. The Supreme Court has noted that contract law is not at its core “diverse, nonuniform, and confusing,” Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219, 233 fn. 8, 115 S.Ct. 817, 130 L.Ed.2d 715 (1995) (citing Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 529, 112 S.Ct. 2608, 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992)). 14 . The Objection also assumes that a choice of law analysis would be inevitable under the relevant consumer fraud claims. To the extent that the Court could look to the law of any individual state to resolve some or all of the consumer fraud claims, a nationwide class — even limited to consumer fraud counts — would create no choice of law problems and could be certified. See, e.g., Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 216 Ill.2d 100, 187, 296 Ill.Dec. 448, 835 N.E.2d 801, 853-54 (2005) (<HOLDING>); Martin v. Heinold Commodities, Inc., 117
holding that foreign corporation was not doing business in illinois and thus personal jurisdiction was lacking even though corporation had some contact with the state and maintained a registered agent here because tjhere is nothing in the illinois code of civil procedure that supports asserting in personam jurisdiction over a corporate defendant simply because the plaintiff served summons upon the defendants illinois registered agent holding that nothing in the legislative history of the pennsylvania consumer fraud act suggests that the legislature ever intended statutory language directed against consumer fraud to do away with the traditional elements of reliance and causation and accordingly in order to maintain a class action suit under the pennsylvania consumer fraud act a plaintiff must allege reliance holding that a plaintiff may pursue a claim under the illinois consumer fraud act if the circumstances that relate to the disputed transaction occur primarily and substantially in illinois and rejecting any single formula or brightline test holding that the airline deregulation act preempts claims under the illinois consumer fraud and deceptive business practices act but does not preempt state breach of contract actions holding there was no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor of equipment lease although payments were made to illinois bank the guaranty was accepted in illinois and it provided that it would be gov erned by illinois law