I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the trial court should be directed to enter an order dismissing this class action. I cannot, however, join in certain of the language in the majority opinion.
The majority opinion, in my view, places far too much emphasis upon the net monetary recovery to each class member, and far too little emphasis upon the role of the class action in deterring and redressing wrongdoing. A company which wrongfully exacts a dollar from each of millions of customers will reap a handsome profit; the class action is often the only effective way to halt and redress such exploitation. (See Vasquez v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 800, 808 [94 Cal.Rptr. 796, 484 P.2d 964, 53 A.L.R.3d 513]; Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 715 [63 Cal.Rptr. 724, 433 P.2d 732].) The problems which arise in the management of a class action involving numerous small claims do not justify a judicial policy that would permit the defendant to retain the benefits of its wrongful conduct and to continue that conduct with impunity. (See Daar v. Yellow Cab Co., supra, 67 Cal.2d at p. 715; Cartt v. Superior Court (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 960, 971 [124 Cal.Rptr. 376].)
*388In the present case, however, defendant Blue Chip Stamps did not profit from the alleged overcollection of sales tax, and terminated that allegedly wrongful practice before the present action was instituted. Moreover, given the unusual facts of this case, neither proof of claim procedures nor fluid recovery mechanisms could function as effective means of affording class members meaningful compensation for the alleged overpayments of the sales tax. Under these special circumstances, class suit was improper.
I particularly wish to emphasize, because the majority does not sufficiently do so, that the inappropriateness of fluid recovery mechanisms here is a result of the peculiar facts of this case, and not of any inherent deficiency in such mechanisms themselves.
Fluid recovery schemes may take either of two forms. The residue of a damages fund remaining after class members have filed their individual claims may be distributed to class members through a market mechanism.1 Alternatively, a second form of fluid recovery would grant the residue of the damages fund to the state government for some public use benefitting class members along with other state residents.2
Plaintiffs here suggest the first form of fluid recoveiy. Any residue of the damages fund, they contend, should be used to reduce the amount of the tax collected in the future from individuals redeeming the trading stamps. As the majority correctly notes, however, because of the decline in popularity of the trading stamps, there is not enough of an overlap in this case between the class of individuals injured by defendant’s conduct and the class of individuals who would benefit from distribution of the fund through the market to render this form of fluid recovery a rational means of compensating class members.
*389The second form of fluid recovery is also inappropriate here. The claims of class members appear to be without exception so small that the likelihood of any class members coming forward to claim damages is quite low. As a result, the goal accomplished by granting the residue of a damages fund to the state is achieved by denying the class action, since the state is already in possession of the overcharge fund.
This case is an unusual one inasmuch as the class action at issue would neither serve to deter wrongdoing nor result in any added compensation for class members. Ordinarily, class litigation promises at least some benefit in the form of either increased compensation or deterrence. As we held in Vasquez v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 810, the trial court must consider both the benefits which a class action would yield and any unfairness to either absent class members or to the defendant which might result from litigation of the underlying claims through aggregate procedures rather than through separate trials. This inquiry requires a court to judge the consequences not only of a common trial of questions of liability (see, e.g., City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 461-462 [115 Cal.Rptr. 797, 525 P.2d 701]; Vasquez v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.3d at pp. 811-815), but also of the use of techniques like fluid recovery which might be necessary if the benefits of class litigation are to be realized. Of necessity, subject only to broad constitutional restraints, the outcome of this inquiry will not turn on the application of any general rule: the significance of both the benefits and costs of class litigation can only be measured by looking to the values reflected in the cause of action under which suit is brought.3 In this area of the law, we must inevitably proceed on a case-by-case basis.
Sullivan, J., concurred.
This is the approach followed in the settlement which ultimately concluded the Daar litigation. There, the parties agreed to, and the superior court approved of, a settlement for $1.4 million, of which $950,000 was to be returned to the class by a reduction of taxicab fares below the then existing maximum authorized fares. Under the terms of the settlement, the Board of Public Utilities and Transportation of the City of Los Angeles was charged with the duty of overseeing compliance with the judgment. (See Comment, Manageability of Notice and Damage Calculation in Consumer Class Actions (1971) 70 Mich.L.Rev. 338, 366, fn. 186.) This form of fluid recovery has also been used in a litigated action to return a rate overcharge to customers of a transit company. (See Bebchick v. Public Utilities Commission (D.C.Cir. 1963) 318 F.2d 187, 203-204 [115 App.D.C. 216], cert. den., 373 U.S. 913 [10 L.Ed.2d 414, 83 S.Ct. 1304] (not a class action).)
See 67 Cal.2d at page 715, footnote 15; see generally Comment, Damage Distribution in Class Actions: The Cy Pres Remedy (1972) 39 U.Chi.L.Rev. 448, 453-458.
In Daar v. Yellow Cab Co., supra, we acknowledged the influence of substantive law in determining the availability of fluid recovery mechanisms. Holding to be premature the state’s suggestion that the residue of any damages fund revert to the state under the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1500-1527), we noted that “[i]t lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, within the dictates of the applicable law, to determine the manner in which any further proceedings will be conducted.” (67 Cal.2d at p. 715, fn. 15.) (Italics added.)
It is a mistake, under the approach this court has adopted for analyzing the propriety of class actions, to speak of a duty of the trial court to inquire whether a class action is *390manageable. No class'action is inherently unmanageable; a court always has access to a variety of techniques, for example, for reducing the costs of giving notice to class members or for distributing relief. The critical question, however, is whether the techniques necessary to render a class action manageable are unconstitutional, or so distort the values a particular cause of action 'is meant to further that class suit would be improper. Even federal courts,' required to undertake manageability analysis by rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, acknowledge the contingent character of the manageability inquiry. In the leading case of In re Hotel Telephone Charges (9th Cir. 1974) 500 F.2d 86, for example, the Ninth Circuit held a class action to be unmanageable only after first holding that fluid recovery mechanisms are inconsistent with the policies reflected in the federal antitrust laws. (See id. at pp. 89-90, 90-92.)