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 C

EXHIBIT C

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

Rebuttal Report of Yoram (Jerry) Wind
in Response to Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson

I. Objectives
1.

I, Yoram (Jerry) Wind, was asked by counsel for Rocket Lawyer Incorporated (“Rocket
Lawyer”), to evaluate Dr. Isaacson’s expert report and survey (“Isaacson Rep.”) that purported
to measure the impressions conveyed by Rocket Lawyer ads. Specifically, I was asked to
evaluate whether Dr. Isaacson’s survey was properly designed and whether his conclusions
based on the survey were sound.
II. Qualifications

2.

I am the Lauder Professor and Professor of Marketing1 at the Wharton School of the University
of Pennsylvania. I joined the Wharton staff in 1967, upon receipt of my doctorate from Stanford
University.
a. 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, organizational buying
behavior, and global marketing strategy.

1

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)

1
EXHIBIT C -2014-

b. 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.
c. 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. In my teaching, consulting, editorial and university positions, I have
designed, conducted and evaluated thousands of marketing and consumer research
studies.
d. 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.
e. 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
published eight volumes of my writings.

2
EXHIBIT C -2015-

f. Resume and Compensation – Appendix B of the report I provided on April 15, 2014
(“Wind Report”) 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 B. 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.
III. Approach
3.

Approach and criteria for evaluation. In preparing this report, I relied on marketing,
consumer behavior, marketing research and consumer research concepts, methods, and
findings and the theory and practice of conducting surveys, (a) as reflected in the professional
literature and as taught by me and others at Wharton and other leading universities, and (b) as
practiced by me and other leading professionals in conducting and evaluating marketing
research and consumer research, for academic peer reviewed publications, and for
management and courts as input into their decisions. These principles are consistent with the
criteria outlined in the Manual for Complex Litigation (4th Edition), published in 2004 by the
Federal Judicial Center.

4.

Material Reviewed and Considered. I reviewed Dr. Isaacson’s expert report and survey
materials provided on April 15, 2014. I also reviewed the Declaration of Paul Hollerbach in
support of Rocket Lawyer’s Opposition to LegalZoom’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(“Hollerbach Declaration”), the court’s Order Denying LegalZoom’s motion for summary
judgment, ECF No. 44 (“SJ Order”), my April 15, 2014 expert report and supporting materials
(the “Wind Report”), and all other materials referenced herein. The supporting data for Dr.
3
EXHIBIT C -2016-

Isaacson’s survey was provided in pdf form, which is difficult to analyze and evaluate. Thus, I
reserve the right to further supplement this rebuttal after receiving the data in native form
and/or a format that I can analyze.
5.

Structure of Report. Section IV states my conclusions. Section V discusses the fatal flaws of
Dr. Isaacson’s survey. Section VI provides a side by side comparison of Dr. Isaacson’s study
to my study. Section VII. summarizes my conclusion that Dr. Isaacson’s study is unreliable
and invalid, how nothing in his study undermines my findings, and how aspects of his survey
undermine LegalZoom’s allegations.
IV. Conclusions

6.

While a survey is a powerful marketing research method and has been used in litigation,
a reliable and valid survey must not be designed to produce predetermined results. Dr.
Isaacson’s survey, carefully designed to produce a specific outcome, is fundamentally
flawed and is invalid for determining consumer understanding and perceptions of
Rocket Lawyer’s free incorporation/entity formation advertisements and whether users
understand the terms of Rocket Lawyer’s legal plans. This conclusion is based on ten
interrelated flaws in Dr. Isaacson’s approach:
(a)

(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)

Wrong universe. Dr. Isaacson’s criteria for selecting qualified respondents
improperly eliminate potential respondents who may fall within the consumer
population interested in buying online legal services.
The survey does not test the advertisements in context.
The stimuli used do not match the consumer experience.
The design of the stimuli is biased and leads consumers to the result desired by
LegalZoom.
Dr. Isaacson has designed a reading test, not a comprehension/perceptions test,
by allowing respondents’ access to the stimuli at all times.
The questions are biased and leading. Consumers are directed by their
questions to create the results desired by LegalZoom.
The survey does not test the aspects of Rocket Lawyer’s advertisement and
website complained of by LegalZoom.
The survey was pre-tested “to make sure that the data were being coded
properly” demonstrating that the study may have been designed to engineer
specific results
4
EXHIBIT C -2017-

(i)
(j)

7.

The survey does not test consumers’ preference for LegalZoom.
Biased analysis. Dr. Isaacson ignores how the interrelated flaws have affected
the responses provided by respondents; ignores responses that do not fit within
his desired results by relegating them to a single code entitled “other themes,”
and combines groups of responses to make his results more favorable to
LegalZoom.

These ten interrelated flaws are discussed in section IV. The Fatal Flaws of Dr. Isaacson’s
Survey.
VI. The Fatal Flaws of Dr. Isaacson’s Survey

8.

Wrong universe:2 Dr. Isaacson’s screener questions improperly eliminates respondents who
may fall within the consume population interested in online legal services. See Isaacson Rep.
at 15-16; Ex. 5.
a. In both the consumer and business screeners, Dr. Isaacson terminates potential
respondents who are over the age of 69, which is unacceptable considering the
increasing internet usage of older adults3 and also the availability of estate planning
documents that may be of particular interest to the older population.
b. The services that Dr. Isaacson lists in Question E of the consumer screener are too
broad – customers who are interested in business formation have different needs and
considerations from those who seek to complete a legal form for personal use. Dr.
Isaacson should have limited his experiment of the search engine advertisements (“ad
experiment”) only to those who have purchased or are interested in purchasing legal
services related to incorporation or entity formation.
c. For Questions G and H, Dr. Isaacson’s criteria of intention to buy legal services in the
next two years are too broad. Two years is too long of a period and makes the results

2

As an initial matter, Dr. Isaacson did not employ a CAPTCHA, a standard procedure to distinguish between human and
machine respondents, and eliminate such machine respondents from the universe.
3
Indeed, internet usage among those between 70 and 74 is at 68% and individuals 65 and older accounted for 5.8% of
the sample in my survey. See Smith, Aaron, Older Adults and Technology Use, PEW Research Internet Project (April 3,
2014) available at http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/04/03/older-adults-and-technology-use/; see also Wind Rep. at
Appendix L, p. 131.

5
EXHIBIT C -2018-

less reliable and valid. Under best practices for this type of service, the period of time
should have been no more than 6 months.
d. The period of time in Question L, “have you participated in any survey about legal
services or legal providers during the past month” is too short. This screener does not
eliminate individuals who may be serial respondents and/or those already familiar with
issues relating to online legal services companies. Under best practices, the typical
period used in most research is three months.
9.

The survey does not test the advertisements in context: Consistent with existing Ninth
Circuit and California law, the Court’s held in its summary judgment order that Rocket Lawyer’s
advertisements must be reviewed in context. See SJ Order at 7. Not following this procedure
is to ignore the operation of the marketplace for online legal service providers, the behavior of
consumers more generally, and, most importantly, the Court’s own analysis of the issues in this
case. See SJ Order at 7 (to assess falsity, “the advertisement ‘must always be analyzed in its
full context.’”) (quoting Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir.
1997).

Here, that the advertisement must be viewed with reference to the numerous

disclosures and additional information provided on Rocket Lawyer’s website which is
accessible by the link provided in each search engine advertisement. See SJ Order at 7-8.
a. Dr. Isaacson’s ad experiment tested Rocket Lawyer’s free incorporation/entity
formation advertisement without providing respondents with the information available
on RocketLawyer.com. Isaacson Rep. at Ex. 4. His stimuli do nothing to replicate
the consumer journey and purchasing decision.

Testing perception and

understanding in this vacuum is contrary to the Court’s order and established law.
b. Dr. Isaacson’s survey of Rocket Lawyer’s intra-website “advertisement” of its plans,
including its free trial plan (the “website experiment”), does not provide the user with
6
EXHIBIT C -2019-

1) the screenshot the user would typically encounter with information along the
consumer journey as described in the Hollerbach Declaration at ¶¶ 12-15 & Ex. C;
and 2) for some respondents, the information and limitations disclosed in Rocket
Lawyer’s On Call Terms and Conditions starting in November 2012.
10.

The stimuli used do not reflect the consumer experience:
a. In the search engine tests, the stimuli blur out the advertisements of other
competitors and place circles around Rocket Lawyer’s advertisements. Isaacson
Rep., Ex. 4. Users are also told that only the clearly visible advertisement is the
subject of the survey.

Such formatting and instruction is unlike the consumer

experience of searching for a service and encountering the advertisements of the
numerous competitors in the online legal services market. See Declaration of HongAn Vu, ECF No. 38 at ¶¶ 4-5, Exs. 14 & 15. This methodology also ignores the
skeptical consumer, who may be disincentivized to click on an advertisement
because it offered “free” services.4 Dr. Isaacson’s stimuli is an artificial setting void
of any competitive offering (i.e. no reference to other competitors and what is offered
by them) and thus, no meaningful conclusions can be drawn because no consumers
make decisions based on such artificial stimuli. By directing respondents to focus on
Rocket Lawyer, Dr. Isaacson failed to test LegalZoom’s allegation that consumers
are drawn to Rocket Lawyer more when it advertises using “free” without disclosing
state fees. See, e.g., Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 17, 21-22.
b. In addition, in the search engine advertisement test, Dr. Isaacson, as stated above,
did not include in the stimuli any information provided on RocketLawyer.com about
4

See Wind Opening Report at 66 (examples of responses from skeptical consumers); see also, e.g., 2014 Edelman Trust
Barometer, http://www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/2014-edelman-trust-barometer/; “Online Ads Lack
Consumer Trust,” http://www.soldps.com/online-ads-lack-consumer-trust/ (showing only 42% of respondents either
completely or somewhat trust online banner ads according to Nielsen data).

7
EXHIBIT C -2020-

its incorporation/entity formation service.

Testing consumer understanding and

perceptions at the search engine advertisement stage, where no purchasing
decision can be made, is a flaw that undermines Dr. Isaacson’s conclusion about
what is important to consumers in making a purchasing decision.
c. In testing Rocket Lawyer’s disclosures about its plans, Dr. Isaacson ignored the fact
that the webpage used for his stimuli is not part of the typical user journey. See
Isaacson Rep. at Ex. 4. As stated in the Hollerbach Declaration, the typical user
encounters Rocket Lawyer’s description of its plans at the end of a document
interview on the page attached as Exhibit C of the Hollerbach declaration.

