LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Filing 61

DECLARATION of Hong-An Vu In Support of MOTION for Summary Judgment as to AND/OR ADJUDICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF (REDACTED) 60 filed by Defendant Rocket Lawyer Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B (PART1), # 3 Exhibit B (PART 2), # 4 Exhibits C-E and M-O)(Vu, Hong-An)

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A

Jerry (Yoram) Wind, President
Wind Associates, Inc.
1041 Waverly Road
Gladwyne, PA 19035
Tel: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]

Consumer Perceptions of Rocket Lawyer’s Advertisement
and Website

April 2014

EXHIBIT A -4-

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page #
I.

Executive Summary ............................................................................... ……2

II. Background and Objectives .................................................................. ……5
III. Qualifications ......................................................................................... ……8
IV. Research Design
A. The Experiment .............................................................................……9
B. The Stimuli.....................................................................................……10
C. Universe ........................................................................................……16
D. Sample ..........................................................................................……17
E. Data Collection .............................................................................……18
F. Respondent Task ..........................................................................……19
G. Analysis ........................................................................................……21
V. Results ..................................................................................................... ……22
VI. Conclusions ............................................................................................ ……62

Appendices
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.

Declaration of David Baga
Resume
Legal Testimony
Research Now Panel
The Stimuli
Legal Zoom Models
The Questionnaire
The Screener Results
Verbatim Responses
Supporting Data
Code Frame
Computer Tabulation
Statistical Analysis

-1-

EXHIBIT A -5-

I. Executive Summary
The Objective
The objective of these experiments is to test whether conforming Rocket Lawyer’s advertisements and
disclosures on its website to address LegalZoom’s allegations has any effect on consumer
understanding of Rocket Lawyer’s free offers and purchasing decisions. See Section II.
The Approach
We designed test and control stimuli to be used in two experiments – the Incorporation Experiment and
Other Legal Services Experiment. The stimuli shown to the respondents were screenshots of Rocket
Lawyer’s advertisements and website, with the control stimuli being the disputed version of the ads and
website, and the test stimuli being a version of the ads and website that reflect LegalZoom’s suggested
revisions. See Section IV A and IV B.
Respondents were shown one stimuli – either the test or control for a Rocket Lawyer service and a
series of questions designed to gauge their reactions to the test and control stimuli. The experiment
used an internet panel with a sample size of 207 respondents for the Incorporation Experiment and 215
for the Free Trial Experiment. All respondents were randomly selected. See Section IV C and IV D.
The Results
Incorporation Experiment
1

1. What was the size of the potentially harmed population ?
There was no harmed population. Based on the tree diagram found at page 42, there is no
significant difference between the test and control groups of respondents who:
a. chose Rocket Lawyer after seeing just the search engine advertisements,
b. recalled the free offer,
c. perceived the free offer as valuable,
d. demonstrated some confusion as to the free offer, and
e. accepted the free trial offer or bought products from Rocket Lawyer.
Directionally, there were more of these respondents in the test group (the modified stimuli
responding to LegalZoom’s suggestions) than the control group (the version in dispute). Thus, it is
obvious that the versions of the Rocket Lawyer advertisements and website at issue did not cause
LegalZoom any harm.
2. What, if any, was the impact of the Rocket Lawyer ad on the selection of Rocket Lawyer at
the search engine stage?
The Rocket Lawyer ad had no impact on the selection of Rocket Lawyer at the search engine
stage. There was no significant difference between the test and control groups when given a first
and second opportunity to select Rocket Lawyer. (Incorporation Tables 1 and 2)
Of those who chose Rocket Lawyer, the fact that the service was advertised as “free” was more
often a consideration for choosing Rocket Lawyer for those in the test group, where state fees were
disclosed. (Incorporation Table 3)

1

Using the tree diagrams at pages 42 & 59, at Level 5, if there is a significantly greater number in the Control groups
than in the Test groups, then those above the level of harm demonstrated in the Test groups is the harmed
population.

-2-

EXHIBIT A -6-

3. What, if any, was the impact of the search engine ad and website on:
a.

Consumers’ understanding of the need to pay state fees?
The search engine advertisement and website had no impact on respondents’
understanding of the need to pay state fees. The majority of respondents recalled the need
to pay state fees and there was no significant difference between the test and control
groups. (Incorporation Table 6) Thus, the search engine ad had no impact on consumers’
understanding of the need to pay state fees after visiting the website.

b. Consumers’ understanding of the free trial offer?
The search engine advertisement and website had no impact on respondents’
understanding of the free trial offer. The majority of respondents recalled that the free trial
had a time limit and there was no significant difference between the test and control groups.
(Incorporation Table 8) In addition, of those who recalled that there was a time limit to the
free trial, the majority knew that they would be charged after the trial and there is no
significant difference between the test and control groups. (Incorporation Tables 8 and 9).
Thus, the search engine ad had no impact on consumers’ understanding of the free trial
offer after visiting the website.
c. Consumers’ decision to accept the free offer?
A majority of respondents did not plan on taking the free trial offer or provide other business
to Rocket Lawyer. The non-disclosure of state fees in the search engine ad (the control
stimuli) led to a higher percentage of control respondents deciding to continue searching for
other online legal services providers. (Incorporation Table 12) Thus, the search engine ad
had no impact on consumers’ decision to accept the free trial offer after visiting the website.
However, not disclosing state fees increased the likelihood that consumers would not accept
the free offer and continue searching for other providers.
4. What, if any, was the impact of the LegalZoom formatting of the free trial disclosures on the
understanding and aacceptance of the free offer?
Revising Rocket Lawyer’s disclosures to conform to LegalZoom’s formatting of its free trial
program had no impact on respondents’ understanding of the free trial and their decision to
accept the free trial. (Incorporation Tables 8, 9, and 12) Thus, revising Rocket Lawyer’s free
trial disclosures to mimic LegalZoom’s would have no impact on consumers’ understanding
of the free offer or whether they chose to do business with Rocket Lawyer.
Free Trial Experiment
2

1. What is the size of the potentially harmed population ?
There is no harmed population. Based on the tree diagram found at page 59, there was no
significant difference between the test and control groups of respondents who:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

who chose Rocket Lawyer after seeing just the search engine advertisements,
recalled the free offer,
perceived the free offer as valuable,
demonstrated some confusion as to the free offer, and
accepted the free trial offer or bought products from Rocket Lawyer.

Directionally, there were more respondents in the test group (the modified stimuli responding to
LegalZoom’s suggestions) than the control group (the version in dispute). Thus, it is obvious that
the versions of the Rocket Lawyer a website at issue did not cause LegalZoom any harm.

2

See footnote 2.

-3-

EXHIBIT A -7-

2. Do consumers understand the free trial offer (time limit to free trial, charge after free trial
period if consumer does not cancel)?
Yes, consumers do understanding the free trial offer. The majority of respondents recalled that the
free trial had a time limit and there was no significant difference between the test and control
groups. (OLS Table 4) In addition, of those who recalled that there was a time limit to the free trial,
the majority knew that they would be charged after the trial and there was no significant difference
between the test and control groups. (OLS Table 5).
3. What, if any, is the impact of the LegalZoom formatting of the free trial disclosures on the
understanding of the free trial?
The revised formatting in the test stimuli (addressing LegalZoom’s allegations) had no impact on
respondents’ understanding of the free trial. There was no significant difference between the
understanding of the test and control groups regarding the time limit and subsequent charge. (OLS
Tables 4 and 5) Thus, the LegalZoom’s formatting o fthe free trial disclosures would have no
impact on the understanding of the free trial.
4. What, if any, is the impact of the LegalZoom formatting of the free trial disclosures on
Respondents’ decision to accept the free trial?
The revised formatting in the test stimuli (addressing LegalZoom’s allegations) had no impact on
respondents’ decision to accept the free trial. The majority of respondents did not plan on taking
the free trial offer and there are no significant differences between the test and control groups.
Thus, the LegalZoom formatting of the free trial disclosures had no impact on consumers’
purchasing decisions.
Overall Conclusions
1. LegalZoom’s claims regarding both the incorporation service and the other online legal services are
contradicted by the results of the two experiments. Changing the disputed Rocket Lawyer search
engine ad and website to conform to LegalZoom’s alleged requirements has no impact on the
respondents and there is no significant difference between the test and control groups on any of the
many measures we tested (Appendix M and all the tables of the report in Appendix L)
2. The lack of impact of the search engine advertising is not surprising given the fact that the
respondents perceived advertisement as the least important factor in selecting an on line legal
service. (Incorporation Table15, Other Legal Services Tables11)

-4-

EXHIBIT A -8-

II. Background and Objective
A. Legal Background
LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”) and Rocket Lawyer Incorporated (“Rocket Lawyer”) are
competitors in the legal services industry. In November 2012, LegalZoom filed a lawsuit against
Rocket Lawyer alleging that Rocket Lawyer’s advertisements on internet search engines and on its
website for “free” services are false and/or misleading in violation of the federal Lanham Act and
California False Advertising and Unfair Competition Law.
Disclosure of State Fees in Free Incorporation and Entity Formation Services
LegalZoom contends that Rocket Lawyer’s advertising “free” incorporation or entity formation
without disclosing that users have to pay state mandated fees is false and/or misleading.3
LegalZoom contends that these advertisements must be viewed in isolation, as they appear in a
search engine results page. However, Rocket Lawyer contends that the advertisements must be
viewed in context of its website.4 LegalZoom has not made any allegations about whether users
understand that they must pay state fees after they have viewed www.RocketLaywer.com and are
at the point in the consumer journey where they would make a purchasing decision.
Free Trial
Rocket Lawyer offers a free trial of its subscription plan(s) on RocketLawyer.com. The free trial is
for seven days, and after the free trial period ends, unless the user first cancels the free trial, he or
she will be enrolled in and charged for a monthly subscription plan. LegalZoom contends that
Rocket Lawyer does not properly make the terms of the free trial and subsequent automatic
enrollment in a subscription plan “clear and conspicuous” under the California Negative Option
Law.5 “To qualify as clear and conspicuous, a disclosure must be in larger type than the
surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set
off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks, in a manner that clearly
calls attention to the language.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17600. LegalZoom has not made any
allegations that the content of the disclosures relating to the negative option is lacking or improper.
Standard of Proof
To prove false advertising under the Lanham Act requires evidence that a material statement, with
the power to influence purchasing decisions, made by Rocket Lawyer in an advertisement deceived
or has a tendency to deceive a substantial segment of the audience and that LegalZoom has been
harmed or is likely to be harmed by the diversion of sales or lessening of goodwill. See Skydive
Arizona, Inc. v. Quattrocchi, 673 F.3d 1105, 1110 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B)).
A statement is material “if it is likely to influence the purchasing decision. . .” Rice v. Fox Broad. Co.,
330 F.3d 1170, 1181 (9th Cir. 2003)
Similar to the Lanham act, the California False Advertising Law (“FAL”) makes it unlawful for any
person to “induce the public to enter into any obligation” based on a statement that is known, or
3

Rocket Lawyer stopped advertising free entity formation without disclosing state fees in March 2013. Hollerbach
Declaration ¶ 25 (dated Sep. 23, 2013)

4

The Court has agreed with this position, and thus this experiment focuses on whether consumers are drawn to
Rocket Lawyer based on its advertisements, but tests understanding of the offers based on the advertisement and
website. See Order re Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 44) at 7-8.
5

First Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 14c;16; LegalZoom Motion for Summary Judgment (“LZ MSJ”) at 4-5, 15n.4
(describing allegations and citing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17600 et seq)

-5-

EXHIBIT A -9-

reasonably should be known, to be “untrue or misleading.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500. To
prevail on its FAL claim, evidence must show that “members of the public are likely to be deceived”
under a reasonable consumer test. Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir.
2012).
The claim for California Unfair Competition Law here is entirely derivative of the false advertising
claims.

B. Objective of the Experiment
The objective of this experiment is to test, for both the Incorporation Service and the Free Trial of
other online legal services, whether revising Rocket Lawyer’s advertisements to address
LegalZoom’s allegations has any effect on consumers’ understanding of the services offered and
ultimately their purchasing decision.
Disclosure of State Fees in Incorporation or Entity Formation Service
The Incorporation Experiment is intended to test whether disclosing state fees by adding “pay only
state fees” or other similar language to Rocket Lawyer’s search engine incorporation/entity
formation advertisements would have had any effect on consumer understanding or purchasing
decision6, especially in the context of the state fee disclosures made on RocketLawyer.com along
the typical consumer journey. The free trial questionnaire is intended to gauge (1) at the search
engine advertisement stage, whether respondents are drawn more to Rocket Lawyer’s website
when it does not disclose state fees compared to when it does and (2) whether, after reviewing the
Rocket Lawyer website and reaching the payment page, respondents understand that they must
pay state fees with enrollment in a free trial even if Rocket Lawyer did not disclose the state fee in
its advertisement. Specifically, the goal of the experiment is to answer the following questions:
1. What was the size of the potentially harmed population7?
2. What, if any, was the impact of the Rocket Lawyer search engine ad on the selection of
Rocket Lawyer ad the search engine stage?
3. What, if any, was the impact of the search engine and website on
a. Consumers’ understanding of the need to pay state fees?
b. Consumers’ understanding of the free trial offer?
c. Consumers’ decision to do business with Rocket Lawyer?
4. What, if any, was the impact of the LegalZoom formatting of the free trial disclosures on the
understanding and acceptance of the free offer?

6

As stated above, Rocket Lawyer Rocket Lawyer’s business formation advertisements have disclosed state fees
since March 2013.

