In Ford Motor Co. v. Ocanas, 138 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.), the Court reviewed an order certifying a class of plaintiffs who purchased Ford F-150 trucks with an optional towing package. The F-150 with a towing package was marketed as having a larger radiator than those without the towing package, but due to a manufacturing error, the larger radiator was not included. Id. The class alleged "laundry list" violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA"), which required reliance as an element of proof. Id. at 453. The Court focused particularly on Schein's determination that the plaintiffs had not produced any class-wide evidence that purchasers actually relied on the defendants' misrepresentations in a uniform manner. Id. For those same reasons, the Court held that the trial court improperly certified the class of F-150 purchasers: "Like the plaintiffs in Henry Schein, Inc., appellees pleaded breach of express and implied warranties and DTPA "laundry list" violations which require each class member to prove reliance as a prerequisite to recovery. Further, although there is evidence that appellant intended for customers to rely on representations that F--150s with a Class III towing package would come with larger radiators, "there is no evidence that purchasers actually did rely" on appellant's statements "so uniformly that common issues of reliance predominate over individual issues." The supreme court noted that it is possible to certify a class where reliance is a required element of proof if the plaintiffs can "prove reliance in an individual action with the same proof offered to show class--wide reliance." However, appellee did not meet this burden." Id.