By

choosing to ignore the facts available to him, Dr. Isaacson’s survey is of no value.
Overall, showing respondents merely an advertisement and one or two pages of a
website and blurring the competitive environment is not a realistic way of looking at a
website and undermines the reliability and validity of Dr. Isaacson’s survey and
conclusions.
11.

The design of the stimuli is biased and leads consumers to the result desired by
LegalZoom:
a. In the ad experiment, Dr. Isaacson designed his stimuli so that there would be a
significant difference between the responses of the tests and control groups to
support his conclusions.

As stated in the Amended Complaint, LegalZoom’s

allegations concern Rocket Lawyer’s use of the word “free” – whether consumers
understand that Rocket Lawyer’s service is free, but that they must pay state fees
when such state fees are not expressly disclosed in the advertisements. See e.g.,
Amended Compl. at __.

In designing the control stimuli, Dr. Isaacson removed

“free” from the control ad by, for example changing “Zoom costs $99 We’re Free” in
8
EXHIBIT C -2021-

the test materials to “Zoom costs $99 But Rocket Lawyer Has No Service Fees” and
“Incorporate for Free” in the test stimuli to “Incorporate with No Service Fees” in the
control. Isaacson Rep. Ex. 4. Removing “free” from the control ad all but ensured
that the control respondents would not identify the services in the control as “free.” In
addition, conceptually, “no service fee(s)” is not the same as “free but with state
fees.”
b. In the website experiment, the control stimuli is biased towards reducing the
likelihood that respondents would chose an “annual plan” in responding to questions
about access to local attorneys. First, for those respondents who were shown both
the pricing page and the terms of service, the disclosure at the top of the pricing
page states “You can receive free help from local attorneys only if you purchase at
least 3 moths of a Basic Legal Plan or a Pro Legal Plan” whereas the disclosure in
the terms of service adds that free help from local attorneys is also available to any
individual who “purchases a Rocket Lawyer annual legal plan.” See Isaacson Rep.
Ex. 4. This inconsistency in the disclosure may have led to confusion and reduced
the likelihood that respondents would have chosen “annual plan” in response to
questions about access to attorneys. For those respondents who only viewed the
pricing page, the control stimuli did not include in the disclosure any reference to the
annual plan and thus, respondents are less likely to know that access to attorneys is
available immediately.
12.

Dr. Isaacson has designed a reading test, not a comprehension/perceptions test, by
allowing respondents access to the stimuli at all times: Dr. Isaacson’s bias is further
confirmed by the fact that as respondents answer questions, the stimuli is available to
respondents on the same screen in a smaller size that may be enlarged. Isaacson Rep. at ¶
9
EXHIBIT C -2022-

19. This converts the comprehension/perceptions test to a reading test and increases the
likelihood that consumers will merely mimic the language of the advertisement in the open
ended questions. For example, where “free” is in the advertisement, the respondent is more
likely to provide an answer referencing “free” and where “free” is absent from the ad, the user is
more likely to say “no service fees” instead of “free.” The following data and examples illustrate
the reading test nature of the survey and the likelihood that respondents are relying on the
stimuli for their responses in the similarities in the responses:
Stimuli

Sample Responses

Incorporate for Free
RocketLawyer.com
866-231-5787 – Pay No Fees
($0) Simple California
Incorporation!
408 people +1’s or follow Rocket
Lawyer

616: “Incorporate for free in CA, with Rocket
Lawyer; tell how many people are following
Rocket Lawyer.” “It's simple, and gives
phone numbers to call.”

(Google Ad - Test)

Similar
Responses5
337

678: “Incorporate for free” “Simple California
incorporation”

674: “Incorporate for free” “Simple California
incorporation”

1094: “Incorporate for free, state of
California.” “Says that 408 people -- I mean
"implies" that 408 people have used this
service.”

5

Because I received the data in pdf and converted to Excel through a manual process, some of these numbers may be
approximate and I reserve the right to supplement these numbers should I receive the data in native or Excel format.

6

Numbers in this paragraph correspond to the ID number assigned to survey respondents. See Isaacson Rep., Ex. 6
Please see Ex. A for all similar responses. Please note that all of these answers were provided in response to the open
ended questions and were exclusively from those who viewed on the Google Ad – Test (Qcells 2 and 10). See Isaacson
Rep. at 15.

7

10
EXHIBIT C -2023-

Stimuli
Zoom Costs $99 We’re Free
Form LLC, Incorporate Your
Business at Rocket Lawyer
Free. Start Today
(Yahoo ad – Test)8

Sample Responses
299: “That Zoom is $99 and they're free for
LLC”

Similar
Responses5
209

890: “That you can incorporate your
business and form and LLC for free.” “Zoom
costs $99 but they are free.”
910: “Free business incorporation at Rocket
Lawyer” “Zoom costs $99 for business
incorporation”
1316: “Incorporate your business for free.”
“Zoom costs 99 dollars.”

8

Compare Ex. C and Ex. D. Exhibit C contains all of the responses to the ad experiment test stimuli coded “2” in
response to Questions 1 and 2. “Free” and other similarities in the language are shared between most responses due to
the fact that the ad contained the word “free.” In contrast, the few control responses coded “2” only contain “free” 7/18
times and focuses more on “no fees” similar to the language in the ad experiment control stimuli (“no service fees”).

9

Please see Ex. B for all similar responses. Please note that all of these answers except for one were exclusively from
those who viewed on the Yahoo Ad – Test (Qcells 1 and 9). See Isaacson Rep. at 15.

11
EXHIBIT C -2024-

Stimuli
Incorporate for Free
RocketLawyer.com
866-231-5787 – Pay No Service
Fees (Pay Only State Fees)
Simple California Incorporation!
408 people +1’s or follow Rocket
Lawyer

Sample Responses
154: “No service fee. You pay for the actual
need or what you need to be done but they
will not have any additional charges.”11 ”
Simple California incorporation.”

Similar
Responses5
8212

427: “Zoom costs $99” “No service fee”
526: “No service fees.” “Zoom costs $99”

(Google Ad – Control)
Zoom Costs $99 But Rocket
Lawyer Has No Service Fees
Form LLC, Incorporate Your
Business at Rocket Lawyer. No
Service Fees. Only State Fees.
Start Today

636: “Incorporate with no service fee \ Legal
service provider name & phone number.”
“Web address of provider \ provider operates
in CA.”
1018: “Rocket Lawyer has no service fees,
while Zoom costs $99.” “Rocket Lawyer
offers several services.”

(Yahoo ad – Control)10
1235: “No service fees” “408 people like
them”

In addition, the answers provided by some respondents implies that they looked back at the
stimuli or were looking at the stimuli in answering the questions:
a. 547 expressly stated that he or she looked at the ad a second time to revise his or
her response to question 1: “The main message is that you can get your company
incorporated, and that Zoom lawyers can help. The ad also suggests that the service
will only be $99. Looking at the ad fuller, it looks like Zoom is the competition

10

For the responses coded “4” (“no service fees”) the Google and Yahoo stimuli are grouped since the additional
language “no service fees” is the same between the two stimuli and is similarly reflected in the responses.
11

Note that this respondent does not demonstrate any awareness of the state fee requirement. This shows, consistent
with my findings, that adding “plus state fees” to the search engine ad does not have any bearing on consumer
understanding of the need to pay state fees. See Wind Rep. at 31, Table 6; see also Ex. F, Number 687.

12

See Ex. E for all responses coded 4. 68/82 responses expressly contain “no service fee(s)” as stated in the
advertisement. See Ex. F.

12
EXHIBIT C -2025-

who costs $99, and Rocket lawyer is the service being advertised as a free service
for incorporating a business. It also gives links to other similar options.”
b. 528’s responses as phrased appear to be reference the advertisement as he or she
is answering Questions 1 and 2: “The ad is indicating they offer the ability to
incorporate your business at no cost. They compare themselves to another
company that charges $99.

They are available to help you starting right now.”

Other responses demonstrate a level of detail not normally found in responses based on
memory. With the stimuli available at all times, respondents merely parrot the ad in response
to questions about the meaning of the advertisement:
Stimuli
Incorporate for Free RocketLawyer.com
866-231-5787 – Pay No Fees ($0) Simple
California Incorporation!
408 people +1’s or follow Rocket Lawyer

Response
786: That RocketLawyer.com will help you
incorporate a business, etc., for free. It's a simple
CA incorporation, offers a phone number to call
and shows that 408 people +1'd "or" follow
Rocket Lawyer. It is located in Glendale, CA.
How many people gave it a "plus" or a 1. The
location, being in Glendale, CA.
112: That you can incorporate with no fees at all
except for state fees. It would be a simple
California incorporation. I don't understand what
the "408 people + 1'd" means.

(Google Ad - Test)
Incorporate for Free RocketLawyer.com
866-231-5787 – Pay No Service Fees (Pay Only
State Fees) Simple California Incorporation!
408 people +1’s or follow Rocket Lawyer
(Google Ad – Control)
Plans and pricing page showing three types of
memberships and Rocket Lawyer Terms of
Service describing benefits and restrictions on
attorney access. Additional disclosures regarding
access to local attorneys on the monthly plan.
(Webpages - control)

1320: The web pages describe legal services as
provided by Rocket Lawyer to a qualified
customer. That person must either purchase a 3
month contract with the law firm, or a yearly
(annual) agreement with the same in order to get
free legal advice, documents approved or
explained, or any number of scenarios between
the client and the lawyers. The most specific fee
arrangements will be less than $125 an hour, or
40% off prevailing legal service fees in the area
and expertise. The law firms may establish
guidelines for legal services which vary with the

13
EXHIBIT C -2026-

Stimuli

Response
legal plan purchased, along with the number of
specific visits a client will be allowed with an
attorney group. That is the gist of important things
on these web pages.
The web site pages spell out the legal definitions
between the lawyers and "eligible members" and
"family members" or eligible members, as to what
legal services will be arranged, negotiated
beforehand in some cases for discounts on legal
fees, and further the plans may be through a
nationwide network of attorneys associated with
Rocket Lawyer and their attorneys. The specific
limits for services include the law firm/attorney
will 'look at and offer legal advice' on documents
of a set number, and other legal services such as
a member will receive counseling on or about the
terms and condition of a basic will and testament,
with updates performed annually for no fees at
all.