7

On pages 42 & 59, we have provided a tree diagram to separate the respondents not affected by LegalZoom’s claim
from those who are – respondents who chose Rocket Lawyer after seeing just the search engine advertisements,
recalled the free offer, perceived the free offer as valuable, demonstrated some confusion as to the free offer, and
accepted the free trial offer or bought products from Rocket Lawyer. If at Level 5 there is a significantly greater
number in the Control group than in the Test group of the affected respondents, then those above the level of harm
demonstrated in the Test groups is the potentially harmed population.

-6-

EXHIBIT A -10-

Disclosure of Free Trial Terms
The Free Trial Experiment is intended to test whether revising the current format of Rocket
Lawyer’s disclosure of the terms of its free trial program to mimic the format of LegalZoom’s
disclosures has any effect on respondents’ understanding and purchasing decision. At the end of
the survey, the goal is to answer the following questions:
8

1. What is the size of the potentially harmed population ?
2. Do consumers understand the free trial offer (time limit to free trial, charge after free trial
period if consumer does not cancel)?
3. What, if any, is the impact of the LegalZoom formatting of the free trial disclosures on the
understanding of the free trial?
4. What, if any, is the impact of the LegalZoom formatting of the free trial disclosures on
consumers’ decision to accept the free trial?

8

See footnote 4.

-7-

EXHIBIT A -11-

III. Qualifications
1. I am the Lauder Professor and Professor of Marketing9 at the Wharton School of the University of
Pennsylvania. I joined the Wharton staff in 1967, upon receipt of my doctorate from Stanford
University.
2. Publications. I have been a regular contributor to the marketing field, including 22 books and over
250 papers, articles and monographs. My books and articles, which are frequently cited by other
authors, encompass marketing strategy, marketing research, new product and market
development, consumer behavior, and organizational buying behavior, and global marketing
strategy.
3. Editorships – I have served as the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Marketing, as a guest editor of
numerous marketing journals, on the policy boards of the Journal of Consumer Research and
Marketing Science, and have been on the editorial boards of the major marketing journals. I am
the founder of Wharton School Publishing and served as its first Wharton editor from
2004 to 2008.
4. Teaching and Consulting – I have taught MBA, Ph.D., and executive development courses on a
wide range of marketing topics. I also have consulted extensively for many Fortune 500
firms, including major pharmaceutical firms. In my teaching, consulting, editorial and university
positions, I have designed, conducted and evaluated thousands of marketing and consumer
research studies.
5. Expert Witness – I have conducted and evaluated marketing and consumer research in a litigation
context, have been qualified as a marketing and survey research expert, and testified in trial in a
number of federal courts.
6. Awards – I have received various awards, including the four major marketing awards – The
Charles Coolidge Parlin Award (1985), the AMA/Irwin Distinguished Educator Award (1993), the
Paul D. Converse Award (1996), and MIT’s Buck Weaver Award (2007). I also received the first
Faculty Impact Award by Wharton Alumni (1993). I was elected to the Attitude Research Hall of
Fame in 1984. I have also been honored with a number of research awards, included two Alpha
Kappa Psi Foundation awards. In 2001, I was selected as one of the ten grand Auteurs in
Marketing, and in 2003 I received the Elsevier Science Distinguished Scholar Award of the Society
for Marketing Advances. In 2010, I was selected as one of the Ten Legends of Marketing, and
Sage Publications is publishing eight volumes of my writings.
7. Resume and Compensation – Appendix B includes my full resume. My resume can also be
viewed online at the following web address:
http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/cv/Jerry.Wind.CV.9.28.11.pdf.
The legal cases in which I have testified in deposition or trial are included in Appendix C. My
compensation for review and analysis of the relevant material and preparation of this expert report
is at my regular consulting rate of $1,000 an hour and is not contingent on the outcome of the
case.

9

Marketing, according to the American Marketing Association, is the process of planning and executing the
conception, pricing, promotion and distribution of ideas, goods and services to create exchanges that satisfy individual
and organizational goals. (P.D. Bennet ed. Dictionary of Marketing terms, Chicago AMA 1988, p.54)

-8-

EXHIBIT A -12-

IV. Research Design
A. The Experiment
The experiment was designed as two double-blind10 experiments among customers who bought or
intend to buy online legal services (see Universe). The respondents were randomly selected (see
Sample) from the online panel of Research Now (see Appendix D). The respondents were then
screened to include only the relevant consumer audience in the sample.
Specifically, the respondents were males and females 18 years of age or older, who all have looked
for specified online legal services over the past few years (S9/S10a) or plan on looking for specified
online legal services in the next 6 months (S11a/b). Based on which online legal services a
respondent selects, as well as a program algorithm to balance each of the services, each
respondent was designated to answer questions about an online service that was relevant to them.
As an additional layer, for respondents to qualify for the “Incorporation Service” path, they also had
to either currently be an Owner/Proprietor of a company/business (S8a) or have aspirations or
plans to start their own company/business (S8b). After that, respondents had to be primary decision
makers or take part in the decision making in the event they were in need of online legal services
(S12).
The experiment involved a control group shown the Rocket Lawyer advertisement and website in
dispute, and a test group was shown a version reflecting the changes suggested by LegalZoom.
The main experiment focused the respondent on one of the following five online legal services,
depending on what they qualified for:
1. Incorporation
2. Divorce
3. Bill of Sale
4. Lease Agreement
5. Power of Attorney
Although the information pertaining to each form/area of law varied across the different stimuli to
ensure that respondents had a range of legal forms to choose from that would best met their needs,
it was imperative that the overall experience is the same. Each of these forms/services is created
by going through a document review for a specific form/area of law which ends in an offer to enroll
in a free trial and if the free trial is chosen, a credit card page. For services 2-5, the free trial and
credit card pages were identical.
The results are shown separately for the Incorporation Service (Test vs. Control) and a compilation
of online legal services which combines data for Divorce, Bill of Sale, Lease Agreement, and Power
of Attorney—(Test vs. Control).
This design allows clear and unambiguous determination of the validity of plaintiff’s complaint and
an estimate of the size of the market segment that met plaintiff’s complaint criteria.

10

Neither the respondents nor others working on the experiment knew the objective of the experiment or identity of
the sponsor.

-9-

EXHIBIT A -13-

B. The Stimuli
S
The Rocket Law
wyer search engine adv
vertisement and website in dispute were presented to the
e
e
e
CONTROL group and a mod
p
dified ad and website re
d
eflecting the changes su
uggested by plaintiff was
s
prese
ented to the TEST group
p.
The rationale be
ehind design
ning the stim used in this exper
muli
n
riment was to mimic a closely as
as
s
possi
ible the expe
erience of a consumer of online leg services at the intern search st
o
gal
net
tage and the
e
user experience on RocketL
Lawyer.com from Nove
m
ember 2012 when this action was filed. The
2,
s
s
e
differ
rences between the con
ntrol and tes stimuli we intended to gather d
st
ere
data on whe
ether revising
g
Rock Lawyer’s advertisements and dis
ket
sclosures to conform to LegalZoom alleged r
o
o
m’s
requirements
s
has any effect on respondent understand
a
n
ding or decis
sion making.
As with all internet businesses, RocketL
w
Lawyer.com is constantly changing. However, the changes
s
to the relevant portions of th website were cosmet and the s
e
he
w
n
tic
substantive information provided on
Rock
ketLawyer.co has rem
om
mained similar througho the life of the com
out
mpany See A
Appendix A,
A
Decla
aration of David Baga in Support of Expert R
D
Report of Je
erry Wind, ¶ 4-8. All stimuli were
¶¶
e
generated from available his
a
storic screen
nshots of Ro
ocketLawyer.com and s
search engin results or
ne
scree
enshots of RocketLawye
R
er.com and search engin results av
s
ne
vailable in Ja
anuary 2014
4.
Incor
rporation St
timuli
Beca
ause LegalZo
oom’s prima allegation concern R
ary
ns
Rocket Lawy
yer’s search engine adv
h
vertisements
s,
both the test and control sti
d
imuli will be
egin at the a
advertisement stage using an Augu 28, 2013
ust
3
searc for “incor
ch
rporation.” The Control Stimuli con
T
ntained a Ro
ocket Lawye advertisem
er
ment cited in
n
LegalZoom’s summary judg
gment motion and the Test Stim
e
muli contained the Roc
cket Lawye
er
advertisement fro August 28, 2013 whe state fee were disc
om
2
ere
es
closed.11
2
Control12:

est
Te

11

The control advertisement was model after the advertisemen t attached as Exhibit B, p. 29 to LZ MSJ that was
led
a
s
g
generated thro
ough a search for “incorpo
oration.” The test advertise
ement is the a
actual advertisement gene
erated through
h
a search for “i
incorporation” on August 28, 2013. See Declaration of Hong-An V In Suppor of Oppositio to LZ MSJ,
”
2
e
Vu
rt
on
,
E
Ex.15. The co
ontrol advertis
sement was embedded in the search re
e
esults for the August 28, 20 Google s
013
search so that
t
a other variables other tha the Rocket Lawyer adve
all
an
t
ertisements a the same.
are
12

Using LegalZoom’s complaint and mo
otion for summ
mary judgmen and accom
nt
mpanying exhibits as guidance, Rocket
L
Lawyer recrea
ated in color the advertisem
t
ment that Leg
galZoom foun d was genera
ated by Google after a sea
arch for
“incorporation See LZ MS Ex. B, p. 29.
n.”
SJ,
2

- 10 -

EXHIBIT A -14-

Respondents were then tested on whether they would choose Rocket Lawyer based solely on the
advertisement. If the respondent chose Rocket Lawyer or was interested in exploring Rocket
Lawyer’s website, the respondent was shown screenshots of the incorporation consumer journey.
Respondents were shown a typical user journey using screenshots of Rocket Lawyer’s website
from January 2014.13 The only screenshot not from January 2014 is image #7, the “choose your
processing” page, which offers free processing with enrollment in a free trial or the option to pay for
processing.14 Because we were testing some content on this page, we used the format of the page
from when LegalZoom initiated the lawsuit.
We made changes in formatting between the test and control stimuli to determine whether revising
the free trial disclosure similar to how LegalZoom displays the terms of its free trial had any
statistically significant effect on the customer’s understanding of the free trial.15
Other than the advertisement and the incorporation free trial offer page, the stimuli for the test and
control were identical. For the complete test and control stimuli, please see Appendix E.

13

Rocket Lawyer cannot recreate the exact user experience from prior time periods. Appendix A, Baga Declaration ¶
9. However, the incorporation user journey has only had minor, cosmetic changes since Rocket Lawyer began
providing incorporation services in August 2008 and the substantive information provided, including the disclosures
regarding state fees, has always been available to users in a similar manner. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 10, 13. In addition,
LegalZoom’s primary allegation concerns how Rocket Lawyer has advertised its free incorporation and/or entity
formation services on search engines. See Declaration of Mary Ann Nguyen ¶6 (dated Sep. 4, 2013). LegalZoom
has not complained about how Rocket Lawyer discloses its state fees on its website.
14

The screenshot for “choose your processing” was in use from about May 2012 to December 2013. Appendix A,
Baga Declaration, ¶ 12, Ex. A. The only change we made to the historic screenshot was to replace the image on the
right hand side in the box asking if the user needs additional help, with the same image from the other screenshots in
the January 2014 journey, to avoid making this page stand out compared to the others in the journey.

15

As explained more fully below in the Free Trial Stimuli section, Rocket Lawyer has taken the language relating to
the free trial and put it in a red box with white lettering to conform with LegalZoom’s practices for advertising/offering
its free trial and disclosing the automatic enrollment after the free trial period ends. See Appendix E.

- 11 -

EXHIBIT A -15-

Control:
In the control, we used a screenshot of how Rocket Lawyer has historically displayed the free trial
disclosure. Please see Appendix E Incorporation Control, page 8 for the complete image.

Test:
In the test, we modified the control screenshot to conform to LegalZoom’s formatting of its free trial
disclosure. For a full screenshot, please see Appendix E Incorporation Test at page 8.

- 12 -

EXHIBIT A -16-

Free Trial Stimuli
LegalZoom has alleged that Rocket Lawyer does not disclose that their free trial program is a
negative option plan – meaning that after the free trial period ends, unless the user cancels, he or
she will automatically be enrolled in a monthly subscription plan and charged a monthly fee.
As the typical user begins the journey by searching for a document, the stimuli for this test begins at
the search for a legal form.16 Rocket Lawyer offers over 800 legal forms on RocketLawyer.com.
The top four forms started are:
1. Lease Agreement
2. Power of Attorney
3. Bill of Sale
4. Divorce Settlement Agreement

17

Thus, in order to as closely as possible mimic the typical consumer experience, we created a free
trial consumer journey for each of these four forms using searches for these forms from January
2014. Respondents were shown ten screenshots of the document interview for the form that he or
she was most likely to complete.18 The control and test stimuli were identical for this portion of the
stimuli between the Test and Control versions for each of the four forms.
The only differences between the free trial and free incorporation stimuli were in the last two images
where respondents were given the opportunity to decide whether to enroll in a free trial, to enroll in
a paying plan, or to purchase the document created.

