calls for injunction as to all class members or to none of them and does not authorize class certification when each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of monetary damages holding that no subsequent class actions may benefit from tolling when class certification has been denied holding district court did not abuse discretion when it denied class certification for tila violations case where class members were not harmed and aggregate of statutory damages would be extremely large holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification holding that where named plaintiff was employee of class counsel district court did not abuse its discretion by denying class certification