Plans and pricing page showing three types of
memberships and Rocket Lawyer Terms of
Service describing benefits and restrictions on
attorney access.
(Webpages - test)

555: This law firm has three tiers for their
membership, and the table explains what
services the clients will get from signing up for
each tier. The free membership gets the least
amount of services while the pro membership
gets the most. \ \ The bottom of the page
suggests that this law firm was recommended by
different types of media, which shows that it is a
credible firm. And the very bottom of the page
also indicates that the firm is approved and its
website is secure. The firm posts updates on a
variety of social media and the current/potential
clients can connect with the firm through them.

14
EXHIBIT C -2027-

All of these factors confirm that Dr. Isaacson’s survey does not gauge consumers’
understanding and/or perceptions of the test vs. the control advertisement, but is merely a
reading test.
13.

The questions are biased and leading. Consumers are directed by their questions to
create the results desired by LegalZoom: All structured questions are leading.
a. Question 3: Although you may have already mentioned this, does or doesn’t the ad
communicate or imply that you can incorporate a business through this service
without paying any fees to any organization or entity?
This question is confusing.

A consumer is not likely to equate the phrase

“organization or entity” to mean the state or government for the purpose of
assessing whether the respondent understands that he or she must pay state fees –
the primary issue in this case. “Organization or entity” could be interpreted to mean
Rocket Lawyer, and based on the stimuli, the phrasing of this question increases the
likelihood that respondents will say that they do not need to pay fees because
Rocket Lawyer is an “organization or entity” that does not charge for its services. Dr.
Isaacson’s survey would have likely produced different results had he plainly asked
first whether users understood whether Rocket Lawyer charges for its services and
second whether respondents believed they must pay fees to the state or
government.
b. Question 4: If you were selecting a service provider to incorporate a business, would
the amount of fees you pay affect your decision regarding which service provider to
select?
Question 4 is leading in that the socially accepted answer is “yes” as reflected in the
overwhelming “yes” responses (ad experiment test group= 82.2% and ad experiment
15
EXHIBIT C -2028-

control group = 88.9%). See Isaacson Rep., Ex. 9 at p. 4.

However, this question

fails to distinguish between state and service fees. Respondents are asked whether
the amount of fees charged influences their selection of a service provider. They are
not asked whether the amount of service fees charged by the online legal services
provider would influence their decision in selecting a provider. They are not asked
whether a disclosure of state-mandated fees (assessed regardless of service
provider) would influence their decision. In addition, because respondents were only
shown the advertisements for Rocket Lawyer’s services, the answers to this
question do not gauge purchasing decision, but rather, merely assesses whether
consumers would select Rocket Lawyer at the advertisement phase to explore.
Without allowing respondents to view the competitive environment, no meaningful
conclusion can be drawn from the responses to Question 4. Furthermore, Dr.
Isaacson has at most confirmed that consumers shopping for legal services consider
the price of those services, but he has not tested the elasticity of price in this market,
nor whether such price sensitive consumers are somehow misled by Rocket
Lawyer’s prices.
c.

Question 5: Although you may have already mentioned this [does or doesn’t the
website page]/[do or don’t the website pages] communicate or imply that you can try
a membership without paying any fees to any organization or entity?
As formulated, Question 5 implies that a consumer cannot explore membership
benefits without paying any fees, when in fact Rocket Lawyer’s free trial is indeed
free for the free trial period. There are no state fees or other fees associated with
the free trial. Consumers are only charged if they choose not to cancel before the
free trial period ends. In addition, Dr. Isaacson’s use of “without paying any fees to
16
EXHIBIT C -2029-

any organization or entity” like in Question 3, demonstrates how the phrase
“organization or entity” can be confusing. The only organization or entity in this
question is Rocket Lawyer as there is no state fee associated with enrollment in a
Rocket Lawyer plan, whereas these same words in Question 3 can mean Rocket
Lawyer or the state/government.
d. Question 6: Based solely on your review of the website page/website pages, who
can obtain free help from a local attorney?
Question 7: Does a member have to pay for a Basic Legal Plan or a Pro Legal Plan
before they can get help from a local attorney?
Questions 6 and 7 test incorrect information. Based on the Hollerbach Declaration,
Dr. Isaacson should have known that Rocket Lawyer does provide free help from
local attorneys for even free trial members. Thus, any conclusions he has regarding
whether free help is important to respondents supports why consumers would prefer
Rocket Lawyer to LegalZoom independent of Rocket Lawyer’s advertisements.
Even if Question 6 did test correct information, Question 6 is leading. Although the
control discloses that access to local attorneys is only available with three months
enrollment in a Basic or Pro legal plan, there is no option to choose a “basic legal
plan after 90 days enrollment.” Some respondents may have been confused by the
fact that the options did not match the language from the stimuli.
e. Question 8: Would having to pay for a membership before getting free help from a
local attorney affect your decision regarding whether to use this website’s service?
Questions 8, like Question 4, offers no assessment of the materiality of free access
to local attorneys and is undermined by the fact that free access to attorneys was

17
EXHIBIT C -2030-

only referenced in the open ended responses less than 2% of the time.13

The

results of this question are further undermined by the fact that Dr. Isaacson did not
show to respondents the other information provided on RocketLawyer.com nor did
he take the respondents to the place on the website where purchasing decisions are
made. In addition, because respondents have no reference to other competitors,
their responses to this question may change if they knew that Rocket Lawyer’s plans
which provide access to local attorneys are more affordable than other competitors,
even if access to local attorneys were not free.
14.

The survey does not test aspects of Rocket Lawyer’s advertisement and website
complained of by LegalZoom: One would have expected the study to validate the allegations
contained in LegalZoom’s complaint. Surprisingly, they did not address the following aspects
of LegalZoom's allegations:
a. First, the survey does not address LegalZoom’s allegations and demands that
Rocket Lawyer should have disclosed state fees in its free incorporation/entity
formation advertisements.

Amended Compl. at ¶ 14.

Instead, Dr. Isaacson is

testing the effect of the word “free” by eliminating the word “free” from the control
instead of merely adding “plus state fees” or similar language to the control
advertisement to mirror the allegations in the Amended Complaint. The effect of the
word “free” is not at issue in this action as currently framed by the Amended
Complaint.
b. Second, Dr. Isaacson tested whether respondents believed that “free help from local
attorneys” was available to them without having to pay any fees. See Isaacson Rep.
at 28, Table D. However, as disclosed in the Hollerbach Declaration, “free help from
13

As stated in Questions 6 and 7, Dr. Isaacson survey is fundamentally flawed because it is wrong on the facts. Free
access to local attorneys is available even to free trial members. See Hollerbach Decl. at __.

18
EXHIBIT C -2031-

local attorneys” has always been available to Rocket Lawyer registered users in the
form of free consultations.

See Hollerbach Decl. at ¶¶ 22-23.

Contrary to the

information provided and tested in Dr. Isaacson’s report, Rocket Lawyer does not
limit free help from local attorneys to annual members and monthly plan members
who are enrolled for at least 90 days. Because the information tested in inaccurate,
Dr. Isaacson’s conclusions are not relevant to this dispute.
c. Dr. Isaacson’s survey does not address LegalZoom’s allegations about the
disclosures relating to Rocket Lawyer’s free trial.
15.

Survey was pre-tested “to make sure that the data were being coded properly”
demonstrating that the study may have been designed to engineer specific results: As
stated in his report, Dr. Isaacson states that a small number of surveys were conducted and
examined to ensure that the coding ultimately applied to the responses was accurately coded.
Isaacson Rep. at ¶ 59(ii). Dr. Isaacson does not provide the results of the pre-test nor does he
disclose what changes, if any, he made to the stimuli and questionnaires based on the pre-test
results. His failure to make these disclosures is contrary to accepted reporting practices

16.

The survey does not test consumers’ preference for LegalZoom: Even if Dr. Isaacson’s
study were sound, which it is not, his survey does not demonstrate that respondents would
have chosen LegalZoom had they not encountered an allegedly misleading Rocket Lawyer
advertisement to support any allegation of diversion of consumers away from LegalZoom.14

17.

Biased Analysis: The manner in which Dr. Isaacson analyzed and sorted the respondents
demonstrates his bias and his efforts to engineer results favorable to LegalZoom.
a. Question 1: What are the main messages that the [ad states or implies]/[website
page states or implies]/[website pages state or imply]?

14

This is especially so for the website experiment where the survey already on RocketLawyer.com and thus, presumably
the consumer had already chosen to explore RocketLawyer.com, and not LegalZoom.

19
EXHIBIT C -2032-

Question 2: What other messages, if any [does the ad]/[does the website page]/[do
the website pages] state or imply?
Questions 1 and 2, combined with the biased and leading stimuli, are employed to
determine a differential in consumer belief that Rocket Lawyer offers “free
incorporation or a free LLC formation[.]”

But the structure and language of the

questions as open-ended all but guarantees a wide discrepancy between the test
and controls, especially because Dr. Isaacson removed the word “free” from the
control and allowed respondents to continue to have access to the stimuli in
answering questions. Isaacson Rep. at 23, Table B. The 55.9% increase in openended responses referencing “no service fees” demonstrates the problem with the
survey. As demonstrated above in paragraph 12, respondents are merely parroting
back what they see in the advertisements. The survey does nothing to test whether
consumers understand that Rocket Lawyer is not charging for its services.
b. Putting aside the flawed factual assumptions about Rocket Lawyer’s services, in the
website experiment, Dr. Isaacson improperly combines the data for respondents
who selected “anyone” and “anyone who has signed up for a Free Membership” in
response to Question 4 to (i) make this group appear larger than those who stated
that help from local attorneys is available only to those on a paying plan, and (ii) to
make the differential between the test and control appear larger. “Anyone” and
“Anyone who has signed up for a Free Membership” were the third and fourth most
popular answers. See Isaacson Rep. at 28. By combining the two less popular
choices, Dr. Isaacson made it appear as though the non-paying plans were more
popular than the other options.