16

LegalZoom has provided a screenshot of Rocket Lawyer’s pricing page from October 3, 2012. However, this page
is not the primary access point to Rocket Lawyer for the typical consumer interested in online legal services. See
Hollerbach Declaration at ¶ 13. Instead, the typical user accesses the free trial by searching for a document and then
completing Rocket Lawyer’s document interview program, where at the end, the user has the option to enroll in a free
trial, monthly, or annual plan. Id. ¶¶ 13-14. However, whether the user clicked on “try it fee” from the former pricing
page (Nguyen Decl. at Ex. H, p. 60) or chose free trial from the document creation user journey, the user would be
taken to a substantially similar page – the enrollment page where the user would provide credit card information to
enroll in the free trial and also receive additional information relating to the free trial offer and subsequent enrollment
in a plan should the user not cancel. Compare Nguyen Decl. Ex. H p. 61 and 62 with Declaration of Hong-An Vu in
support of Rocket Lawyer’s Opposition to Summary Judgment, Ex. 6.
17

These four forms also account for 21.6% of all forms started on RocketLawyer.com and account for approximately
19.5% of all clicks that Rocket Lawyer receives from the search engines. Appendix A, Baga Declaration ¶ 14.The
searches for these screenshots were performed on January 21, 2014 for all the search screenshots except for the bill
of sale search, which was performed on January 22, 2014.
18

These screenshots are from Rocket Lawyer’s website as of January 2014 unless otherwise stated. Appendix A,
Baga Declaration ¶ 15 Because there are no allegations relating to Rocket Lawyer’s document interview process, we
have included only a portion of the document interview process sufficient to provide the user context for the free trial
advertisement and offer.

- 13 -

EXHIBIT A -17-

Free Trial Offer19
Contr stimuli: The control stimuli contained a scre
rol
T
eenshot of how Rocket Lawyer off
t
fered its free
e
trial, monthly, an annual plan exactly as it appe
nd
p
y
eared on R
RocketLawye
er.com at th end of a
he
document intervie
ew.
Test stimuli: Usin Legal Zoo
ng
om’s intra-website adver
rtisement for a 30-day trial of its Business Lega
al
Plan, Rocket Law
wyer modifie its free tria offer to sim
ed
al
milarly displa the terms of the free trial.20
ay
s

Pleas see Appe
se
endix E Cont and Test for any ser
trol
t
rvice other th Incorpor
han
ration at pag 13 and
ges
14 for the comple screensh
ete
hots of both the control a test stim
and
muli.

19

Image # 13 of both stimu is Exhibit C to the Holler
uli
rbach Declara
ation, which is a screensho of how Roc
s
ot
cket Lawyer
w displaying its free trial offer in Nove
was
g
ember 2012 when this actio was filed. The only cha
w
on
ange here wa to make the
as
e
d
document gen
neric by changing the refer
rence to the bill of sale to j ust “documen
b
nt.”
2
20

We followed LegalZoom’s practices by:(i) removing the informat
d
b
g
tion relating t how much the user will b charged
to
be
a
after the free trial ends “$19.95 a month after trial end No obliga
t
h
ds.
ation”;(ii) addiing an asteris after “Get t
sk
this document
t
f
free with a one-week trial membership”; and (iii)addin another as
m
ng
sterisk near th bottom of t page a dis
he
the
sclosure
a
about the subscription price after the tria period that says “After th 7-day trial period, benefits of the Monthly Legal
e
al
he
P
Plan will continue automati
ically for $19.95 per month in small, ita
h”
alicized letterin See Lega
ng.
alZoom Mode (Appendix F
el
– LegalZoom Models):

- 14 -

EXHIBIT A -18-

Enrollment in Free Trial
After the free trial offer, respondents proceeded through the remainder of the consumer journey to
the enrollment page.21
Control stimuli: The control stimuli contained the screenshot of Rocket Lawyer’s enrollment page
exactly as it appeared on RocketLawyer.com.
Test Stimuli: The test stimuli was a modified version of the enrollment page to match the format of
how LegalZoom has provided information relating to one of its free trials and subsequent automatic
enrollment in a paying plan.22
Control

Test

Other than the free trial advertisement and the enrollment page, the control and test stimuli were
identical. Please see Appendix E for the complete stimuli.

21

The screenshot used for this page of the stimuli is also from the enrollment page that was available between that was in use
around when the complaint was filed, since it was taken on December 6, 2012, and is substantially similar, if not identical, to the
version relied on by LegalZoom in the LZ MSJ. See Nguyen Dec. Ex. H, p. 61-64.
22
To do so, we placed the information relating to its free trial plan that appears on the right hand side of the enrollment page in a
red box and changed the wordingto white to stand out against the red background.
LegalZoom Model ( Appendix F – Legal Zoom):

- 15 -

EXHIBIT A -19-

C. Universe
The respondents for the two experiments were recruited from the e-Rewards and valued opinions
online panels maintained by Research Now. Research Now has been providing high quality,
proprietary, research-only online panel samples since 2001. Research Now is an independent
source for permission-based data collection, with 6,200,000 panelists globally.
Research Now partners with a diverse set of globally recognized consumer and business- facing
brands to identify individuals who are profiled along multiple dimensions. Only individuals – or
individuals who share known characteristics – are invited to enroll in the e-Rewards panel. To
exclude duplication, panel sources are assessed during the project set-up, using a Browser
Fingerprinting technology.
The universe includes members of the Research Now USA Consumer Panel (see Appendix D),
who met the following universe definition:
1. Looked for online legal service in the past few years (S10a-c)
2. Potential to look for online legal services in the next 6 months (S11a-c)
3. If selected Incorporation: Primary decision maker (S12)

- 16 -

EXHIBIT A -20-

D. Sampling & Resulting Sample
Survey invitations were sent to members of the Research Now USA (RN) panel. For a description
of the internet panel, its selection, maintenance, quality safeguards, and usage, see Appendix D.
In order to obtain a sufficiently large number of completed responses, invitations were sent out
randomly to qualified panelists in successive waves, until about 400 completed responses had
been received. Invitations were sent out to a total of 3,334 panelists, yielding 763 qualified
respondents and 422 completed surveys. The drop-off from qualified respondents to completed
surveys comes from the inclusion of additional qualification questions in the main survey to
acquire the correct universe of respondents (see Q1c and Q5c in the questionnaire Appendix G).
Details of the total numbers of invitations sent and completed responses received are presented
in Appendix H. The Disposition Report in Appendix H also provides details of the reasons why
respondents were disqualified from taking the survey.
The Business sample characteristics are:
When someone enrolls in the panel they are asked general consumer questions, as well as
business questions. The business profiling starts with employment status and filters down, to ask
questions regarding the respondents’ business title, occupation, industry, function, company size,
etc. to ensure they are business minded individuals.
For this experiment ¾ of the respondents were recruited from the business panel, and ¼ from the
consumer panel.
The randomly selected panelists were first matched to the census gender and age distribution
(S3, S4) and geography (S5). Once contacted, they were screened for the universe definition
(10a-c, 11a-c, and 12) and for meeting the following security requirements:
1. Not working for marketing research firm; advertising agency; PR agency; Law Firm or
company that deals with giving legal advice, including online law services (S1)
2. During the past three months have not taken part in any market research surveys for
online legal services (S2)
3. Device taking survey on desktop, laptop, or tablet computer (S13a/b)
4. Willingness to agree to a confidentiality agreement (S6)
The Consumer sample characteristics are:
We invited a representative sample of respondents for gender, age and region based on census
to complete the survey.
Sample Size by Services:

Base: Total Respondents
Incorporation
Divorce
Bill of sale
Lease agreement
Power of attorney

Incorporation
Services –
Test
104
104
0
0
0
0

Incorporation
Services –
Control
103
103
0
0
0
0

- 17 -

Consumer
Services –
Test
108
0
28
24
29
27

Consumer
Services –
Control
107
0
29
27
26
25
EXHIBIT A -21-

E. Data Collection
Data collection was administered by Radius Global Market Research under my overall supervision
and took place from 2/19 to 2/28 of 2014.
To ensure the quality of the data the following safeguards were implemented:
1. The CAPTCHA (Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans
Apart) test was performed to determine whether or not the respondent is human.
2. Agree to a Confidentiality agreement (otherwise respondent is terminated).
3. The respondents were instructed as follows:





Please take the survey on a desktop, laptop, or tablet computer (S13a/b).
While taking this survey, please do not at any time use the ‘back button’.
While taking this survey, please do not search for help.
Please do not consult or talk with any person while taking this survey.

5. To ensure quality of the stimuli and readability of the questions, only respondents who used
desktop computers, laptops and tablets were included (no smartphones or mobile phones).
6. The identities of the respondents were matched against the answers of panel members
regarding age, gender and region if respondents were in the consumer panel and region if
respondents were in the business panel.

- 18 -

EXHIBIT A -22-

F. Respondent Task
The main task of respondents (who all have looked for specified online legal services over the past
few years or plan on looking for specified online legal services in the next 6 months) was
comprised of the following:
1. Respondents were first asked to review a Google search page for the specific online legal
service that they qualified for. After reviewing that particular search page, respondents were
asked which company they would be interested in exploring further based on what they
saw.
a. If at first the respondent did not select RL, they were asked a follow-up question to
review all the companies they did not select and select any that they would be
interested in exploring further.


After this, if the respondent still did not select RL, they were asked if they
would be willing to explore RL’s website.

2. Next the respondents were shown specific online legal service stimuli based on which
service they qualified for in the screener. These stimuli emulated the journey a respondent
would take starting from first searching the online legal service on Google, to selecting RL’s
website, all the way to the payment page on RL’s website. Each step in the journey had its
own screen shot image displayed on its own page, so it looked as if the respondent were
actually going through the website. After reviewing all of the screens (Incorporation Service
had 13 screens to review and all Consumer Services had 14 screens to review), the
respondent answered questions about what they saw regarding:
a. The recollection of a free trial offer
b. Awareness of state fees (Incorporation Service only)
c. The recollection of a time limit on the offer
d. And finally, what action the respondent was likely to take after reviewing all the
information
3. We followed up by asking, in general, what factors are important to the respondent when
deciding to use an online legal service company.
4. Finally, we wanted to understand if the respondent was familiar with free online trials by
asking if they have ever encountered any online offers for a free trial of products and/or
services.
Main Questionnaire Details:
The Incorporation Service Experiment focused on the following topics:
 Internet search engine usage for online legal services (Q1a-Q1c)
 Google ad consideration for specified online legal services (Q2-Q5c)
 Rocket Lawyer’s online legal service Google ad and website review (Q6a)
 Description of Rocket Lawyer’s free Incorporation offer from its Google ad and website
(QB7-QB8)
 Recognition of free Incorporation Offer from Google ad and website (QB9)
 Understanding of State Fees (QB10a-QB10b-2)
 Recollection of free Trial Offer (QB11)
 If free Trial Offer has a time limit (Q12a)
 What happens after the free trial period? (Q12b/c)
 Understanding of how to get answers to questions, after signing up for the free trial (Q13)

- 19 -

EXHIBIT A -23-












Describing actions likely to take, assuming interest in online Incorporation services, after
reviewing Rocket Lawyer’s Google ad and website (QB13b/c)
Selecting a statement that summarizes actions likely to take, assuming interest in online
Incorporation services, after reviewing Rocket Lawyer’s Google ad and website (Q14)
Describing why made that decision? (Q14b)
If did not select ‘Take Free Trial’, why not? (Q14c)
Opportunity to add personal factors in choosing online legal services (Q14d)
Ranking of the factors in choosing online legal services (Q14e)
Selecting factors that are not important in choosing online legal services (Q14f)
If encountered other online offers for a free trial of products/services (Q15a)
Describing other online offers for a free trial of products/services that encountered (Q15b/c)
Enrollment of other online free trial offers of products/services that encountered (Q15d)

The Consumer Services Experiment focused on the following topics:
 Internet search engine usage for online legal services (Q1a-Q1c)
 Google ad consideration for specified online legal services (Q2-Q5c)
 Rocket Lawyer’s online legal service Google ad and website review (Q6a)
 Description of Rocket Lawyer’s offer from its website (QC7-QC8)
 Recognition of free Trial Offer from website (QC9a)
 Description of free Trial Offer (QC10)
 Describe the offer to a friend (QC11a/b)
 If free Trial Offer has a time limit (Q12a)
 What happens after the free trial period? (Q12b/c)
 Understanding of how to get answers to questions, after signing up for the free trial (Q13)
 Describing actions likely to take, assuming interest in specified online legal services, after
reviewing Rocket Lawyer’s website (QC13b/c)
 Describing why made that decision? (Q14b)
 If did not select ‘Take Free Trial’, why not? (Q14c)
 Opportunity to add personal factors in choosing online legal services (Q14d)
 Ranking of the factors in choosing online legal services (Q14e)
 Selecting factors that are not important in choosing online legal services (Q14f)
 If encountered other online offers for a free trial of products/services (Q15a)
 Describing other online offers for a free trial of products/services that encountered (Q15b/c)
 Enrollment of other online free trial offers of products/services that encountered (Q15d)
The survey questionnaire can be found in Appendix G.

