In Akkerman v. Mecta Corp., Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1094, the court rejected as overbroad the following class definition: 'All members of the public who have received shock treatment in California from MECTA devices after September of 1997.' The definition was overbroad because it included patients who were not properly members of the class such as those who were not deceived by defendants' alleged misrepresentations, those who relied on representations other than those claimed to be deceptive, and those for whom the treatment was beneficial. The class certification motion failed on ascertainability grounds. In Akkerman, the complaint alleged claims for deceptive advertising against the manufacturer of an electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) machine. According to the complaint, the named plaintiff and other class members underwent ECT in reliance on statements from doctors (falsely relayed from the manufacturer) that the treatment was safe. The trial court denied class certification, and Division Six of our court affirmed. This is Division Six's discussion of the "ascertainability" issue: "In Akkerman's class certification motion, he defined the class as 'all members of the public who have received shock treatment in California from MECTA devices after September of 1997.' But the trial court reasonably could find that this definition is overbroad. Akkerman's causes of action for class relief involve allegations about patients who received ECT after relying on Mecta's misrepresentations about ECT risks. He claims Mecta disseminated a booklet, which falsely minimizes the risks of memory loss. But from this, the court could find that the class was more narrow than Akkerman's definition because it would involve only ECT patients deceived by Mecta. Moreover, Akkerman did not show how he could easily identify those who were deceived or distinguish between those patients and (1) patients who relied in whole or in part on their doctor's advice, or (2) those who relied on state-mandated ECT patient informed consent forms which disclose the risks. Akkerman does not claim that the state-approved informed consent forms are inadequate. But his class definition is so broad that it includes patients who were properly advised of the risks and those who relied on state-approved consent forms. "Akkerman did not adequately define those who were entitled to restitution or the entities from which the class could seek relief. He initially sought class restitution limited to those who suffered 'brain damage and/or memory loss' as a result of ECT. But in his third amended UCL complaint, he sought restitution for all class members without limitation. That, however, would require a windfall award of restitution to all who received ECT even if the procedures were successful and beneficial. "Akkerman claims the class is entitled to restitution for the money Mecta received from class members. But the class members paid hospitals for ECT treatments, not Mecta. The hospitals are not parties to this action. Mecta manufactured the device; it did not perform ECT. Akkerman did not identify any class member who allegedly paid Mecta for ECT therapy. "Akkerman also alleged that he was an adequate class representative for patients who were deceived by Mecta. But he does not claim that he ever read or received the Mecta booklet or that Mecta deceived him. Instead, his pleading named the doctor who told him the ECT procedure was safe, and who had relied 'in part' on information from Mecta. He attached to his certification motion records from his Santa Barbara action. But from this, the trial court could find that Akkerman's individual claim involved medical malpractice, not Mecta's false advertising. Because that cause of action differs substantially from the typical claims of class members who allegedly relied on Mecta's booklet, the court could find that Akkerman was not an adequate representative for that class. "Yet, even if Akkerman sought to represent a class of ECT patients misled by doctors who had read Mecta's booklet, the result would not change. That class would be too amorphous for certification. It would depend on the individual determinations of potentially thousands of medical 'intermediaries' who are not defendants or parties to this action and whose advice would necessarily 'vary' for each patient." (Akkerman, supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1100-1101.)