In addition, LegalZoom’s allegations primarily

concern Rocket Lawyer’s free trial plans, and thus the focus of the survey should be
20
EXHIBIT C -2033-

the differential between those who chose “anyone who signed up for a Free
Membership.”15 The difference between the test and control for “anyone who signed
up for a Free Membership” is only 3.0% -- which is not statistically significant.
Accordingly, Dr. Isaacson had to combine this group of respondents with those who
chose “Anyone” to create the results LegalZoom desired. Such biased analysis
undermines the validity of Dr. Isaacson’s conclusions.
c. Dr. Isaacson does not state that his test was a double blind experiment. If the coder
and survey team were not blinded, their coding would have been biased in favor of
LegalZoom. The coding employed in this survey raises doubts as to the objectivity
of the coding.
d. An example Dr. Isaacson’s flawed and biased coding is revealed in his grouping of a
majority of responses – between 62.6% and 69.9% in a field entitled “other themes”
and his decision to not analyze these responses further. Although I only had access
to the pdf version of the data, my preliminary analysis has found that within the
“other themes” responses:
i. There are skeptical consumers that would not be drawn to advertising
focusing on free (skeptical consumers)16:
b. 893: “It implies that there services have no fees and you pay what the
going rate is to incorporate. It says "Incorporate for Free" but I'd be
highly skeptical if it were free and, if it were, I'd wonder about the

15

Here, Dr. Isaacson’s test is also factually incorrect. A free membership is available to members who have created an
account with Rocket Lawyer, but no longer want to pay for such plans. The Free Membership allows the members to
access the publicly available forms and letters on RocketLawyer.com and attorney consultation, but not the other
services. A free trial allows users access to all of Rocket Lawyer’s services available under the selected plan, see
Hollerbach Decl. at ¶ 11, including, after November 2012, access to legal review.
16
See supra p.7, note 4.

21
EXHIBIT C -2034-

quality of their services and their ethics before considering any 'free'
services.”
c. 166: “no fees” and “Implies cheap, shoddy, unprofessional.”
d. 421: “LegalZoom is a legitimate for profit business. Rocket Lawyer is
most likely a scam because it is free and it paid for this scammy
internet ad on Yahoo.” And “You will get ripped off by us if you fall for
this scam.”
e. 475: “I don't like these kind of ads, so for me it seems "cheap", not
professional enough.”
f. 594: “Probably a scam” and “Claims it's low cost, but probably a scam.”
g. 603: “It's confusing because it says costs $99 were free. When you first
look at it sounds scammy.”
h. 785: “Free business incorporation, which is probably BS”
i.

893: “It implies that there services have no fees and you pay what the
going rate is to incorporate. It says ‘Incorporate for Free’ but I'd be
highly skeptical if it were free and, if it were, I'd wonder about the
quality of their services and their ethics before considering any 'free'
services.”

j.

899: “We want to spam you.”

k. 1049: “Cheap. Pushy”
l.

1319: “No service fee; skeptical, but I'd look further.”

ii. Some respondents mentioned their positive impression about Rocket
Lawyer’s website and professionalism evidencing reasons to give Rocket
Lawyer business aside from its advertisements:
22
EXHIBIT C -2035-

b. 12: “The design of the page appears to be very professional. It also
clearly communicates how additional information can be obtained via
email, via chat or by telephone. I like the way the pricing and the
options are well defined”
c. 62: “That the product is high-quality.”
d. 111: “It's a good brand to choose.”
e. 117: “Reliable” and “best out there.”
f. 128: “Provide good service.”
g. 172: “It seems as if it is a premium product.”
h. 684: “That it's affordable and professional.”
i. 1280: “I like the fact that they are very detailed about the way the
service works.”
iii. Many respondents highlighted the fact that Rocket Lawyer’s services are
“cheap” or “low cost” demonstrating that although the add expresses or
implies “free” services, consumers focus on the price/lower price aspect of the
information. The frequency of these terms regarding price also demonstrates
that in a direct comparison, consumers would be more likely to choose
Rocket Lawyer if it were less expensive than LegalZoom17:
b. 205: “Access to lawyers for document review at a low cost.”

17

Rocket Lawyer is generally more affordable than LegalZoom in an apples-to-apples comparison – for incorporation,
LegalZoom charges $99 plus state fees and Rocket Lawyer charges $0 plus state fees. See SJ Order at 8 (“If anything,
the comparison to Plaintiff’s price provides more context for understanding that Defendant’s advertisements do not purport
to conceal the attendant state incorporation fees. Both companies’ processing and filing fees (or lack thereof) are distinct
from the state fees that every person who incorporates a business must pay.It is true that a customer can save the $99
charged by [LegalZoom] for its processing and filing fee by enrolling in the free trial offered by [Rocket Lawyer].”) (citation
omitted).

23
EXHIBIT C -2036-

c. 480: “It looks quite useful, getting legal documents sometimes is very
expensive. I think this will be a cheaper option for routine legal
documents.”
d. 572: “Rocket Lawyer is cheaper than Zoom” and “the quality of the
legal help is the same.”
e. 985: “That they have low cost legal help” and “ their business is
cheaper than anybody else.”
f. 1101: “Cheaper than others.”
iv. A majority of the users recognized the three different plans and many of the
responses demonstrate respondents’ awareness that the plans differ in terms
of cost and services included in such plan. In particular respondents were
aware that as plans go from free to more expensive, the user will receive
more. They are also aware that the options are available so that consumers
can chose the plans that meets their needs:
b. 68: “3 categories of legal assistance: Free is limited, basic has more
options for a small monthly fee, and Pro is for someone needing legal
help all the time for a little bit more per month.”
c. 129: “3 types of legal service plans available, each with different
features. Plans to fit a budget or specific need for anyone.”
d. 286: “This is an offer for prepaid legal service available in 3 basic
formats. The free version offers very little of interest to me. The basic
plan would be OK for personal legal matters but the Pro plan is the
most comprehensive.”

24
EXHIBIT C -2037-

e. 399: “That you can get a membership to Rocket Lawyer, which will
provide you different levels of service based on what membership you
purchase. Different legal services are available either as part of
membership depending on what level membership you have, or as an
additional charge.”
f. 566: “There are 3 grades of service, which you can sign up and try for
free. It specifies what is included in each of the 3 grades. Then, you
decide on what you need and how much it will cost for month to month
versus annually.”
g. 949: “The plans and pricing page gives you 3 different plans to choose
from with different levels of service. Depending on how much you want
to spend and how many services you need and how long you wish to
remain a member you can get as little as or as much as you need. The
terms of service page gives you a detailed explanation of what the
service provides and does not provide.”
These responses demonstrate that a significant number of respondents
provided responses that are unhelpful to Dr. Isaacson’s narrow analysis and
actually support Rocket Lawyer’s contentions that consumers are interested
in Rocket Lawyer not because of its advertisements, but because of its
website, services, and cost of access to these benefits.
18.

All of these flaws are interdependent. The way the stimuli as designed, the questions asked,
the respondents’ continued access to the stimuli during the interview, the analysis conducted,
and the conclusions reported all demonstrate that the survey was conducted with a
preconceived result favorable to LegalZoom. At each stage, the survey was designed to create
25
EXHIBIT C -2038-

a differential between the test and control, such that Dr. Isaacson could conclude that the
changes he made had a significant effect on consumers. Such overarching bias renders Dr.
Isaacson’s report unsound, unreliable, and invalid.
VI. Comparison between Dr. Isaacson’s Survey and My Survey
19.

Below is a table containing the key differences in methodologies in Dr. Isaacson’s survey and
my survey:
Aspect of
Survey
Universe

Ads tested in
context?

Isaacson Survey

Wind Survey

Dr. Isaacson’s criteria for selecting
qualified respondents
simultaneously excludes
respondents who could fall within
Rocket Lawyer’s consumer base
and includes respondents who
should be eliminated because (1)
including those interested in legal
services in the next two years is too
broad, and (2) only eliminating
respondents who have taken a
legal survey within the last month is
contrary to best practices.

My survey follows best practices by
(1) not eliminating consumers who
may be interested in purchasing
online legal services (2) limiting the
time period for interest in legal
services to six months; and (3)
eliminating respondents who have
taken a survey on legal services in
the last three months.

No. The survey tests the
advertisements divorced from the
information provided on
RocketLawyer.com.

Yes. My survey tests the draw
power of Rocket Lawyer’s
incorporation/entity formation
advertisements and then
respondents’
understanding/perceptions of the
advertisements within the context of
RocketLawyer.com as directed by
the Court.

26
EXHIBIT C -2039-

Aspect of
Survey
Are the stimuli
realistic?

Biased stimuli?

Isaacson Survey

Wind Survey

No. Dr. Isaacson’s survey artificially
directs respondents to focus on
Rocket Lawyer by blurring out
competitors in the ad experiment
and only provides respondents with
one or two pages from
RocketLawyer.com. Respondents
are not shown much of the
information available to them on
RocketLawyer.com and the stimuli
does not match the consumer
journey, does not test the pages of
the website most likely encountered
by consumers along the consumer
journey, and does not test
consumers’ decision making at the
point where they would make a
purchase.
Yes. Dr. Isaacson’s stimuli are
designed to achieve significant
differences in the test and control,
the result desired by Rocket
Lawyer. For example, by removing
“free” from the control, Dr. Isaacson
all but ensured that more
respondents in the test group would
mention “free” in their open ended
responses, while those in the
control likely would not.

Yes. My survey takes respondents
through the typical user journeys for
certain Rocket Lawyer services. For
the incorporation experiment, users
are shown the typical consumer
journey for incorporation through to
the purchasing decision point. For
the other legal services, respondents
are taken through the typical user
journey for a form in the area of law
they are interested in through to the
purchasing decision point.

No. Using materials available from
the summary judgment briefing and
RocketLawyer.com, my stimuli are
designed to reflect the typical
consumer journey, using search
engine advertisements and multiple
screenshots from
RocketLawyer.com.

27
EXHIBIT C -2040-

Aspect of
Survey
Comprehension/
Perceptions
Test?

Isaacson Survey

Wind Survey

No. Because Dr. Isaacson allows
respondents access to the stimuli at
all times, many of the verbatim
responses were copied directly
from the advertisements’
themselves. Thus, he has
designed a reading test, not a
comprehension/perceptions test.

Yes. Consistent with best practices,
I deprived respondents of access to
the stimuli while they were
answering the survey questions.
Thus, my survey tests
comprehension and perception
because respondents must state
what they understood from the
stimuli and are unable to merely
copy the language from the stimuli.