- 20 -

EXHIBIT A -24-

G. Analysis
Since the experiment design relied on a number of open-ended responses, the open-ended responses
were coded by a professional coder who did not know the purpose of the experiment or identity of the
sponsor. In addition, there are full verbatim responses which can be referenced in Appendix I.
The data were coded and cross tabulated for the Incorporation Service and Consumer Online Legal
Services. For each experiment the cross tabs focus was on the similarities between Test and Control
groups for two separate respondent groups – the segment interested in Incorporation Service and the
segment interested in Consumer Online Legal Services (as previously defined in the Experiment
section – page 9).
The analysis of the statistical significance of the difference between the test and the control groups
(Appendix M) was conducted by Abba Krieger, Professor of Statistics at the Wharton School, University
of Pennsylvania.
As part of the analysis, we have designed a decision tree chart that identifies the “harmed” population
or the segment of people who could have been deceived due to:
1. the omission of “State Fees” and the focus on “Free Trial” in the advertising of online legal
incorporation service (Only applies to the respondents who answered about the Incorporation
Service)
2. the advertising of “Free Trial” of online legal services (Only applies to the respondents who
answered about the Consumer Services)
The trees were constructed to identify the segment that could have been affected by plaintiff's claims
and incorporated both open and closed-ended questions. At Level 1 for the general population, those
who did not choose Rocket Lawyer were eliminated.23 At Level 2, those who could not recall the free
offer were eliminated. At Level 3 those who did not see value in the free offer prior to the purchasing
decision were eliminated. At Level 4, those respondents with the highest level of understanding of the
free offers were eliminated. At Level 5 those who chose not to do business with Rocket Lawyer were
eliminated. By Level 5, the potentially harmed population was identified – those who demonstrated
some confusion and provided Rocket Lawyer with business. At this stage if the difference between the
test and control group is statistically significant and there are more respondents in the control group
than those would be the harmed segment.
The open-ended questions were coded by the same coder, who implemented “flag coding" by flagging
a response as included or not included in a particular issue. This, in combination with select answers
from closed-end questions makes up the decision trees. Since in a number of the tree branches the
input was from more than one question, to the extent that the results were not consistent, the
respondent was identified as having an ambiguous response.

23

We also analyzed two segments that did not choose Rocket Lawyer at Level 1 to determine whether there was any
discrepancy between the general population and these segments. We analyzed the population who chose
LegalZoom, but not Rocket Lawyer, and those who did not chose Rocket Lawyer because the advertisement was
California specific. After analyzing these populations at each Level (except Level 1), we concluded that there was no
difference between these segments and the general population. The tree diagrams for these segments can be found
in Appendix J, Supporting Data.

- 21 -

EXHIBIT A -25-

V. Results
The results are presented separately for the 2 experiments.
Each section includes a set of tables corresponding to the research question that guided the
experiment and a tree diagram that quantifies the size of the segment that could have been affected by
plaintiff’s complaint.
Incorporation Service Data Tables:



















Table 1. The Impact of the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad on the Choice of Rocket Lawyer and
Legal Zoom (Q2)
Table 2. The Impact of the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad on the Inclusion of Rocket Lawyer and
Legal Zoom in the Consideration Set (Q4a)
Table 3. Reasons for selection of Rocket Lawyer or Legal Zoom After Exposure to its Search Ad
(Q3a/b)
Table 4. Awareness of the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad Among Respondents Who Did Not Select
or Consider it (QB5a)
Table 5. Perception of the Incorporation Offer Based on Both the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad and
Website (QB7 & 8)
Table 6. Recall if Had to Pay State Fees to the State for Incorporation with the Free Offer
(QB10a)
Table 7. Recall of a “Free Trial” Offer on the Rocket Lawyer Website (QB11)
Table 8. Recall if the “Free Trial” Offer had a Time Limit (Q12a)
Table 9. Respondents Perception of What Happens After the Free Trial Period (Q12bc)
Table 10. Respondents Understanding of how they can get Answers to Questions they may
have if they sign up for a Free Trial offer (Q13a)
Table 11. Respondents Likely Action After Reviewing the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad and
Website (Open End Question Q13bc)
Table 12. Likely Action After Having Seen the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad and Website (Q14a)
Table 13. Reasons for Deciding to Take the Free Trial (Q14b1, b2)
Table 14. Reasons for Deciding NOT to Take the Free Trial (Q14c)
Table 15. Most Important Factors Affecting the use of an Online Legal Company (Q14e)
Table 16. Respondents Experience with Free Trial Offers of Products and/or Services (Q15a,
b/c, d)
Figure 1. Decision Tree (Gen-Pop)
Table 17. Understanding of the Offer Among All Respondents Who Either Accepted the Free
Offer or Bought Other Legal Services at Level 5

- 22 -

EXHIBIT A -26-

Other Legal Services’ Data Tables:















Table 1. The Impact of the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad on the Choice of Rocket Lawyer and
Legal Zoom (Q2)
Table 2. The Impact of the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad on the Inclusion of Rocket Lawyer and
Legal Zoom in the Consideration Set (Q4a)
Table 3. Consumer Services - Recall of a “Free Trial” Offer (QC10, C11a/b)
Table 4. Recall if the “Free Trial” Offer had a Time Limit (Q12a)
Table 5. Respondents Perception of What Happens After the Free Trial Period (Q12bc)
Table 6. Respondents Understanding of how they can get Answers to Questions they may have
if they sign up for a Free Trial offer (Q13a)
Table 7. Respondents Likely Action After Reviewing the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad and Website
(Open End Question Q13bc)
Table 8. Likely Action After Having Seen the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad and Website (Q14a)
Table 9. Reasons for Deciding to Take the Free Trial (Q14b1, b2)
Table 10. Reasons for Deciding NOT to Take the Free Trial (Q14c)
Table 11. Most Important Factors Affecting the use of an Online Legal Company (Q14e)
Table 12. Respondents Experience with Free Trial Offers of Products and/or Services (Q15a,
b/c, d)
Figure 1. Decision Tree (Gen-Pop)
Table 13. Understanding of All Respondents Who Accepted the Free Trial or Bought Other
Services at Level 5

- 23 -

EXHIBIT A -27-

Incorporation Services Results

- 24 -

EXHIBIT A -28-

Incorporation Service
Table 1:
The Impact of the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad on the Choice of Rocket Lawyer and Legal Zoom (Q2)

Test

Incorporation Service
Control

(State Fee Disclosure in ad)

(No State Fee Disclosure in ad)

%
(n=104)
35.6
64.4

%
(n=103)
34.0
68.0

Rocket Lawyer
Legal Zoom

Conclusion24: The Rocket Lawyer search engine ad had no impact on the selection of either Rocket
Lawyer or Legal Zoom since there is no significant difference between the Test and Control groups.
Whether Rocket Lawyer disclosed state fees or not in the search engine ad had no effect on
respondents’ selection of Rocket Lawyer or LegalZoom.

24

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 25 -

EXHIBIT A -29-

Incorporation Service
Table 2:
The Impact of the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad on the Inclusion of Rocket Lawyer and Legal Zoom in
the Consideration Set (Q4a)
Incorporation Service
Inclusion of Rocket Lawyer in Consideration Set
Test
Control
(State Fee Disclosure in ad)

(No State Fee Disclosure in ad)

#

#

10

10

13

11

Data is represented in Absolute
Numbers25
Rocket Lawyer
(n=67, 68)*
Legal Zoom
(n=37, 33)*
*BASE: Brand not chosen in Q2

Conclusion26: When given a second chance to choose Rocket Lawyer, the Rocket Lawyer search
engine ad had no impact on the inclusion of either Rocket Lawyer or Legal Zoom in the
consideration set since there is no significant difference between the Test or Control groups.
Whether Rocket Lawyer disclosed state fees or not in the search engine ad had no effect on
respondents’ selection of Rocket Lawyer or LegalZoom.

25

When the number of respondents is small (typically below 50) we are reporting the raw number and not percentages.

26

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 26 -

EXHIBIT A -30-

Incorporation Service
Table 3:
Reasons for selection of Rocket Lawyer or Legal Zoom After Exposure to its Search Ad (Q3a/b)
Incorporation Service
Selection of Rocket
Selection of Legal Zoom
Lawyer
Test
Test
Control
Control

(State Fee
Disclosure in
ad)

(No State Fee
Disclosure in ad)

(State Fee
Disclosure in
ad)

(No State Fee
Disclosure in ad)

Base: Respondents who selected Brand
at Q2

(n=37)

(n=35)

(n=67)

(n=70)

Data is represented in Absolute Numbers
Positive/Neutral Comments (Grand-Net)
Free (Net)
Familiarity (Net)
Fast Service (Net)
Offers Needed Service (Net)
To Accomplish Specific Task (Net)
Cost (Net)
Location Related (Net)
How Search Engine Has It Listed (Net)
Easy to Use (Net)
Looks Professional/Reliable (Net)
Features of Service (Net)
Other Reasons (Net)
Negative Comments (Net)
Don't know
No answer

#
36
25
5
4
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
8
0
0
1

#
35
18
9
0
1
0
3
3
2
1
1
1
11
0
0
0

#
66
2
51
1
5
4
1
0
0
3
13
2
7
0
0
1

#
70
2
43
0
1
10
1
1
2
2
12
2
21
0
0
0

Conclusion27: There is no significant difference between the test and control groups in their open
ended reasons for selection of Rocket Lawyer or LegalZoom. Directionally, however, “free” was
more often a factor among the Rocket Lawyer test group than the control group (which did not
disclose state fees with its free offer). Thus, “free” was more of a consideration for choosing
Rocket Lawyer where state fees were disclosed.28

27

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.
28

This is consistent with the responses of what appears to be a skeptical sub-group within the respondent populations. Numerous
respondents expressed their skepticism for “free” offers. “Free. Do not trust as much” (ID 2058); “free is usually not really free” (ID
2221); “nothing is free” (ID 6309).

- 27 -

EXHIBIT A -31-

Incorporation Service
Table 4:
Awareness of the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad Among Respondents Who Did Not Select or Consider it
(QB5a)

Test

Incorporation Service
Control

(State Fee Disclosure in ad)

(No State Fee Disclosure in ad)

%

%

(n=57)

(n=58)

56.1
33.3
10.5

63.8
31.0
5.2

Base: Rocket Lawyer not selected at
Q2/Q4
Aware
Not Aware
Don't Know

Conclusion29: Most of the respondents who did not select or consider Rocket Lawyer were aware of
the Rocket Lawyer search engine ad. There is also no significant difference between the test and
control groups.

29

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 28 -

EXHIBIT A -32-

Incorporation Service
Table 5:
Perception of the Incorporation Offer Based on Both the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad and Website
(QB7 & 8)
Incorporation Service
Test
Control
(State Fee
Disclosure in ad)

Positive/Neutral Comments (Grand-Net)
Fast/Easy To Use (Net)
Other Cost Related (Net)
Good/Reasonable Cost (subnet)
Good cost/price
It's a fair/reasonable offer
Other Cost
Specific Amount Charged for Selected Services (subnet)
Happens After Trial Period (Net)
Various Payment Options (subnet)
You can pay more for additional features/information/services
Different payment options
You're Charged/Credit Card is Charged (subnet)
Specific Amount You Will Be Charged (subnet)
Other Happens After Trial (subnet)
Good for specific (legal) uses (Net)
Mentioned Free Trial (Net)
Other mentioned free trial (subnet)
Free access to documents/printing during free trial (sub-net)
Other Service Features (Net)
Availability of Documents/Printing (w/out Mentioning free Trial) (Net)
It's good/nice (general)
Has online help/chat assistance/800# help
Trial offer (no mention of free)
Negative Comments (Net)
Cost-Related (subnet)
Need to pay state fees/there are fees, costs to file (during the trial)
It's not (really) free
Too expensive
Don't like extra/ hidden fees/costs
Have to remember to cancel or you get charged
Other Negative Mentions (subnet)
Offer is Lacking Information/Confusing (subnet)
Security/Trust Issues (subnet)
Would Not Recommend (subnet)
None/Nothing
Don't know/ No Answer

- 29 -

(No State Fee
Disclosure in
ad)

%
(n=104)
86.5
46.2
22.1
13.5
6.7
4.8
1.9
8.7
14.4
9.6
7.7
1.9
4.8
2.9
1.9
13.5
12.5
12.5
0.0
12.5
1.0
9.6
3.8
3.8
29.8
19.2
11.5
3.8
3.8
2.9
0
8.7
4.8
3.8
0.0
4.8
2.9

%
(n=103)
86.4
38.8
23.3
6.8
3.9
1.9
1
17.5
19.4
9.7
6.8
3.9
3.9
4.9
3.9
13.6
14.6
13.6
1.0
19.4
3.9
5.8
10.7
2.9
38.8
25.2
9.7
10.7
2.9
3.9
1
14.6
11.7
6.8
4.9
1.0
1.9

EXHIBIT A -33-

Incorporation Service
Table 5 (Con’t):
Perception of the Incorporation Offer Based on Both the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad and Website
(QB7 & 8)
Conclusion30: Respondents’ perceptions of the Incorporation offer based on both the Rocket
Lawyer search engine ad and website was mostly favorable and did not differ between the test and
control groups re the issues of concern – the free trial and cost. The only exception is with respect
to one of the twenty two comparisons –respondents in the control group (disputed advertisements)
are significantly more likely to perceive that “it’s not really free.” Thus, whether respondents
viewed the free offer favorably was not significantly impacted by the search engine ad, except that
where sate fees were not disclosed, respondents viewed the offer more negatively.

30

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 30 -

EXHIBIT A -34-

Incorporation Service
Table 6:
Recall if Had to Pay State Fees to the State for Incorporation with the Free Offer (QB10a)
Incorporation Service
Test

Yes
No
Don't Know

Control

(State Fee Disclosure in ad)

(No State Fee Disclosure in ad)

%
(n=104)
70.2
13.5
16.3

%
(n=103)
68.9
14.6
16.5

Conclusion31: The vast majority of the respondents recalled the need to pay state fees and there is
no significant difference between the test and control groups in recalling the request to pay state
fees. Thus, disclosure of the state fees in the search engine ad had no effect on respondents’
understanding of the need to pay state fees after respondents continued through the consumer
journey to RocketLawyer.com.

31

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 31 -

EXHIBIT A -35-

Incorporation Service
Table 7:
Recall of a “Free Trial” Offer on the Rocket Lawyer Website (QB11)
Incorporation Service
Test

Yes
No
Don't Know

Control

(State Fee Disclosure in ad)

(No State Fee Disclosure in ad)

%
(n=104)
76.0
11.5
12.5

%
(n=103)
80.6
12.6
6.8

Conclusion32: The vast majority of respondents recalled a Free Trial offer but there is no significant
difference between the test and control groups in this recall of a “Free Trial” offer.

32

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 32 -

EXHIBIT A -36-

Incorporation Service
Table 8:
Recall if the “Free Trial” Offer had a Time Limit (Q12a)
Incorporation Service
Test

(No State Fee Disclosure in ad)

%
Base: Aware of Free Trial
Offer
Yes
No
Don't Know

Control

(State Fee Disclosure in ad)

%

(n=92)

(n=90)

58.7
23.9
17.4

60.0
15.6
24.4

Conclusion33: Most respondents recalled the time limit of the free trial offer and there is no
significant difference between the test and control groups in the recall of a time limit on the free
trial offer. Thus, placing the free trial disclosures in a red box to further set apart the free trial
information from the other text on the webpage (test stimuli) had no effect of respondents’
understanding of the free trial offer.

33

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 33 -

EXHIBIT A -37-

Incorporation Service
Table 9:
Respondents Perception of What Happens After the Free Trial Period (Q12bc)
Incorporation Service
Test
Control
(State Fee Disclosure in ad) (No State Fee Disclosure in ad)

#
(n=54)
42
5
2
3
-

Data is represented in Absolute Numbers
Base: To those aware of time limit
Charged After Trial (Net)
One Week Trial
Other Length of Trial (Net)
Don't know
No answer

#
(n=54)
39
3
2
8
1

Conclusion34: Among the respondents, who were asked about their perceptions of what happens
after the free trial period, the vast majority knew that they would be charged after the trial and there
is no significant difference between the test and control groups. Thus, placing the free trial
disclosures in a red box to further set apart the free trial information from the other text on the
webpage (test stimuli) had no effect of respondents’ understanding of the free trial offer.

34

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 34 -

EXHIBIT A -38-

Incorporation Service
Table 10:
Respondent Understanding of how they can get Answers to Questions they may have if they sign
up for a Free Trial offer (Q13a)
Incorporation Service
Test
Control
(State Fee Disclosure in ad)

%
(n=104)
56.7
25
19.2
12.5
28.8
10.6
11.5
5.8
1.9
0
36.5
17.3
6.7
5.8
1
1.9
1
1
3.8
9.6
8.7
0
1

Phone (Net)
Call/By phone n/s
Call/By phone to the free/800#
Call the number listed/the number shown
Online (Net)
Online n/s
Online chat
Use the website/at the website n/s
Use the link/There was a link
They have an FAQ list
Other (Net)
Email
Contact customer service
Contact them n/s
They have a help line/help button
Contact a Lawyer (Sub-Net)
Call a lawyer
You can talk to their lawyers
Other mentions
Don't know (Net)
Don't know
None/Nothing
No answer

(No State Fee Disclosure in
ad)

%
(n=103)
52.4
17.5
17.5
17.5
24.3
4.9
12.6
5.8
1
0
30.1
12.6
3.9
4.9
1.9
1
0
1
5.8
20.4
16.5
1
2.9

Conclusion35: The majority of respondents knew that they could contact Rocket Lawyer (by phone,
online, or other ways) if they had any questions. And there is no significant difference between the
test and control groups with one exception that a few more respondents in the control group said
“don’t know.”

35

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 35 -

EXHIBIT A -39-

Incorporation Service
Table 11:
Respondents’ Likely Action After Reviewing the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad and Website (Q13bc)
Incorporation Service
Test
Control
(State Fee
Disclosure in ad)

Would Consider/Try (Grand Net)
Would Consider It (Net)
Would Try It (Net)
Would keep looking/continue researching
Other Positive/Neutral mentions
Would Not Be Interested/Wouldn't Use (Net)
Nothing
Don't know
No answer

(No State Fee
Disclosure in ad)

%
(n=104)
80.8
52.9
26.9
2.9
1.9
13.5
2.9
3.8
0.0

%
(n=103)
71.8
44.7
16.5
11.7
4.9
20.4
4.9
1.0
2.9

Conclusion36: The respondents to the test stimuli (with explicit disclosure of the state fee in the ad)
were slightly more likely to consider or try the offer. The respondents in the control group (with no
explicit disclosure in the ad for state fees) were much more likely to keep searching or to not be
interested in the offer. Thus, not disclosing state fees up front in the search engine ad (control
stimuli) reduced the likelihood that a respondent would do business with Rocket Lawyer and
increased the likelihood that the consumer would consider other online legal services competitors.

36

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 36 -

EXHIBIT A -40-

Incorporation Service
Table 12:
Likely Action After Having Seen the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad and Website (Q14a)
Incorporation Service
Test
Control
(State Fee Disclosure
in ad)

Take the free trial (includes free processing)
Continue searching on other online legal service sites
Ask other people about the service
Decide not to buy an online legal service
Pay for incorporation services (without free trial - $99.95)
Other
Don’t Know

(No State Fee
Disclosure in ad)

%
(n=104)
27.9
36.5
14.4
2.9
9.6
4.8
3.8

%
(n=103)
23.3
45.6
13.6
2.9
3.9
4.9
5.8

Conclusion37: The majority of respondents did not plan on taking the free trial offer. In general,
there are no significant differences between the test and control groups. Directionally however, a
slightly higher percentage of the respondents in the test group planned to take the free trial offer or
pay for incorporation services without free trial. While a much higher percentage of the control
respondents planned to continue searching. Thus, not disclosing state fees up front in the search
engine ad (control stimuli) reduced the likelihood that a respondent would do business with Rocket
Lawyer and increased the likelihood that the consumer would consider other online legal services
competitors.

37

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 37 -

EXHIBIT A -41-

Incorporation Service
Table 13:
Reasons for Deciding to Take the Free Trial (Q14b1, b2)
Incorporation Service
Test
Control
(State Fee
Disclosure in ad)

Base: Respondents who selected ‘Free Trial’ at Q14a
Data is represented in Absolute Numbers
Positive/Neutral Comments (Net)
Cost (Net)
It's free
Good deal/not expensive
Not charged if cancel
Other Inexpensive mentions
Convenient (Net)
Easy to use
Fast
Useful (Net)
To try it out (general)/See if I like it/If it's useful
Sounds good (general)
Like to try (things) before joining/buying
Looks reputable/respectable
Get to ask questions/get legal assistance
It's what I'm looking for/the kind of service I need
Want to use the forms/get the forms
Don't need for more than trial/would use it once and cancel
It's visually appealing/looks nice/popped out at me
Other Positive mentions
Negative Comments (Net)
All Negative comments
Don't know

(No State Fee
Disclosure in ad)

(n=29)
#
28
9
5
3
0
1
6
5
2
1
5
4
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

(n=24)
#
24
12
6
3
2
1
3
2
1
1
3
1
3
1
0
1
0
0
1
3
0
0
0

Conclusion38: Among those who decided to take the free trial offer, there is no significant difference
between the test and control groups with respect to their reasons for deciding to take the free trial
offer, thus, revising the advertisement and the free trial disclosure format did not impact the
purchasing decision.

38

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 38 -

EXHIBIT A -42-

Incorporation Service
Table 14:
Reasons for Deciding NOT to Take the Free Trial (Q14c)
Incorporation Service
Test
Control
(State Fee
Disclosure in ad)

Base: Respondents who did not select ‘Free Trial’ at Q14a
Positive/Neutral Comments (Net)
Negative Comments (Grand-Net)
Cost Related (Net)
Need More Information/Research Before Deciding (Net)
Limited Need for Service (Net)
Skeptical About Offer (Net)
Miscellaneous
Trial term too short/One week isn't long enough
Would rather (just) go ahead and get it/not bother with the trial
period
Don't like it/don't want it (general)
Don't want to give my credit card information
Concerned the quality of the work may not be valid/hold up in
court
Don't want to have to (remember to) cancel
Results in my getting (more/lots of) emails/solicitations
Too much trouble/hassle/not easy to do
Didn't see/notice that there was a free trial
May try later/Just not now/Will wait a while
Other mentions
Nothing
Don't know
No answer

(No State Fee
Disclosure in ad)

%
(n=75)
5.3
90.7
25.3
24.0
12.0
12.0

%
(n=79)
6.3
83. 5
22.8
22.8
8.9
13.9

6.7

2.5

4.0

1.3

2.7
2.7

2.5
2.5

2.7

2.5

1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.0
5.3
0.0
4.0
0.0

3.8
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
6.3
1.3
6.3
2.5

Conclusion39: Among those who decided not to take the free trial offer there are no significant
differences between the test and control groups with respect to their reasons for not taking the free
trial offer. Thus, revising the advertisement and the free trial disclosure format did not impact the
purchasing decision.

39

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 39 -

EXHIBIT A -43-

In
ncorporati
ion Service
e
Table 15:
Most Important Facto Affecting the use of a Online Le
ors
an
egal Compan (Q14e)
ny
Incorporatio Service:
on

C
Conclusion: Advertisin and Brand Name were the lea importan factors a
ng
w
ast
nt
affecting th use of an
he
n
o
online legal service company.
l

D
Data within bar charts:
b

R
Recommended from Colleagu
ues
C
Customer Revie
ews
P
Price
O
Opportunity to try the service for free
t
P
Personal exper
rience on the website
w
O
Other (Net)*
B
Brand Name
A
Advertisement

Incorporati
ion Service
Test
Control
(State Fee Disclosu re in ad)
e
(No State Fee Disclosure in ad)
e
%
%
(n=104)
(n=103)
21.2
24.3
20.2
15.5
19.2
23.3
13.5
10.7
12.5
8.7
5.7
12.7
4.8
2.9
2.9
1.9

*
*The Other liste features incl
ed
luded:
Clarity of changes.
y
The ab
bility to get form directly for government for
ms
g
r
free.
Availability of the info
ormation for fre from other
ee
source
es.
Order listed on yahoo
o.
cy
Privac guaranteed.
Wheth web site run smooth with
her
ns
hout any
slowne
ess.
Fake ad for free trial.
a
.
Is good.
Thorou
ugh.
Very helpful.
h
Advert
tisement.

Account set up.
t
One tim usage.
me
gations.
No oblig
Lease a
agreements.
Busines planning.
ss
Restrictiions on site.
To friend and family.
ds
State sp
pecific statutes.
Range o services and products.
of
d
Persona experience o the website.
al
on
Time req
quired to comp
plete the filing.
Face to face when han
ndling personal matters.
ation of differen incorporation methods.
nt
n
Explana
How doe the compan stand behind their product.
es
ny
d

- 40 -

EXHIBIT A -44-

Incorporation Service
Table 16:
Respondents Experience with Free Trial Offers of Products and/or Services (Q15a, b/c, d)40
Incorporation Service
Test
Control
(State Fee
Disclosure in ad)

Encountered Free Trial Offers (Q15a)
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Recalled Businesses that Offer Free Trials (Q15b/c)

Base: Respondents who encountered ‘Free Trials’ at Q15a
Entertainment Services (Net)
Legal Service (Net)
Shopping Services (Net)
Computer/Software Services (Net)
Health Related (Net)
Credit Score sites
Genealogy sites (ancestry.com, archives.com)
Dating services
Cosmetics/Personal care items
Linked In
Phones/Phone Apps
Pet services
Angie's List
HR/Employment services
Lots of companies do
Other mentions41
Nothing
Don't know
No answer
Percent of Respondents who have enrolled in free offer
programs (Q15d)

(No State Fee
Disclosure in ad)

%
(n=104)
56.7
39.4
3.8

%
(n=103)
62.1
29.1
8.7

(n=59)
18.6
10.2
8.5
6.8
6.8
10.2
5.1
3.4
1.7
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.4
5.1
18.6
8.5

(n=64)
23.4
1.6
12.5
10.9
4.7
6.3
1.6
1.6
6.3
0.0
1.6
3.1
1.6
1.6
1.6
25.0
6.3
9.4
7.8

Base: Respondents who encountered ‘Free Trials’ at Q15a

(n=59)
(n=64)
Yes
47.5
51.6
No
49.2
45.3
Don’t Know
3.4
3.1
Conclusion: The majority of respondents had prior experience with free trials. There are no
significant differences between the test and control groups in their experience with Free trial offers
both when it came to encountering them as well as enrolling in them.
40

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.
41

Other Mentions: Good; Yidio; Go Daddy Wix; Reverse Look up; Fraud protection; Zoosk; Beezid.com; Stock news letters;
Investment services; Subscription services; Can't remember. Free inc; Freebies women get it free turbo tax; Hosiery companies;
Vacuum companies. Many of the kitchen gadget manufacturers; Web conferencing companies email arketing companies recipe
sites; Almost everyone on the net offers free trials. I view them as a way to get my credit card number. Nothing in life is free; Narx;
Cabela's; Bow Flex; Turbo tax; Cable TV; Dating services; Pimliar language; Stamps.com; efax; Linked In premium; News source
access; Blog Reader service; Real estate searches; Business card makers; IHOP free meal; Chili's free appetizer; It seemed
legitimate. (probe) It seemed legitimate; Quoting systems meeting systems (GoToMeeting; etc. ).

