The Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin case in 1973 revolved around a class action lawsuit brought by the plaintiff, Eisen, against brokerage firms for alleged violations of antitrust laws and securities regulations. The key issue was whether or not the defendant should bear the cost of notifying each individual member of the class about ongoing litigation. The Supreme Court ruled that under Rule 23(c)(2) of Federal Rules on Civil Procedure, it is mandatory to individually notify all identifiable members who can be found through reasonable effort in any (b)(3) class actions suits - those where common questions predominate over individual ones and a class action suit is superior to other methods available for fair adjudication. Furthermore, this notification must be paid by plaintiffs rather than defendants as part of their responsibility when initiating such lawsuits.

In the dissenting opinion for Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision placed an undue burden on plaintiffs in class action lawsuits by requiring them to bear all costs of notifying potential members of a class action suit, regardless of how many there might be or where they were located. He contended that this interpretation was not consistent with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which governs such suits and could potentially discourage legitimate claims from being pursued due to prohibitive costs. Furthermore, he believed it was unfair to require plaintiffs alone to shoulder these expenses when defendants also stood to benefit from having all related claims resolved in one proceeding rather than multiple individual ones.