Leading
questions?

Yes. Dr. Isaacson only has two
open ended questions. All other
structured questions are biased and
leading and direct respondents
towards LegalZoom’s’ expected
responses.18

No. I relied on a nearly even mix of
open and non-leading closed end
questions that allow respondents to
provide their perceptions that can
then be compared with structured
questions.

Survey tests
allegations in
the Amended
Complaint?

No. The stimuli used by Dr.
Isaacson do not test the allegation
in LegalZoom’s complaint and
fundamentally changes the
advertisements and representations
about Rocket Lawyer’s services.

Yes. The stimuli was designed with
reference to LegalZoom’s complaints
regarding Rocket Lawyer’s free
incorporation/entity formation ads
that did not for a period of time
disclose state fees in the search
engine ad, and Rocket Lawyer’s free
trial disclosures.

18

Of note is the fact that Dr. Isaacson’s questionnaire only has 8 questions and given that the survey essentially has two
experiments, it appears that respondents only respond to half of the questions depending on if they are in the ad or
website experiment. My experiment, because it follows the typical Rocket Lawyer consumer journey, has more questions
and generally follows a funneling approach, starting from broader question and narrowing down to more discreet issues
relevant to the services offered and the respondents’ decision making.

28
EXHIBIT C -2041-

Aspect of
Survey
Revisions to
survey (i.e.
questionnaire
and/or coding)
based on pretest?

Connection to
LegalZoom?

Biased
Analysis?

Isaacson Survey

Wind Survey

Perhaps. Dr. Isaacson expressly
stated that his survey was “pretested” “to make sure that the data
was being recorded and properly
coded” among other things. He
does not disclose what, if any,
changes were made to the
questionnaire and/or stimuli in
response to the pre-test.
No. Dr. Isaacson’s survey does not
test whether it is more likely that
consumers would choose
LegalZoom had they not
encountered an allegedly
misleading advertisement from
Rocket Lawyer.

No. The first day of testing was
reviewed by the survey team to
ensure that respondents understood
the questions and when there were
no issues, the survey proceeded.

Yes. Dr. Isaacson combined
groups and ignored responses,
combining responses that did not fit
within LegalZoom’s desired results
into a category called “other
themes” which represented over
60% of responses.
Dr. Isaacson also does not state
that his survey was conducted as a
double blind experiment.

No. Using the actual data gathered,
I let the numbers speak to
themselves. On all key issues
relevant to this case, there was no
significant difference between the
test and control responses. My
survey was also conducted by the
survey team as a double blind
experiment.

Yes. My survey tested at the ad
stage which competitors
respondents are most likely to select
among the companies that appeared
on a real-life Google search. Based
on the results, there is no significant
difference between the test and
control groups with respect to their
choice of LegalZoom or Rocket
Lawyer.

VI. Summary of Evaluation and Dr. Isaacson’s Conclusions
20.

The ten interrelated flaws of Dr. Isaacson’s survey render his analysis and conclusions
unreliable and invalid. Nothing in his survey undermines the findings of my survey where
information was gathered based on realistic stimuli and through unbiased open ended and
closed end questions.
29
EXHIBIT C -2042-

21.

Furthermore, aspects of Dr. Isaacson’s survey supports the conclusions in my survey,
a. Dr. Isaacson’s data in Table 3 demonstrates that even when “free” is used in the
advertisement for incorporation/entity formation services, less than 50% of
respondents mentioned “free” in their open ended responses describing Rocket
Lawyer’s advertisement. Isaacson Rep. at 23. This demonstrates that “free” does
not have the draw hypothesized by LegalZoom in diverting customers away from its
advertisements.
b. Regarding Rocket Lawyer’s website disclosures about its plans, the majority of
respondents referenced the existence of three separate plans – demonstrating the
effectiveness of Rocket Lawyer’s disclosures about its three different plans. Less
than 2% of all respondents – in both the test and control – mentioned “free access to
local attorneys” in their open ended responses, demonstrating that without further
questioning, “free access to local attorneys” is not a primary consideration for
respondents.
c. The manner in which Dr. Isaacson designed the disclosure of “free help from local
attorneys” conforms to Rocket Lawyer’ practices for disclosing its “legal review”
services.

As stated in the Hollerbach declaration, at the end of the consumer

journey, consumers are presented with information relating to Rocket Lawyer’s
plans. Similar to Dr. Isaacson’s control, Rocket Lawyer disclosed that monthly plans
receive legal review of documents after 90 days, annual plans receive legal review
immediately, and does not state that legal review is available with the free trial.
Hollerbach Decl. at Ex. C. His design of the website experiment control, presumably
reflecting LegalZoom’s preferences for Rocket Lawyer’s disclosures of its free

30
EXHIBIT C -2043-

access to attorneys, demonstrates that Rocket Lawyer’s legal review disclosures are
proper.
d. Finally, the fact that in response to Question 8, the majority of respondents stated
that free access to local attorneys would affect their decision to use Rocket Lawyer’s
services supports why consumers would chose Rocket Lawyer over LegalZoom or
other competitors. Free access to local attorneys is available to free trial members
in the form of consultations. See Hollerbach Decl. at ¶ 23.

May 15, 2014

Respectfully,

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

31
EXHIBIT C -2044-

EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT C -2045-

Isaacson Rep. Exhibit 6 - All Data, Including Verbatims - Code 2
"Incorporate for Free"
Note: all responses from Qcells 2 and 10 (Test - Google Ad Unmodified)

Entry No.

XSURV
NUM

1

11

2

61

3

88

4

109

5

192

6

222

7

257

8

270

9

341

10

375

11

476

12

508

13

546

14
15
16
17
18

579
674
678
868
945

19

946

20

973

21

1003

22

1014

23

1047

Q1OE

Q2OE

Incorporate for free
Incorporate for free in CA, with
Rocket Lawyer; tell how many
people are following Rocket
Lawyer.
Incorporate for free in California
That you can incorporate for free in
California.
Incorporate for free
Rocket lawyer, incorporate for free

rocketlawyer.com
It's simple, and gives phone numbers
to call.

This add implies that a company
can incorporate for free and gives
the web site, and it shows/implies
how many people have used there
site and it also gives a phone
number.
You can incorporate for free
Incorporate for free at
RocketLawyer.com
incorporate for free

That you can incorporate for free
Incorporate for free, pay no fees
Incorporate for free
Incorporate for Free

Q1OE/ Q1OE/
Q2OE Qcell
Q2OE
CODE 2 CODE 3
2

2

9

10

California
That incorporating is easy.

2

9

10

2

9

6

It's a lawyer with no fees
Simple California incorporation, 408
people
Not sure

2

1

2

2

9

2

2

9

2

No fees for incorporation, only for
California.
Free

website in California and phone
number
Incorporate for free in California
Phone number and number of
followers
Incorporate for free and pay no fees simple California incorporation

Incorporate for free from the
Rocket lawyer
Incorporate for free.
Incorporate for free
Incorporate for free
Incorporate for free
Incorporate for free
Incorporate for free, 408 people
have used for free plus 1'id follow

Q1OE/
Q2OE
CODE 1
2

The phone number, and states it is
free
None
Simple California incorporation
Simple California Incorporation
California incorporation
Site rocketlawyer.com
Based out of Calif., lawyers may be
hard to contact, does not seem to be
that current
That it is available in CA only
None
Initial talks are free but actual lawyer
fees can be incurred
No fee

2

2

2

10

2

9

10

2

9

2

2

9

2

2

9

2

2
2
2
2
2

9
9
9
9

2
2
2
10
2

2

9

10

2

9

10

2

1

10

2

9

10

2

1

10

EXHIBIT C -2046-

Isaacson Rep. Exhibit 6 - All Data, Including Verbatims - Code 2
"Incorporate for Free"
Note: all responses from Qcells 2 and 10 (Test - Google Ad Unmodified)

Entry No.

XSURV
NUM

24

1094

25

1113

26

1191

27
28
29

1236
1294
1295

30

1305

31

238

32

425

33

580

Q1OE
Incorporate for free, state of
California.
Can Incorporate for Free
Incorporate for
free/rocketlawyer.com
Incorporate for free
Incorporate for free
They will incorporate for free.
Firm will help you incorporate for
free.
Rocket Lawyer services
lawyer to help with incorporation
Pay no fees

Q2OE
Says that 408 people -- I mean
"implies" that 408 people have used
this service.
It is simple to incorporate and 408
people have used the serve
Pay no fee

Q1OE/
Q2OE
CODE 1

Q1OE/ Q1OE/
Q2OE Qcell
Q2OE
CODE 2 CODE 3

2

9

2

2

9

2

2

1

2

No fees
Simple California Incorporation
They are lawyers.
California business only, 408
followers.
You can incorporate for free
incorporate for free

2
2
2

1
9
9

2
2
10

2

9

2

Incorporate for free

2

2

2

2

2
1

EXHIBIT C -2047-

2

EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C -2048-

Isaacson Rep. Exhibit 6 - All Data, Including Verbatims - Code 2
"Zoom Costs $99"
Note: all responses from either Qcells 1 or 9 (Test - Yahoo ad Unmodified) except for one response

Entry No.

XSURV
NUM

1

13

2

71

3

299

4

300

5

547

6

602

7

652

8

746

9

753

10

753

11

880

12

890

13

910

14

953

15

969

16

982

Q1OE
Free to incorporate business. Zoom
costs $99
It is trying to say that Rocket Lawyer
does for free, what LegalZoom would
charge you $99 for. Specifically
forming a LLC.

Q2OE
None
I think it suggests that their other services
would be affordable as well. I mean if
forming a LLC is cheaper, then maybe the
rest of their services are cheaper as well.

That Zoom is $99 and they're free for Their name, and sponsors
LLC
Their services are free as compared to You can form an LLC or incorporate your
Zoom, which costs $99.
business at Rocket Lawyer for free.
The main message is that you can get
your company incorporated, and that
Zoom lawyers can help. The ad also
suggests that the service will only be
$99.

Looking at the ad fuller, it looks like
Zoom is the competition who costs $99,
and Rocket lawyer is the service being
advertised as a free service for
incorporating a business. It also gives
links to other similar options.
That Zoom cost $99 but Rocket Lawyer is
free.
None.

Incorporate your business at Rocket
Lawyer free.
They will incorporate your business
for free as opposed to someone else
who charges $99.
LLC to incorporate is $99; they're free Law firm is Rocket Lawyer
Rocketlawyer.com allows you to get
None
the paperwork you need to form an llc.
and there is no cost. LegalZoom
charges $99 for the same service.
Rocketlawyer.com allows you to get
None
the paperwork you need to form an llc.
and there is no cost. LegalZoom
charges $99 for the same service.
They will incorporate your business
for free.
That you can incorporate your
business and form and LLC for free.
Free business incorporation at Rocket
Lawyer
The ad states that this company will
incorporate your business for free
while Zoom costs $99.
Looks like to me that Rocket
Lawyer.com will do LLC's for free.
That Zoom Costs $99

Zoom charges $99.00.
Zoom costs $99 but they are free.
Zoom costs $99 for business incorporation
Can form llc or corporation for free with
Rocket Lawyer.
That Zoom charges $99.00 for their
services.
The free-incorporation opportunity.

Q1OE/
Q2OE
CODE 1

Q1OE/
Q2OE
CODE 2

Q1OE/
Q2OE Qcell
CODE 3

2

0

2

0

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

0

2

9

1

2

9

1

2

9

1

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

0

9

2

0

1

2

0

9

2

0

9

2

0

9

9

9

9

EXHIBIT C -2049-

1

1

Isaacson Rep. Exhibit 6 - All Data, Including Verbatims - Code 2
"Zoom Costs $99"
Note: all responses from either Qcells 1 or 9 (Test - Yahoo ad Unmodified) except for one response

Entry No.

XSURV
NUM

17

1112

18

1195

19

1273

Ad implies savings of $99 charged by
LegalZoom a competitor to form an
LLC
Rocket lawyer is free, while Zoom
charges a fee. The service is related to
incorporating a business.
You can incorporate your business for
free, whereas it costs $99.00 at Zoom.

20

1316

Incorporate your business for free.

Q1OE

Q1OE/
Q2OE
CODE 2

2

0

3

2

There is no cost to form LLC at Rocket
Lawyer

Q1OE/
Q2OE
CODE 1

2

Q2OE

Q1OE/
Q2OE Qcell
CODE 3

0

1

2

0

1

9

There is a charge for state fees.
0

5

That you can also form an LLC for free.

Zoom costs 99 dollars.

EXHIBIT C -2050-

EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C -2051-

Isaacson Rep. Exhibit 6 - All Data, Including Verbatims - Code 2
Note: all responses from Qcells 1, 2, 9, 10 (Test - Google and Yahoo Ad Unmodified)

Entry No.

XSURV
NUM

1

11

2

13

3

53

4

61

5

65

6

71

7
8
9

82
88
192

10

222

11

238

12

246

13

256

14

257

15

260

16

265

17

270

18

290

19

293

20

299

21

300

Q1OE

Q2OE

Incorporate for free
Free to incorporate business. Zoom costs
$99
The ad implies get your business
incorporated for free or cheaply.

rocketlawyer.com
None

Incorporate for free in CA, with Rocket
Lawyer; tell how many people are
following Rocket Lawyer.
The ad implies free legal service to
incorporate by rocketlawyer.com.
It is trying to say that Rocket Lawyer
does for free, what LegalZoom would
charge you $99 for. Specifically forming
a LLC.
Incorporate free
Incorporate for free in California
Incorporate for free
Rocket lawyer, incorporate for free

Q1OE/ Q1OE/ Q1OE/
Q2OE
Q2OE
Q2OE Qcell
CODE 1 CODE 2 CODE 3
2

2

2

0

9

It shows there's a nice little following using
their services, approximately 408 followers.

2

9

2

It's simple, and gives phone numbers to
call.

2

9

10

2

1

2

2

0

2
2
2

9
9
1

10
10
2

2

9

2

Pay no fees.
I think it suggests that their other services
would be affordable as well. I mean if
forming a LLC is cheaper, then maybe the
rest of their services are cheaper as well.

California
California
It's a lawyer with no fees
Simple California incorporation, 408
people
You can incorporate for free
Rocket Lawyer services
Free services for incorporating business Fast service
or self
Incorporating business without needing Number of people that follow them.
to pay fee.
Not sure
This add implies that a company can
incorporate for free and gives the web
site, and it shows/implies how many
people have used there site and it also
gives a phone number.
Click the link for the free service.
Advertisement for incorporating a
business for free.
No other messages imply.
It implies the ad wants you to
incorporate your law firm for free.
You can incorporate for free
No fees for incorporation, only for
California.
Incorporation services in California for This is a free and easy way to incorporate in
free.
CA.
The rest of the message is unclear.
Free incorporation services.
That Zoom is $99 and they're free for
Their name, and sponsors
LLC
Their services are free as compared to
You can form an LLC or incorporate your
Zoom, which costs $99.
business at Rocket Lawyer for free.

9

2

1

2

2

9

2

2

9

2

2

9

2

2

9

2

2

2

2

2

2

9

2

2
2

2

0

1

2

0

1

EXHIBIT C -2052-

Isaacson Rep. Exhibit 6 - All Data, Including Verbatims - Code 2
Note: all responses from Qcells 1, 2, 9, 10 (Test - Google and Yahoo Ad Unmodified)

Entry No.

XSURV
NUM

22

306

23

308

24

322

25

341

26
27
28
29

375
409
425
426

30

440

31
32

443
457

33

470

34
35
36

476
477
508

37

528

38

530

39

538

40

546

41

547

42

551

43

560

44
45

579
580

Q1OE

Q2OE

This attorney can help you incorporate a That this attorney can be reached toll free.
business for no money. That the attorney That the attorney has a website, and what
is located in California. That 400+
that website is.
people follow this attorney on some type
of social media.
You can incorporate your business in
California for free.
Online, no-pay fee site to incorporate a
business
Incorporate for free at
RocketLawyer.com
incorporate for free
Free incorporation
lawyer to help with incorporation
No money down for a corporation
You can incorporate your business with
no fees through Rocket Lawyer.
Create an LLC for free.
Free Incorporation
one company costs $99 to incorporate a
business. the advertised company is free

You pay no fees.
California only
Free

2

9

2

2

1

2

2

9

2

2

10

website in California and phone number
none
incorporate for free
Don't know
The phone number and it's for Californians

2
2
2
2

9

10
2
2
2

2

9

2

Form an LLC for free with rocket lawyer
none
nothing

2
2

1
2

2
Phone number and number of followers
no fees
simple California incorporation
They are available to help you starting right
now.

Simple incorporation for free in the state
of CA.
You can incorporate a business for free
at that website.
Incorporate for free from the Rocket
lawyer
The main message is that you can get
your company incorporated, and that
Zoom lawyers can help. The ad also
suggests that the service will only be
$99.

Rocket Lawyer charges 0 fees.
It's simple and easy.
The phone number, and states it is free
Looking at the ad fuller, it looks like Zoom
is the competition who costs $99, and
Rocket lawyer is the service being
advertised as a free service for
incorporating a business. It also gives links
to other similar options.
In the state of California
No fees to incorporate a business
None
Incorporate for free

9

1

2
2
2

9
1
9

2
2
2

2

Incorporate for free in California
ink for free
Incorporate for free and pay no fees
The ad is indicating they offer the ability
to incorporate your business at no cost.
They compare themselves to another
company that charges $99.

Form corporation for free
Business incorporation, free in
California
Incorporate for free.
Pay no fees

Q1OE/ Q1OE/ Q1OE/
Q2OE
Q2OE
Q2OE Qcell
CODE 1 CODE 2 CODE 3

9

1

2

1

2

2

9

2

2

9

2

2

0

2

9

2

2

1

2

2
2

1

2
2

9

EXHIBIT C -2053-

1

Isaacson Rep. Exhibit 6 - All Data, Including Verbatims - Code 2
Note: all responses from Qcells 1, 2, 9, 10 (Test - Google and Yahoo Ad Unmodified)

Entry No.

XSURV
NUM

46

582

47

602

48
49

606
629

50

643

51

652

52
53

674
678

54

698

55

713

56

715

57

746

58

752

59

753

60

768

61

785

62

786

63

825

64

867

65

868

66

880

67

890

68

899

Q1OE
No fees...California incorporation
Incorporate your business at Rocket
Lawyer free.
Incorporate free
Incorporate
Free incorporation services available in
California
They will incorporate your business for
free as opposed to someone else who
charges $99.
Incorporate for free
Incorporate for free
Start a corporation for free with a
lawyer.
Incorporating a business is free at this
firm.
It costs nothing to incorporate with this
service.
LLC to incorporate is $99; they're free
No fee charged to help you incorporate.

Q2OE
A group of people follow or like
rocketlawyer.com
That Zoom cost $99 but Rocket Lawyer is
free.
Free to do
No fees
Rocket Lawyer.com, pay no fees

Q1OE/ Q1OE/ Q1OE/
Q2OE
Q2OE
Q2OE Qcell
CODE 1 CODE 2 CODE 3
2

9

2

2

9

1

2
2

2
2

2

1

2

2

9

1

2
2

9
9

2
2

2

9

2

2

9

1

2

9

2

2

9

1

2

9

2

2

0

1

None.

Simple California incorporation
Simple California Incorporation
Number of people who like the link.
Can be done online.
408 people like it.

Law firm is Rocket Lawyer
400+ people have checked this out and like
it.
Rocketlawyer.com allows you to get the None
paperwork you need to form an llc. and
there is no cost. LegalZoom charges $99
for the same service.
By using Rocketlawyer.com, you will be None
able to incorporate your business for
free.
None
Free business incorporation, which is
probably BS.
That RocketLawyer.com will help you How many people gave it a "plus" or a 1.
incorporate a business, etc., for free. It's The location, being in Glendale, CA.
a simple CA incorporation, offers a
phone number to call and shows that 408
people +1'd "or" follow Rocket Lawyer.
It is located in Glendale, CA.
Free incorporation
No fees to pay for incorporation.

Telephone number
The number and website for the law firm.

Incorporate for free
They will incorporate your business for
free.
That you can incorporate your business
and form and LLC for free.
Free incorporation.

California incorporation
Zoom charges $99.00.
Zoom costs $99 but they are free.
We want to spam you.

2

2

2

9

2

2

9

2

2

9

2

2

9

2

2

9

10

2

0

1

2

0

9

2

9

10

EXHIBIT C -2054-

Isaacson Rep. Exhibit 6 - All Data, Including Verbatims - Code 2
Note: all responses from Qcells 1, 2, 9, 10 (Test - Google and Yahoo Ad Unmodified)

Entry No.

XSURV
NUM

69

909

70

910

71

925

72

938

73
74

943
945

75

946

76

953

77

964

78

969

79
80

973
980

81

981

82
83

982
1003

84

1014

85

1017

86

1022

87

1031

88

1047

89

1060

90

1078

91

1089

92

1094

93

1112

94

1113

Q1OE
You can incorporate your business for
free without a lawyer
Free business incorporation at Rocket
Lawyer
You can incorporate a business for free
That you can form a simple California
corporation for free.
Incorporate your business for free
Incorporate for free
Incorporate for free, 408 people have
used for free plus 1'id follow

Q2OE
You can start today
Zoom costs $99 for business incorporation
That it's for California only
That a lot of people follow Rocket Lawyer.
Start today
Site rocketlawyer.com
Based out of Calif., lawyers may be hard to
contact, does not seem to be that current

The ad states that this company will
incorporate your business for free while
Zoom costs $99.
You can incorporate your business for
free in California.
Looks like to me that Rocket
Lawyer.com will do LLC's for free.
That you can incorporate for free
Inc. for free.
Law incorporation of business for free.

Can form llc or corporation for free with
Rocket Lawyer.

That Zoom Costs $99
Incorporate for free, pay no fees
Incorporate for free

The free-incorporation opportunity.
None
Initial talks are free but actual lawyer fees
can be incurred
Zoom is their main competitor and costs
money.

They are free to incorporate your
business from their site. Others cost
much more.
Free incorporation
That you can incorporate a business and
pay no fees.
Incorporate for Free
This is for legal services pertaining to
business incorporation in California

The process is simple and efficient.
That Zoom charges $99.00 for their
services.
That it is available in CA only
Nothing
Free

California corporation
408 people used this service.

No fee
The incorporation itself is free; there's a tollfree phone number, and they appear to have
a social media presence as well.
Implies free legal advice to incorporate a Many people have used this service and are
business.
happy with it.
No fees; simple
Free to incorporate
Incorporate for free, state of California. Says that 408 people -- I mean "implies"
that 408 people have used this service.
Ad implies savings of $99 charged by
There is no cost to form LLC at Rocket
LegalZoom a competitor to form an LLC Lawyer
Can Incorporate for Free

It is simple to incorporate and 408 people
have used the serve

Q1OE/ Q1OE/ Q1OE/
Q2OE
Q2OE
Q2OE Qcell
CODE 1 CODE 2 CODE 3
2

9

1

2

0

1

2

9

10

2

9

2

2
2

9
9

9
2

2

9

10

2

0

9

2

9

10

2

0

9

2
2

9

10
2

2

9

2
2

0
1

9
10

2

9

10

2

0

9

2

9

10

2

9

10

2

1

10

2

9

10

2

9

10

2

1

2

9

2

2

0

9

2

9

2

9

EXHIBIT C -2055-

2

Isaacson Rep. Exhibit 6 - All Data, Including Verbatims - Code 2
Note: all responses from Qcells 1, 2, 9, 10 (Test - Google and Yahoo Ad Unmodified)

Entry No.

XSURV
NUM

95

1115

96

1116

97
98

1127
1165

99

1167

100

1191

Q1OE
You can get a cheaper incorporation
than LegalZoom.com on this website
That they are cheaper than Zoom
Free incorporation in California
Free incorporation
Your business can be incorporated for
free with this lawyer service.
Incorporate for free/rocketlawyer.com
Free and quick Incorporation in CA.

101

1202

102

1217

103

1225

104
105

1236
1254

106

1258

107

1273

108
109

1294
1295

110

1305

111

1316

112

1324

Q2OE
It's free services
That you can incorporate your business for
free
That many people liked them
None
Incorporating in California is simple.
Pay no fee
That there are a handful of people, who may
or may not have used there services, +1'd
[liked] or follow the company.

Legal services
Incorporate your business for free and
pay no fees
Incorporate for free
Incorporation for free
You can incorporate your business from
free using this service.
You can incorporate your business for
free, whereas it costs $99.00 at Zoom.

Incorporate, legal services free
Follow Rocket Lawyer and gives phone
number
No fees
None
They work through the state of California.

Incorporate for free
They will incorporate for free.
Firm will help you incorporate for free.

Simple California Incorporation
They are lawyers.
California business only, 408 followers.

Incorporate your business for free.
Free service to help you form a
corporation in California.

Zoom costs 99 dollars.

Q1OE/ Q1OE/ Q1OE/
Q2OE
Q2OE
Q2OE Qcell
CODE 1 CODE 2 CODE 3
2

0

1

2

0

1

2
2

9

2
2

2

9

2

2

1

2

2

9

10

2

2

2

1

9

2

2
2

1

2
2

2

9

2

2

0

1

2
2

9
9

2
10

2

9

2

2

0

1

That you can also form an LLC for free.

None

2

2

EXHIBIT C -2056-

EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT C -2057-

Isaacson Rep. Exhibit 6 - All Data, Including Verbatims - Code 2
Qcells 5 , 6, 13 and 14 (Ad Control Stimuli)

Entry No.

XSURV
NUM

1

1195

2

89

3

97

4
5
6
7

109
165
331
377

8

464

9

465

10

647

11

755

12
13
14

801
1169
1186

15

872

16
17

312
1039

18

1066

Q1OE

Q2OE

There is a charge for state fees.
Rocket lawyer is free, while Zoom charges a fee. The
service is related to incorporating a business.
No fees to incorporate
None
That RocketLawyer.com can assist you in incorporating in That Rocket Lawyer has a lot of followers.
the state of California and that they can to it with no fees.
That you can incorporate for free in California.
To be able to incorporate with no fees
Incorporate your business with help, free of charge
That you can incorporate a business at No Cost
You can incorporate your business for free in California
with rocket lawyer
Helps you form a corporation, service free
That it is a legal service to help you incorporate a business
with no fees.
That the firm is offering to incorporate a business without
charging a fee.
Legal work for starting corporation is free.
Incorporate your business for free with this lawyer
Incorporating your business with no fees
Rocket Lawyer has no fees for incorporating your business.
No fee incorporation
Incorporation service with no fees
Quick and easy business incorporation without legal fees.

Q1OE/
Q2OE
CODE 1

Q1OE/
Q2OE
CODE 2

2

3

2

Q1OE/
Q2OE Qcell
CODE 3
0

5
6

2

9

6

That incorporating is easy.
Nothing really
You only pay state fees
None
I think I covered it

2
2
2
2

9

6
6
6
6

shows 3 of followers
That it is for California residents.

2

9

6

2

9

6

2

9

6

None
Follow this person on social media
That they are in fact a law firm
Less expensive.

2
2
2

9
9

6
6
6

2

9

13

None
Legal service
More complicated outside of California.

2
2

That the firm has over 400 followers.

3

2

2

6

14
14
9

14

EXHIBIT C -2058-

EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT C -2059-

Isaacson Rep. Exhibit 6 - All Data, Including Verbatims - Code 4
Note: All Code 4 are exclusively from Qcells 5, 6, 13, and 14 (All Ad Experiment Control Stimuli)

Entry No.

XSURV
NUM

1

154

2

191

3

275

4

318

5
6
7
8
9

333
337
349
365
366

10

368

11
12

376
383

13

385

14
15
16

398
427
444

17

449

18

469

19

474

20

488

21

526

22

536

23
24
25

537
548
557

26

616

27

636

28

650

Q1OE
No service fee. You pay for the actual
need or what you need to be done but
they will not have any additional
charges.
No service fees for legal work.

Q2OE
Simple California incorporation.

4
Use this to incorporate your business.

A person can incorporate without paying You can click on the web address to
a service fee in the state of California.
see further details.
You can incorporate a business with no
service fees.
No service fees.
No service fees.
No service fees.
Rocket Lawyer has no service fees.
No service fee.
Rocket Lawyer is cheaper than Zoom for
legal services.
No service fee to incorporate.
Cost
No service fees \ others use them \ speed
Incorporate a business
Zoom costs $99
Incorporate with no service fees
How you can get a quick and cheap
divorce without the hassle of lawyer's
fees.
No service fees
Legal service for incorporating LLC. \
Its price \ "Rocket Lawyer" has no
service fees
Rocket Lawyer is cheaper than Zoom
because it has no service fees.
No service fees.
No service fees, lawyers

The service is from RocketLawyer.com
Incorporate with no legal fees.
None
Located in California.
None
None
Rocket Lawyer doesn't charge service
fees. Zoom has hidden fees.
What state the firm is located in.
No service fee
Many followers
No service fees
No service fee
None
About how they have no service fees,
and are better than their competition.
n/a
Nothing

9

6

4

9

5

4

9

14

4

9

14

4
4
4
4
4

9
9

14
5
6
13
6

4

0

5

4
4

9
9

6
5

4

9

6

4
4
4

0

5
5
6

4

9

5

4

6

4
Rocket Lawyer is a better value for the
same service.
Zoom costs $99.00
It implies it is a large company by
stating it's an incorporate.
Cheap lawyer
Cheaper costs, better service
Simple CA incorporation
That the service is quick.

No service fees
No service fees
No service fees
That the others charge a service fee and
Rocket Lawyer doesn't. So it would be
easier to start a LLC.
Incorporate with no service fee \ Legal Web address of provider \ provider
service provider name & phone number. operates in CA.
You can incorporate your business in
California with no service fee.

Q1OE/ Q1OE/
Q1OE/
Q2OE
Q2OE
Q2OE Qcell
CODE 1 CODE 2 CODE 3

It's a law firm. There are over 400
customers.

9

5

4

0

5

4

0

5

4

9

6

4
4
4

9
9
9

6
5
6

4

9

5

4

9

6

4

9

14

EXHIBIT C -2060-

Isaacson Rep. Exhibit 6 - All Data, Including Verbatims - Code 4
Note: All Code 4 are exclusively from Qcells 5, 6, 13, and 14 (All Ad Experiment Control Stimuli)

Entry No.