- 41 -

EXHIBIT A -45-

In
ncorporati
ion Service
e
Figure 1:
Decision Tree (Gen
n-Pop)42

4
C
Conclusions43: The online legal servi
ices incorpor
ration/busine formatio population is quite heterogenous
ess
on
n
a demonstra
as
rated by the tree. The only consumer segment wh could hav been dece
t
ly
ho
ve
eived are the
r
respondents in the 5th le
evel of the tre and they include 389 o of 10,000 i.e. less tha 4%. But it is important
ee
i
out
0
an
t
t
t note that there are no significant differences between the t
to
t
s
d
b
test and control groups a in fact, d
and
directionally,
t
there are more respondents in the tes group (the modified st
st
e
timuli respon
nding to Leg
galZoom’s su
uggestions)
t
than the cont
trol group (th disputed RLI stimuli) in this segm
he
ment. Thus, th
here is no ha
armed popul
lation.

4
42

The “n=” is th base numbe of responden on which th percentage c
he
er
nts
he
calculations ar based.
re
T Total Unive
The
erse of 100% is representativ by a sample of 10,000 to ill ustrate the size of the consum segment.
s
ve
e
mer
4
43
The results of the statistical test of the diff
o
ference betwee the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
en
s
a
analysis.

- 42 -

EXHIBIT A -46-

Incorporation Service
Table 17: Understanding of the Offer Among All Respondents Who Either Accepted the Free Offer
or Bought Other Legal Services at Level 5
Classifications:
No understanding – did not understand state fee or time limit on free trial
Low understanding – did not understand either the state fee or the free trial time limit
Some Understanding – understood state fees, understood free trial time limit
High Understanding – understood state fees, understood free trial time limit, understood that either the
length of time limit or the need to cancel44
GENERAL POPULATION – This includes all respondents who qualifies for level 5
Accepted Free Trial
Test
Control
ID
Conclusion
ID
Conclusion
Low understanding – does not understand
Low understanding – understood state fees,
2193
state fees and high understanding of free
6941 but was not aware of the time limit on the
trial offer
free trial
Some understanding – understood state
Low understanding – does not understand
fees, understood time limit, although this
7460
state fees and high understanding of free
5610 user has experience with free trials, no
trial offer
responses suggest that the user understood
the need to cancel or length of trial
Some understanding – understood state
fees, understood time limit, but states that
Low understanding - understood state fees
5944
6127 respondent did not know what happened
but did not recall time limit on free trial
after free trial, even though prior experience
with free trials
High understanding – understood state
fees, was aware of the time limit, “I am
Low understanding – understood state
cheap” and “I do not see the advantage of
6973
fees, but did not know time limit on free
2647
joining” and prior experience with free trial
trial
demonstrates likelihood that respondent
knew to cancel before the trial period ended
Some understanding – understood state
fees and time limit, but responses do not
2564
demonstrate knowledge of subsequent
charge
Some/High understanding – understood
state fees, understood time limit. “option
5797
to continue” is ambiguous about whether
the respondent understood charge after
free trial period
High understanding – understood state
fees, understood time limit, understood
2326
that payment is required to continue, but
responses do not demonstrate the need to
cancel to avoid charge

44

Based on Level 4, no respondents with the highest level of understanding (Yes category at Level 4) were analyzed at Level 5.
This analysis is based on the responses provided at Level 4 and 5 of the tree within the context of all other responses to the
questionnaire.

- 43 -

EXHIBIT A -47-

Incorporation Service
Table 17 (Con’t): Understanding of the Offer Among All Respondents Who Either Accepted the Free
Offer or Bought Other Legal Services at Level 5
Classifications:
No understanding – did not understand state fee or time limit on free trial
Low understanding – did not understand either the state fee or the free trial time limit
Some Understanding – understood state fees, understood free trial time limit
High Understanding – understood state fees, understood free trial time limit, understood that either the
length of time limit or the need to cancel45
GENERAL POPULATION – This includes all respondents who qualifies for level 5
Other Business to Rocket Lawyer
Test
Control
ID
Conclusion
ID
Conclusion
Some understanding – understood state
Some understanding/high understanding fee and understood free trial time limit.
understood the state fee. Did not know that
But user chose to pay for processing
2488
there was a time limit, but was aware of the 3332
because “It was only $99.95” and thus it
price of the monthly plans. Was confused
is unclear whether user understood that
by the different prices encountered
state fees still apply.
High understanding - understood state fee
3274
and time limit on free trial was one week,
but was skeptical – “nothing is free”
Conclusion: Although there are no significant differences between the test and control groups with
respect to those who have provided Rocket Lawyer with business, directionally, more test
respondents who demonstrate some level of confusion accepted the free trial or provided Rocket
Lawyer with other business. The test group has also demonstrated that the level of understanding
of the free trial may be lower than the level of understanding of those in the control group. All
control respondents knew to pay state fees, whereas a third of the test respondents did not know
that they had to pay state fees. Otherwise the level of understanding is similar between the Test
and Control.
The only respondents who may have been confused by Rocket Lawyer’s free offer as offered in the
control stimuli are those at the 5th level. The percentage of those who accepted the free trial that
was confused was less than 4%. But, because there is no significant difference between the test
and control groups and directionally, the population at issue is greater in the test than the control,
there is no harmed population. If Rocket Lawyer had advertised according to LegalZoom’s
proposed standards, there would have been no significant difference in the number of respondents
who were confused about some aspect of the offer and also accepted the free trial.
Less than 1% of respondents who provided other business to Rocket Lawyer in the control group
were confused by the offer. But, because there is no significant difference between the test and
control groups and directionally, the population at issue is greater in the test than the control, there
is no harmed population.

45

Based on Level 4, no respondents with the highest level of understanding (Yes category at Level 4) were analyzed at Level 5.
This analysis is based on the responses provided at Level 4 and 5 of the tree within the context of all other responses to the
questionnaire.

- 44 -

EXHIBIT A -48-

Other Legal Services Results

- 45 -

EXHIBIT A -49-

Other Legal Services
Table 1:
The Impact of the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad on the Choice of Rocket Lawyer and Legal Zoom (Q2)

Divorce
Bill of Sale
Lease Agreement
Power of Attorney

Other Legal Services
Test
Control
(Red Box)
(Original Format)
%
%
(n=108)
(n=107)
9.3
13.1
6.5
10.3
10.2
13.1
7.4
10.3
19.4
18.7

Rocket Lawyer
Rocket Lawyer
Rocket Lawyer
Rocket Lawyer
Legal Zoom

Conclusion46: The Rocket Lawyer search engine ad had no significant impact on the selection of
either Rocket Lawyer or Legal Zoom since there is no significant difference between the Test and
Control groups.

46

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 46 -

EXHIBIT A -50-

Other Legal Services
Table 2:
The Impact of the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad on the Inclusion of Rocket Lawyer and Legal Zoom in
the Consideration Set (Q4a)
Other Legal Services
Inclusion of Legal Zoom in
Consideration Set
Test
Control
(Red Box)
(Original Format)
%
%
Rocket Lawyer
(n=98, 93)*
Rocket Lawyer
Bill of Sale
(n=101, 96)*
Rocket Lawyer
Lease Agreement
(n=97, 93)*
Rocket Lawyer
Power of Attorney
(n=100, 96)*
Legal Zoom
(n=87, 87)*
*BASE: Brands not chosen in Q2
Divorce

4.1

5.4

4.0

8.3

6.2

4.3

2.0

3.1

1.1

0.0

Conclusion47: When given a second chance to choose Rocket Lawyer or LegalZoom, there is no
significant difference between the test and control groups with respect to the inclusion of these
brands in the consideration set of respondents.

47

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 47 -

EXHIBIT A -51-

Other Legal Services
Table 3:
Consumer Services - Recall of a “Free Trial” Offer (QC10, C11a/b)
Other Legal Services
Test
Control
(Red Box)
(Original
Format)
%
%
(n=99)
(n=94)
Base: Respondents recalled ‘Free Trial’ offer at QC9a
Positive/Neutral Comments (Grand-Net)

92.9

88.3

Mentioned Free Trial (Net)
Free access to documents/printing during free trial (sub-net)
Other mentioned free trial (subnet)
Time Period Without Mentioning Free Trial (Net)
Happens After Trial Period (Net)
You're Charged/Credit Card is Charged (subnet)
Specific Amount You Will Be Charged (subnet)
Various Payment Options (subnet)
Other Happens After Trial (subnet)
Fast/Easy To Use (Net)
Good for specific (legal) uses (Net)

73.7
18.2
68.7
24.2
23.2
12.1
6.1
3.0
5.1
8.1
7.1

70.2
13.8
69.1
17.0
33.0
17.0
12.8
4.3
4.3
10.6
7.4

Availability of Documents and Printing (without Mentioning free Trial) (Net)
Other Cost Related (Net)
Good/Reasonable Cost (subnet)

6.1
6.1
6.1

5.3
4.3
4.3

Other Service Features (Net)
It's good/nice (general)
Worth a try/could try it out
Trial offer (no mention of free)
Use it once/Tell them to use it one time
Has online help/chat assistance/800# help
Legal assistance available/(Local) lawyer available to help review contracts
Other Miscellaneous mentions
Negative Comments (Net)
Security/Trust Issues (subnet)
Cost-Related (subnet)
It's not (really) free
Have to remember to cancel or you get charged
Need to pay state fees/there are fees, costs to file (during the trial)
Too expensive
Would Not Recommend (subnet)
Offer is Lacking Information/Confusing (subnet)
Other Negative Mentions (subnet)
None/Nothing
Don't know
No answer

5.1
9.1
9.1
4.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
28.3
14.1
5.1
3
2
0
0
4.0
3.0
10.1
2.0
12.1
3.0

5.3
6.4
12.8
1.1
0.0
3.2
3.2
3.2
23.4
13.8
6.4
3.2
2.1
1.1
1.1
7.4
1.1
4.3
1.1
11.7
5.3

- 48 -

EXHIBIT A -52-

Other Legal Services
Table 3 (Cont’):
Consumer Services - Recall of a “Free Trial” Offer (QC10, C11a/b)
Conclusion48: The vast majority of respondents of both the test and control groups recalled a free
mention. There is no significant difference between the Test and Control group.

48

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 49 -

EXHIBIT A -53-

Other Legal Services
Table 4:
Recall if the “Free Trial” Offer had a Time Limit (Q12a)
Other Legal Services

Base: Aware of Free Trial Offer
Yes
No
Don't Know

Test
(Red Box)
%
(n=104)
67.3
16.3
16.3

Control
(Original Format)
%
(n=101)
66.3
11.9
21.8

Conclusion49: Most respondents recalled the time limit of the free trial offer and there is no
significant difference between the test and control groups in the recall of a time limit on the free
trial offer. Thus, placing the free trial disclosures in a red box to further set apart the free trial
information from the other text on the webpage (test stimuli) had no effect of respondents’
understanding of the free trial offer.

49

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 50 -

EXHIBIT A -54-

Other Legal Services
Table 5:
Respondents Perception of What Happens After the Free Trial Period (Q12bc)
Other Legal Services
Test
Control
(Red Box)
(Original Format)
#
#
(n=70)
(n=67)

Data is represented in Absolute Numbers
Base: To those aware of time limit

52
8
5
1
7
-

Charged After Trial Period (Net)
One Week Trial
Other Length of Trial (Subnet)
Nothing
Don't know
No answer

54
5
3
3
1

Conclusion50: The majority of respondents perceived correctly that they will be charged some
amount after the trial period. There is no significant difference between the test and control
groups. Thus, placing the free trial disclosures in a red box to further set apart the free trial
information from the other text on the webpage (test stimuli) had no effect of respondents’
understanding of the free trial offer.

50

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 51 -

EXHIBIT A -55-

Other Legal Services
Table 6:
Respondent Understanding of how they can get Answers to Questions they may have if they sign
up for a Free Trial offer (Q13a)
Other Legal Services
Test
Control
(Red Box)
(Original Format)
%
%
(n=108)
(n=107)

Phone (Net)
Call/By phone n/s
Call/By phone to the free/800#
Call the number listed/the number shown
Online (Net)
Online n/s
Online chat
Use the website/at the website n/s
Use the link/There was a link
They have an FAQ list
Other (Net)
Email
Contact them n/s
Contact customer service
They have a help line/help button
Contact a Lawyer (Sub-Net)
Call a lawyer
You can talk to their lawyers
Other mentions
Don't know (Net)
Don't know
None/Nothing
No answer

37
16.7
7.4
13
43.5
4.6
21.3
15.7
0.9
0.9
23.1
8.3
4.6
2.8
2.8
1.9
0
1.9
3.7
16.7
8.3
0.9
7.4

23.4
15
3.7
4.7
33.6
7.5
16.8
8.4
0.9
0
39.3
15.9
5.6
1.9
4.7
4.7
1.9
2.8
6.5
26.2
20.6
1.9
3.7

Conclusion51: The majority of respondents knew that they could contact Rocket Lawyer (by phone
or online) if they had any questions. With the exception of a few more respondents of the control
group considering other options besides phone or online, there are no significant differences
between the test and control groups.

