Mut. Life Ins., Co., supra., 332 N.J.Super. at 43, 752 A.2d 807. A number of states, including Oregon, Louisiana and Illinois, require proof of willful intent to deceive even when the alleged violation of the consumer fraud statutes in those states involves an affirmative representation or act. Or.Rev.Stat. § 646. 638(1); Sanders v. Francis, 277 Or. 593, 561 P.2d 1003 (1977); United Group of Nat’l Paper Distributors v. Vinson, 666 So.2d 1338 (La.App.), cert. den 679 So.2d 1358 (La.1996); Eshaghi v. Hanley Dawson Cadillac Co., 214 Ill.App.3d 995, d statute that a reasonable person would have relied on defendant’s misrepresentations, but proof of individual reliance is not required. Dix v. American Bankers Life Assurance Company of Florida, 429 Mich. 410, 415 N.W.2d 206 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Arizona, on the other hand, requires proof of
holding that the claims of the class representative and class members must be based on the same legal or remedial theory recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members holding that members of a class proceeding under the consumer protection act need not individually prove reliance on the alleged misrepresentations footnote omitted it is sufficient if the class can establish that a reasonable person would have relied on the representation holding that where material misrepresentations are made to class members an inference of reliance arises to the entire class holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent