Following Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (9th Cir. 2012) 666 F.3d 581, this decision holds that the district court erred in certifying a nationwide class of end purchasers of computer equipment containing Qualcomm chips under Rule 23(b)(3).  To determine the law applicable to the class’ antitrust claims, the court must apply California’s governmental interest analysis.  Here, the only link to California was defendant’s headquarters.  While California therefore had sufficient contacts with the claims to apply its law, under the governmental interest analysis, the states in which the end purchasers bought the equipment had a greater interest in applicatiom of their laws.  Many states’ antitrust laws followed Illinois Brick in barring claims by indirect purchasers.  Those laws promoted policies other than consumer protection that would be impaired by application of California law allowing suit by indirect purchasers.  By contrast, California’s interests in policing its own citizens would be little impaired by application of other states’ laws to purchases made in those states.  Since applicable law, therefore, varied, common questions did not predominate.  A 23(b)(2) class was also vacated and remanded far consideration of the fact that the alleged antitrust violations had ceased long ago and had been held legal in  FTC v. Qualcomm, Inc. (9th Cir. 2020) 969 F.3d 974.