51

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis

- 52 -

EXHIBIT A -56-

Other Legal Services
Table 7:
Respondents’ Likely Action After Reviewing the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad and Website (Q13bc)
Other Legal Services
Test
Control
(Red Box)
(Original Format)
%
%
(n=108)
(n=107)
75.0
72.0
40.7
38.3
32.4
32.7
2.8
3.7
0.9
0.9
0.0
1.9
16.7
17.8
0.0
4.7
3.7
1.9
5.6
5.6

Would Consider/Try
Would Try It (Net)
Would Consider It (Net)
Would keep looking/continue researching
Cancel after trial period
Other Positive/Neutral mentions
Would Not Be Interested/Wouldn't Use (Net)
Nothing
Don't know
No answer

Conclusion52: Most respondents in both the test and control groups would consider trying the free
trial offer and there is no significant difference between the test and control groups.

52

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 53 -

EXHIBIT A -57-

Other Legal Services
Table 8:
Likely Action After Having Seen the Rocket Lawyer Search Ad and Website (Q14a)
Other Legal Services
Test
Control
(Red Box)
(Original Format)
%
%
(n=108)
(n=107)
Take the free trial (includes access to all Rocket
Lawyer forms)
Continue searching on other online legal service
sites
Ask other people about the service
Decide not to buy an online legal service
Enroll in a monthly plan (access to all forms and
help from attorneys for $17.95 per month,
includes attorney review of forms after 90 days)
Buy the form (without the free trial)
Enroll in an annual plan (access to all forms and
attorney services immediately for $9.99 a month
when prepaying for one year)
Pay for incorporation services (without free trial $99.95)
Other
Don’t Know

41.7

38.3

25.9

21.5

10.2
5.6

3.7
10.3

3.7

3.7

2.8

2.8

1.9

7.5

3.7
4.6

3.7
8.4

Conclusion53: The majority of respondents did not plan on taking the free trial offer and there are no
significant differences between the test and control groups regarding the likely actions after having
seen the RLI search engine ad and website. Greater than 35% of respondents in both the test and
control groups decided to continue searching or otherwise decline the free trial offer without
providing other business to Rocket Lawyer.

53

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 54 -

EXHIBIT A -58-

Other Legal Services
Table 9:
Reasons for Deciding to Take the Free Trial (Q14b1, b2)

Base: Respondents who selected ‘Free Trial’ at Q14a
Data is represented in Absolute Numbers
Positive/Neutral Comments (Net)
Cost (Net)
It's free
Nothing to lose/No risk involved
Good deal/not expensive
Convenient (Net)
Easy to use
Fast
Useful (Net)
To try it out (general)/See if I like it/If it's useful
Want to use the forms/get the forms
Like to try (things) before joining/buying
It's what I'm looking for/the kind of service I need
Sounds good (general)
Don't need for more than trial/would use it once and cancel
Get to ask questions/get legal assistance
It's visually appealing/looks nice/popped out at me
Other Positive mentions
Negative Comments (Net)
All Negative comments
Don't know

Other Legal Services
Test
Control
(Red Box)
(Original Format)
(n=45)
(n=41)

#
43
14
10
4
0
9
8
2
10
10
6
6
3
3
2
1
1
4
1
1
1

#
41
16
13
2
2
5
5
0
11
9
3
3
7
0
5
3
5
5
0
0
0

Conclusion54: Among those who decided to take the free trial offer, there are no significant
differences between the test and control groups.

54

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 55 -

EXHIBIT A -59-

Other Legal Services
Table 10:
Reasons for Deciding NOT to Take the Free Trial (Q14c)

Base: Respondents who did not select ‘Free Trial’ at Q14a
Positive/Neutral Comments (Net)
Negative Comments (Grand-Net)
Need More Information/Research Before Deciding (Net)
Cost Related (Net)
Limited Need for Service (Net)
Skeptical About Offer (Net)
Miscellaneous
Don't want to give my credit card information
Don't want to have to (remember to) cancel
Too much trouble/hassle/not easy to do
Trial term too short/One week isn't long enough
Don't like it/don't want it (general)
Results in my getting (more/lots of) emails/solicitations
May try later/Just not now/Will wait a while
Would rather (just) go ahead and get it/not bother with the trial period
Concerned the quality of the work may not be valid/hold up in court
Didn't see/notice that there was a free trial
Other mentions
Nothing
Don't know
No answer

Other Legal Services
Test
Control
(Red Box)
(Original Format)
%
%
(n=63)
(n=66)
4.8
1.5
87.3
84.8
20.6
7.6
15.9
21.2
15.9
12.1
11.1
7.6
12.7
4.8
3.2
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
1.6
6.3

15.2
3.0
0.0
1.5
4.5
3.0
1.5
4.5
0.0
0.0
9.1
1.5
9.1
3.0

Conclusion55: Among those who decided not to take a free trial there are no significant differences
between the test and control groups.

55

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.

- 56 -

EXHIBIT A -60-

Other Lega Services
al
s
Table 11:
Most Impor
M
rtant Factor Affecting the use of an Online L
rs
Legal Comp
pany (Q14e)
)

O
Other Legal Services:

C
Conclusion: Advertisin and Brand Name were the lea importan factors a
ng
w
ast
nt
affecting th use of an
he
n
o
online legal service company
l

D
Data within bar charts:
b
Other Lega Services
al
Tes
st
(Red B
Box)
%
(n=10
08)
31.5
5
20.4
4
13.9
9
13.0
0
12.0
0
4.5
5
2.8
8
1.9
9

P
Price
O
Opportunity to try the service for free
y
f
C
Customer Review
ws
R
Recommended fr
rom Colleagues
P
Personal experience on the webs
site
O
Other (Net)*
A
Advertisement
B
Brand Name
*The Other listed features include
ed:
Clarity of changes.
The ab
bility to get forms directly for gove
ernment for free.
Availab
bility of the inform
mation for free fro other sources
om
s.
Order listed on yahoo.
Privacy guaranteed.
y
Whethe web site runs smooth without any slowness.
er
a
Fake ad for free trial.
Is good
d.
Thorou
ugh.
Very he
elpful.
Advertisement.
Accoun set up.
nt
One tim usage.
me

Co
ontrol
(Origin Format)
nal
%
(n
n=107)
17.8
18.7
15.9
15.9
12.1
13.1
0.0
6.5

No obliga
ations.
Lease ag
greements.
Business planning.
s
Restrictio on site.
ons
To friend and family.
ds
ecific statutes.
State spe
Range of services and pr
f
roducts.
Personall experience on t website.
the
quired to complet the filing.
te
Time req
Face to f
face when handli personal mat
ing
tters.
Explanat
tion of different in
ncorporation met
thods.
es
stand behind their product.
How doe the company s

- 57 -

EXHIBIT A -61-

Other Legal Services
Table 12:
Respondents Experience with Free Trial Offers of Products and/or Services (Q15a, b/c, d)56
Other Legal Services
Test
Control
(Red Box)
(Original Format)
%
%
(n=108)
(n=107)
Encountered Free Trial Offers (Q15a)
Yes
56.5
64.5
No
38.9
27.1
Don’t Know
4.6
8.4
Recalled Businesses that Offer Free Trials (Q15b/c)
(n=61)
(n=69)
Base: Respondents who encountered ‘Free Trials’ at Q15a
Entertainment Services (Net)
27.9
20.3
Shopping Services (Net)
6.6
5.8
Health Related (Net)
6.6
2.9
Computer/Software Services (Net)
4.9
4.3
Legal Service (Net)
3.3
5.8
Credit Score sites
9.8
11.6
Genealogy sites (ancestry.com, archives.com)
4.9
4.3
Phones/Phone Apps
3.3
2.9
Lots of companies do
3.3
2.9
Cosmetics/Personal care items
1.6
4.3
Travel companies
1.6
2.9
Pet services
1.6
0.0
Linked In
0.0
1.4
Angie's List
0.0
1.4
HR/Employment services
0.0
1.4
57
Other mentions
21.3
31.9
Nothing
9.8
14.5
Don't know
21.3
7.2
No answer
6.6
7.2
Percent of Respondents who have enrolled in free offer
programs (Q15d)
(n=61)
(n=69)
Base: Respondents who encountered ‘Free Trials’ at Q15a
Yes
50.8
40.6
No
47.5
53.6
Don’t Know
1.6
5.8
Conclusion: The majority of respondents had encountered free trials – most of those who had
encountered free trials had accepted them. Slightly more respondents in the Control group
(original format) encountered free trial offer but fewer of them actually enrolled in free offer
programs.
56

The results of the statistical test of the difference between the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
analysis.
57
Other Mentions: AOL; Zoom; Mmos; Avast; Is good; Ask.co; Buying service; Imvu and Cappex; Modcloth, Wendys; American
Express; Pimsuels language; Military History sites; Not good site. (probe) not good site; No. (probe) most are come-ons and not
really free. Require action to cancel service; Yes; Tide; Sensa; Various; E cards; CVS, Tide; NY times; Tax help; Luminosity; Equity
Lines; Pimsleur Method; Auto payment needed; Background searches; Job search websites; Experian transunion; LinkedIn, The
Ladders; American Greeting, Join Me; Web Search (People Search); Businesses that offer printing; Free business cards from a
printer; Car maintenance products, but I don't recall the exact product; Free trial on how to fix cars, and a free trial on getting
contacts.

- 58 -

EXHIBIT A -62-

Other Lega Services
al
s
Figure 1:
Decision Tree (Gen
n-Pop)58

9
C
Conclusion59: The online legal servic responde populatio is quite he
e
ces
ent
on
eterogenous as demonst
s
trated by the
e
t
tree. The only consumer segment wh could hav been dece
y
ho
ve
eived are the respondents in the 5th l
s
level of the
t
tree and they include 467 out of 10,00 i.e. less th 5%. But i is importan to note that there are n
y
7
00
han
it
nt
no
s
significant di
ifferences be
etween the te and contr groups a
est
trol
and in fact, di
directionally, there are mo
ore
r
respondents in the test group (the mo
g
odified stimu respondin to LegalZ
uli
ng
Zoom’s sugge
estions) than the control
n
l
g
group (the di
isputed stimuli) in this se
egment. Thu there is no harmed po
us,
o
opulation.

5
58

The “n=” is th base numbe of responden on which th percentage c
he
er
nts
he
calculations ar based.
re
T Total Unive
The
erse of 100% is representativ by a sample of 10,000 to ill ustrate the size of the consum segment.
s
ve
e
mer
5
59
The results of the statistical test of the diff
o
ference betwee the test and control groups are included in Appendix M – statistical
en
s
a
analysis.

- 59 -

EXHIBIT A -63-

OTHER LEGAL SERVICES
Table 13: Understanding of All Respondents Who Accepted the Free Trial or Bought Other Services
at Level 5
Classifications:
No/Low understanding – did not understand free trial
Some Understanding – understood free trial time limit
High Understanding – understood free trial time limit, understood that either the length of time limit or the
need to cancel60
GENERAL POPULATION – This includes all respondents who qualifies for level 5
Accepted Free Trial
Control
Test
ID
Conclusion
ID
Conclusion
No/low understanding - does not know
No/low understanding – does not recall
2161
of the time limit and thus does not
1924 time limit, limited recall of specifics,
know of the automatic charge
liked free opportunity to try aspect
No/low understanding – did not recall
No/low understanding - did not recall
time limit, liked the free trial aspect, but
2252
time limit and this does not know
2131
was concerned about being able to opt
about automatic charge
out of emails
Some understanding – recalled time
limit, but did not mention charge or
No/low understanding of free trial –
3485
does not recall time limit and does not 2279 need to cancel. But stated that wanted
to re-read information provided
recall offer very well

6704

No/low understanding, does not recall
time limit and this does not know
about automatic charge

2393

some understanding - recalled time
limit, but did not mention charge after
trial period ends

2143

2339

2859

2781

7164

high understanding – understood there
was a time limit on free trial, but
understood there was a charge if
chose to continue
high understanding – understood there
was a time limit on free trial, but
understood there was a charge if
chose to continue

high understanding – this person
knows the time limit and that the
person has to pay after a week, but
there is no sense that the charge is
automatic
High understanding – knew time limit,
price and need to cancel to avoid
charge. Just didn’t know that the
charge was automatic
high understanding – knew time limit,
length of time, just does not mention
charge after free trial or need to
cancel

60

Based on Level 4, no respondents with the highest level of understanding (Yes category at Level 4) were analyzed at Level 5.
This analysis is based on the responses provided at Level 4 and 5 of the tree within the context of all other responses to the
questionnaire.

- 60 -

EXHIBIT A -64-

OTHER LEGAL SERVICES
Table 13 (Cont’): Understanding of All Respondents Who Accepted the Free Trial or Bought Other
Services at Level 5
Classifications:
No/Low understanding – did not understand free trial
Some Understanding – understood free trial time limit
High Understanding – understood free trial time limit, understood that either the length of time limit or the
need to cancel61
GENERAL POPULATION – This includes all respondents who qualifies for level 5
Other Business to Rocket Lawyer
Control
Test
ID
Conclusion
ID
Conclusion
Some understanding – understood
that there was a time limit, but
thought that time limit was 30 days.
User liked the plan and decided to
7326
enroll in an annual plan because “For
a small business who needs these
types of services when they spring up
$9.99 is a killer deal.”
Conclusion: Although there are no significant differences between the test and control groups with
respect to those who have provided Rocket Lawyer with business, directionally, more test
respondents who demonstrate some level of confusion accepted the free trial or provided Rocket
Lawyer with other business. The level of understanding may be lower in the test group than the
control group.
The only respondents who may have been confused by Rocket Lawyer’s free offer as offered in the
control stimuli are those at the 5th level. The percentage of those who accepted the free trial that
wereconfused was less than 5%. But, because there is no significant difference between the test
and control groups and directionally, the population at issue is greater in the test than the control,
there is no harmed population. If Rocket Lawyer advertised according to LegalZoom’s proposed
standards, there would be no significant difference in the number of respondents who were
confused about some aspect of the offer and also accepted the free trial.
Less than 1% of respondents who provided other business to Rocket Lawyer in the Control group
were confused by the offer. But, because there is no significant difference between the test and
control groups, there is no harmed population. Furthermore, the respondent saw value in enrolling
in an annual plan, thus any confusion regarding the free trial offer is irrelevant.

61

Based on Level 4, no respondents with the highest level of understanding (Yes category at Level 4) were analyzed at Level 5.
This analysis is based on the responses provided at Level 4 and 5 of the tree within the context of all other responses to the
questionnaire.

- 61 -

EXHIBIT A -65-

VI. Conclusions
The two double-blind experiments among customers or potential customers of online legal services,
provide conclusive answers to the questions that guided the research (see Objective of Experiment).
The conclusions are presented separately for the incorporation claim and the claim about disclosure of
free trial on the other online legal services.
The Results
Incorporation Experiment
62

1. What was the size of the potentially harmed population ?
There was no harmed population. Based on the tree diagram found at page 42, there is no
significant difference between the test and control groups of respondents who demonstrated some
confusion and accepted the free trial.
Directionally, there were more of these respondents in the test group (the modified stimuli
responding to LegalZoom’s suggestions) than the control group (the version in dispute). Thus, it is
obvious that the versions of the Rocket Lawyer advertisements and website at issue did not cause
LegalZoom any harm.
2. What, if any, was the impact of the Rocket Lawyer ad on the selection of Rocket Lawyer at
the search engine stage?
The Rocket Lawyer ad had no impact on the selection of Rocket Lawyer at the search engine
stage. There was no significant difference between the test and control groups when given a first
and second opportunity to select Rocket Lawyer. (Incorporation Tables 1 and 2)
Of those who chose Rocket Lawyer, the fact that the service was advertised as “free” was more
often a consideration for choosing Rocket Lawyer for those in the test group, where state fees were
disclosed. (Incorporation Table 3)
3. What, if any, was the impact of the search ad and website on:
a.

Consumers’ understanding of the need to pay state fees?
The search engine advertisement and website had no impact on respondents’
understanding of the need to pay state fees. The majority of respondents recalled the need
to pay state fees and there was no significant difference between the test and control
groups. (Incorporation Table 6) Thus, the search engine ad had no impact on consumers’
understanding of the need to pay state fees after visiting the website.

b. Consumers’ understanding of the free trial offer?
The search engine advertisement and website had no impact on respondents’
understanding of the free trial offer. The majority of respondents recalled that the free trial
had a time limit and there was no significant difference between the test and control groups.
(Incorporation Table 8) In addition, of those who recalled that there was a time limit to the
free trial, the majority knew that they would be charged after the trial and there is no
significant difference between the test and control groups. (Incorporation Tables 8 and 9).
Thus, the search ad had no impact on consumers’ understanding of the free trial offer after
visiting the website.
62

Using the tree diagrams at pages 42 & 59, at Level 5, if there is a significantly greater number in the Control groups
than in the Test groups, then those above the level of harm demonstrated in the Test groups is the harmed
population.

- 62 -

EXHIBIT A -66-

c. Consumers’ decision to accept the free offer?
A majority of respondents did not plan on taking the free trial offer or provide other business
to Rocket Lawyer. The non-disclosure of state fees in the search engine ad (the control
stimuli) led to a higher percentage of control respondents deciding to continue searching for
other online legal services providers. (Incorporation Table 12) Thus, the search engine ad
had no impact on consumers’ decision to accept the free trial offer after visiting the website.
However, not disclosing state fees increased the likelihood that consumers would not accept
the free offer and continue searching for other providers.
4. What, if any, was the impact of the LegalZoom formatting of the free trial disclosures on the
understanding and acceptance of the free offer?
Revising Rocket Lawyer’s disclosures to conform to LegalZoom’s formatting of its free trial
program had no impact on respondents’ understanding of the free trial and their decision to
accept the free trial. (Incorporation Tables 8, 9, and 12) Thus, revising Rocket Lawyer’s free
trial disclosures to mimic LegalZoom’s would have no impact on consumers’ understanding
of the free offer or whether they chose to do business with Rocket Lawyer.
Free Trial Experiment
63

1. What is the size of the potentially harmed population ?
There is no harmed population. Based on the tree diagram found at page 59, there was no
significant difference between the test and control groups of respondents who who demonstrated
some confusion and accepted the free trial.
Directionally, there were more respondents in the test group (the modified stimuli responding to
LegalZoom’s suggestions) than the control group (the version in dispute). Thus, it is obvious that
the versions of the Rocket Lawyer a website at issue did not cause LegalZoom any harm.
2. Do consumers understand the free trial offer (time limit to free trial, charge after free trial
period if consumer does not cancel)?
Yes, consumers do understanding the free trial offer. The majority of respondents recalled that the
free trial had a time limit and there was no significant difference between the test and control
groups. (OLS Table 4) In addition, of those who recalled that there was a time limit to the free trial,
the majority knew that they would be charged after the trial and there was no significant difference
between the test and control groups. (OLS Table 5).
3. What, if any, is the impact of the LegalZoom formatting of the free trial disclosures on the
understanding of the free trial?
The revised formatting in the test stimuli (addressing LegalZoom’s allegations) had no impact on
respondents’ understanding of the free trial. There was no significant difference between the
understanding of the test and control groups regarding the time limit and subsequent charge. (OLS
Tables 4 and 5) Thus, the LegalZoom’s formatting o fthe free trial disclosures would have no
impact on the understanding of the free trial.

63

See footnote 2.

- 63 -

EXHIBIT A -67-

4. What, if any, is the impact of the LegalZoom formatting of the free trial disclosures on
Respondents’ decision to accept the free trial?
The revised formatting in the test stimuli (addressing LegalZoom’s allegations) had no impact on
respondents’ decision to accept the free trial. The majority of respondents did not plan on taking
the free trial offer and there are no significant differences between the test and control groups.
Thus, the LegalZoom formatting of the free trial disclosures had no impact on consumers’
purchasing decisions.
Overall Conclusions
1. LegalZoom’s claims regarding both the incorporation service and the other online legal
services are contradicted by the results of the two experiments. Changing the disputed
Rocket Lawyer search engine ad and website to conform to LegalZoom’s alleged
requirements had no impact on the respondents and there is no significant difference
between the test and control groups on any of the many measures we tested (Appendix M
and all the tables of the report in Appendix L)
2. Many respondents in both experiments demonstrate understanding of Rocket Lawyer’s
offers.
In the Incorporation Experiment, respondents in both the test and control groups were able
to articulate both the need to pay state fees and the free trial offer in their open ended
responses:
Question B7: Now reflecting on the Google ad for Rocket Lawyer and the Rocket Lawyer website you
reviewed, what can you tell me about the Incorporation offer?
Case
ID

Control Responses

Case ID

1961

» It is basically a free trial for a period
of time and all one pays is the
applicable state fees which in this case
(California) is $90.

2081

» Free means you still need to pay
fees... mostly to state. Offer full service
and it is easy.

3305

3115

» It was pretty much free, with some
offers for other products sprinkled in.
The only costs that were a requirement
were state filing fees.

6740

2400

- 64 -

Test Responses
» They specified incorporation in
California at a low cost in addition to fees
required by the state.
» $90 for California in 3 to 5 weeks. $500
for e filing in 3 days. $40 for a "company
seal" and fancy notebook. Some kind of
trial offer and monthly fee, but why would
you need a monthly fee?
» Free option as a trial but costs to
actually incorporate, expedite, and file for
a tax id number. Walks you through an
interview process to determine what you
need.

EXHIBIT A -68-

Question B7 (Con’t.): Now reflecting on the Google ad for Rocket Lawyer and the Rocket Lawyer
website you reviewed, what can you tell me about the Incorporation offer?

5713

6387

» There were a couple of brief testimony
statements (specialty ketchup, and Farmyard
Darlings). The price to start/ trial was $0, filing
fees $90+ depending on, monthly fees
$39.95, can cancel anytime. On each page
was information to call or email if there were
any questions. There was a chat button.
Although the title on the search page
indicated CA, filing for any state could be
completed.
» The website, Rocket Lawyer, was offering
to take the information that you fill in and they
file the paperwork for your LLC. They charge
a nominal fee of $90 for state fees.

2400

» They specified incorporation in
California at a low cost in addition to
fees required by the state.

In the Free Trial experiment, users in both the test and control groups were able to articulate the
free trial, subsequent charge, and often the amount of the charge.
Question 12c: What happens after the free trial period?
Case ID

Test Response
» Rocket Lawyer proceeds to
withdrawl $19.95 per month from
the person in question's credit/debit
card.
» They charge $19.95 per month
after it runs out.

Case ID

Control Response

6659
6960

» you will automatically sign up for
amonth unless you canceal it.

2173

» automatic billing kicks in on the credit
card

2188

» You get charged $19.95 on a recurring
basis.

2290

» they start billing the credit card that you
HAD to give them for the free trial

6715

6619

» a fee begins at a set price and is
charged monthly.

Question 7c/8: Now reflecting on the Rocket Lawyer website you reviewed, what can you tell me about
Rocket Lawyer's offer? Anything else?
Case ID

Test Response

6659

» They offer a free trial membership
for one week, then $19.95 per
month afterwards. They allow you
to build documents, save print and
share them, and then sign them.

6717

» free trial period for 1 week,
offered a turbotax like version of
writing up legal documents for
property services

Case ID

Control Response

2014

» If you don't cancel the trial membership
after seven days the service will continue
uninterupted but you will be charged
19.95 per month.

6331

» You can have a free trial, and then
$19.99 for a month, a 90-day deal that's a
little less per month, or a annual contract
that is $9.99 per month, which is their
best offer.

- 65 -

EXHIBIT A -69-

3. There is a population of consumers who are skeptical of advertisements for “free” services
and/or search engine advertisements.
Question 4B: Please tell us why you did not << initially >> select www.rocketlawyer.com?

2127
2152

Response

Case ID

Control Response

... I also don't trust free.

1920

Banner Avert

Free. do not trust as much
» I usually don't get good results from
google when selecting the 2nd or 3rd
results

2221

» free is usually not really free

6309

» Nothing is free.

1920
2221

Case
ID
2058

Banner Avert
» free is usually not really free

Question14: Why did you not choose to take the free trial<< insert >>?
Case
ID

Test Response

Case ID

1881

Free trials usually have a catch

2434

5809

» Trials nearly always end up being
permanenet

5920

5829

» it probably not free

6123

5891

6023

6971

» free trials are not really "free". Once you
sign up, you forget and then get charged or
you feel like you're "stuck" with that service.
I would only do a free trial if I was
reasonably sure that was the service I
wanted to use.
» If I forget to cancel I will be billed. Also,
my credit card information may reside within
a company that I decide not to use.
» my experience with free trials are smoke
in mirrors and there are elevated costs after
the trial is over or the company makes the
"contract" nearly impossible to get out of.
They are legal companies.

» I'm skeptical of all Internet
companies, not just Rocket Lawyer. It
might be a scam. The problem with
emerging Internet companies is that
they do not have a long history - will it
be around tomorrow?
» I've never liked trials. I feel locked
when I get into a trial. Free processing
is great, but it seems it's at a hefty cost.
» Free trials are seldom free and I want
to explore all of my options

1909

I don't liked trials.

1936

Always a catch

2434

5920
6123

- 66 -

Control Response

» I'm skeptical of all Internet
companies, not just Rocket Lawyer. It
might be a scam. The problem with
emerging Internet companies is that
they do not have a long history - will it
be around tomorrow?
» I've never liked trials. I feel locked
when I get into a trial. Free processing
is great, but it seems it's at a hefty cost.
» Free trials are seldom free and I want
to explore all of my options

EXHIBIT A -70-

4. The lack of impa of the se
l
act
earch engin advertisi
ne
ing is not su
urprising given the fac that the
ct
respo
ondents perceived adv
vertisement as the leas importan factor or o of the least
t
st
nt
one
impo
ortant factor in selecti an on line legal ser
rs
ing
rvice.

- 67 -

EXHIBIT A -71-

5. A majority of respondents had prior experience with free trials (see Incorporation Table 16
and Other Legal Services Table 12). In addition, some respondents even stated that they
would cancel before the trial period ends to ensure that they receive the service for free.

2264

1964

2479

QC13b Assuming you
were interested in online
legal services for a <<
insert >> form, now that
you have gone through
the Rocket Lawyer
website, what are you
likely to do?
Q14c Why did you not
choose to take the free
trial<< insert >>?

QC10 What was their
free trial offer? Please list
all the details about this
offer that you can recall.

» Sign up for the free trial - but, call
customer service to cancel as soon as I
printed my BoS.

Test

...The trial is just a headache I'll need to
remember to cancel before they hit my
credit card with the fee after the one
week trial expires

Control

» Free for 1 week and you get to create
a POA You have to pay upfront and
remember to cancel before the week is
over or you end up paying $19.95 per
month.

Control

Final Conclusions
In summary, given the overwhelming consistency of the results -- that on all the measures
Reported in these experiments there was no significant differences between the test and control
Groups- one can confidently conclude that there is no empirical support for the LZ complaint.

Respectfully,

Jerry (Yoram) Wind
President, Wind Associates, Inc.

- 68 -

EXHIBIT A -72-