XSURV
NUM

Q1OE

Q2OE

29

687

30

695

31

696

No service fee. You pay for the actual
need or what you need to be done but
they will not have any additional
charges.
That Rocket Lawyer doesn't charge
service fees like Zoom.
There are no service fees for using the
Rocket Lawyer incorporation service.

700

There are no service fees to incorporate
when using Rocket Lawyer.

Easy website information.

32
33

706

It's in California.

34

709

35

712

36

714

37

729

38

760

39

808

40
41

822
838

42

842

You can incorporate your business with
no service fee.
It will help you set up a corporation.
Looks like it is stating a one-time fee,
and that they are promising no service
fees.
This lawyer can do a better job than
LegalZoom.
Legal services for incorporation of a
business not up from fees.
That this lawyer has no service fees for
incorporating businesses.
This legal service does not charge
service fees.
No service fees
No service fee
To Inc. your business no service fees

43

846

44

850

45

853

46
47

873
884

48

889

49
50
51
52

912
917
923
939

53

942

54

959

Q1OE/ Q1OE/
Q1OE/
Q2OE
Q2OE
Q2OE Qcell
CODE 1 CODE 2 CODE 3

Legal services for your business

Law services are available through this
firm.

9

6

4

0

5

4

0

5

4

You don't have to pay a service fee.

4

9

6

4

9

6

4

9

6

4

9

13

4

0

5

4

9

6

Zoom costs $99

There are no service fees.
That you can hire a lawyer service for
99 dollars.
Service fees are at no charge.
Incorporate you business for no service
fee.
Not sure.
Well, it is getting more difficult to read
even with my reading glasses.
Legal services available at low cost
$99
Fee is $99.00

Cost $99 and no service fees and more
sponsors such as LegalZoom
Seems to offer services limited to CA
Avoid paying service fees by using
incorporation.
online legal service.
Incorporate with no service fees. If you That it's a better deal than other
are looking to start a business, maybe
websites and/or getting the services in
this is good news.
person.
No service fees
Incorporate
Incorporate
Pay no service fees
You can incorporate your business with Don't know
no service fees
None
Incorporation with no service fees
That there are no service fees
None
No service fees
Legal service
California
Incorporate without service fees
I can incorporate a company without any None
service fees \ in California
That Rocket Lawyers has no service fee That other services cost 99.00, that
they are the better choice.
to incorporate your business.

4

5

4

6

4
4

9
9

5
5

4

9

5

4

0

5

4

9

6

4

9

6

4
4

9
9

14
6

4

9

14

4
4
4
4

9
9
9

14
6
14
6

4

9

6

4

9

13

EXHIBIT C -2061-

Isaacson Rep. Exhibit 6 - All Data, Including Verbatims - Code 4
Note: All Code 4 are exclusively from Qcells 5, 6, 13, and 14 (All Ad Experiment Control Stimuli)

Entry No.

XSURV
NUM

55

962

56

978

57

979

58

1008

59

1015

60

1018

61

1065

62

1099

63

1108

64

1120

65

1122

66

1126

67

1144

68

1146

69

1196

70

1198

71

1205

72

1214

73

1222

74
75
76
77

1228
1235
1237
1249

78

1269

79

1272

80
81

1276
1277

Q1OE
No service fee for lawyers
No service fees, which is very unique.

Q2OE
Business at Rocket Lawyer is better
The service is different.

Rocket Lawyer has no service fees.
That this service will help you
incorporate with no service fees.
No service fees
That you can incorporate your new
business without having to pay any
service fees. For California only. States
that it will be simple to do.
$99 for competition. Rocket does not
have a service fee.
No service fees.
You can use this service with no service
fees.
Rocket Lawyer has no service fees
compared to its competitor.
No service fees.
$99.00, no service fee.
No service fees
No service fees.
Lawyer has no service fees.
That one charges $99 and the other has
no service fee.
Rocket Lawyer does not have any
service fees.
Incorporation without a service fee.
Has no service fees.

Zoom costs.
For easy or simple incorporations only.

It implies that another legal service
called 'Zoom' charges $99 for the same
service that Rocket Lawyer will do for
free.
Zoom has hidden fees.
That the process is very simple and
affordable to do online.
None
There is a message at the bottom about
408 people follow Rocket Lawyer- not
sure what this means. Twitter??
Other sponsors.
Incorporate
It's a way to incorporate a business.
Incorporate your business with Rocket
Lawyer.
You can incorporate your business
with them.
I don't know.
408 people like them
Better than Zoom.
It costs $99
That it is sponsored by Rocket Lawyer.
Zoom does have fees of $99
408 people are following.
Zoom costs $99

4

9

14

4

9

14

4

0

13

4

9

13

4

0

13

4

9

14

4

0

4

The site offers to incorporate a business It also states that over 400 people
and would do so without charging a
follow the website.
service fee.
Rocket Lawyer has no service fees
It promotes Rocket Lawyer over
LegalZoom.
No service fee
Cheap lawyers
Rocket Lawyer has no service fees,
Rocket Lawyer offers several services.
while Zoom costs $99.
No service fees, "Rocket Lawyer"
It states that it's located in California
implies a speedy process.
which would be convenient for me.
99 dollars but no service fees.
You can incorporate for no service fee
which implies that there is still a cost but
added fees are waived.
Rocket Lawyer has no service fees for
helping clients to incorporate a business.

Q1OE/ Q1OE/
Q1OE/
Q2OE
Q2OE
Q2OE Qcell
CODE 1 CODE 2 CODE 3
4
9
5

9

14

4

0

13

4

0

5

4

9

6

9

4

5

6

4

9

6

4

9

5

4

9

6

4

9

6

4

9

5

4

9

6

4
4
4
4

9
9
0
9

5
6
5
5

4

9

5

4

0

5

4
4

9
0

6
13

EXHIBIT C -2062-

Isaacson Rep. Exhibit 6 - All Data, Including Verbatims - Code 4
Note: All Code 4 are exclusively from Qcells 5, 6, 13, and 14 (All Ad Experiment Control Stimuli)

Entry No.

XSURV
NUM

82

1310

Q1OE
No service fee

Q2OE
Incorporated

Q1OE/ Q1OE/
Q1OE/
Q2OE
Q2OE
Q2OE Qcell
CODE 1 CODE 2 CODE 3
4
9
6

EXHIBIT C -2063-

EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT C -2064-

Isaacson Rep. Exhibit 6 - All Data, Including Verbatims - Code 4
Note: All Code 4 are exclusively from Qcells 5, 6, 13, and 14 (All Ad Experiment Control Stimuli)
68 entries contain "no service fee(s)"

Entry No.

XSURV
NUM

1

154

2

191

3

318

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

333
337
349
365
366
376
383

11

385

12
13
14

398
427
444

15

449

16

469

17

474

18

488

19

526

20

536

21
22
23

537
548
557

24

636

25

650

26

687

27

696

Q1OE

Q2OE

No service fee. You pay for the actual
Simple California incorporation.
need or what you need to be done but
they will not have any additional charges.

4

9

6

4

9

5

4

9

14

Incorporate with no legal fees.
None
Located in California.
None
None
What state the firm is located in.
No service fee
Many followers

4
4
4
4
4
4
4

9

9
9

14
5
6
13
6
6
5

4

9

6

No service fees
No service fee
None
About how they have no service fees,
and are better than their competition.

4
4
4

0

5
5
6

4

9

5

n/a
Nothing

4

No service fees for legal work.

Use this to incorporate your business.

You can incorporate a business with no
service fees.
No service fees.
No service fees.
No service fees.
Rocket Lawyer has no service fees.
No service fee.
No service fee to incorporate.
Cost
No service fees \ others use them \ speed

The service is from RocketLawyer.com

Incorporate a business
Zoom costs $99
Incorporate with no service fees
How you can get a quick and cheap
divorce without the hassle of lawyer's
fees.
No service fees
Legal service for incorporating LLC. \ Its
price \ "Rocket Lawyer" has no service
fees
Rocket Lawyer is cheaper than Zoom
because it has no service fees.
No service fees.
No service fees, lawyers

Q1OE/
Q1OE/
Q1OE/
Q2OE
Q2OE
Q2OE
Qcell
CODE
CODE 1 CODE 2
3

9

6

4

Rocket Lawyer is a better value for the
same service.
Zoom costs $99.00
It implies it is a large company by stating
it's an incorporate.
No service fees
Cheap lawyer
No service fees
Cheaper costs, better service
No service fees
Simple CA incorporation
Incorporate with no service fee \ Legal
Web address of provider \ provider
service provider name & phone number. operates in CA.
You can incorporate your business in
California with no service fee.
No service fee. You pay for the actual
need or what you need to be done but
they will not have any additional charges.

It's a law firm. There are over 400
customers.
Law services are available through this
firm.

There are no service fees for using the
Rocket Lawyer incorporation service.

9

5

4

0

5

4

0

5

4

9

6

4
4
4

9
9
9

6
5
6

4

9

6

4

9

14

4

9

6

4

0

5

Zoom costs $99

EXHIBIT C -2065-

Isaacson Rep. Exhibit 6 - All Data, Including Verbatims - Code 4
Note: All Code 4 are exclusively from Qcells 5, 6, 13, and 14 (All Ad Experiment Control Stimuli)
68 entries contain "no service fee(s)"

Entry No.

XSURV
NUM

28

700

29

706

30

709

31

712

32

729

33

760

34
35
36

822
838
842

37

846

38

853

39
40

873
884

41

889

42
43
44

912
917
923

45

959

46

962

47

978

48

1008

49

1015

50

1018

51

1065

52

1099

53

1108

Q1OE

Q2OE

There are no service fees to incorporate
when using Rocket Lawyer.

Easy website information.

You can incorporate your business with
no service fee.
It will help you set up a corporation.
Looks like it is stating a one-time fee,
and that they are promising no service
fees.
Legal services for incorporation of a
business not up from fees.
That this lawyer has no service fees for
incorporating businesses.
No service fees
No service fee
To Inc. your business no service fees
Legal services for your business

It's in California.

Q1OE/
Q1OE/
Q1OE/
Q2OE
Q2OE
Q2OE
Qcell
CODE
CODE 1 CODE 2
3

Incorporate with no service fees. If you
are looking to start a business, maybe
this is good news.
No service fees
Pay no service fees
You can incorporate your business with
no service fees
Incorporation with no service fees
That there are no service fees
Legal service
That Rocket Lawyers has no service fee
to incorporate your business.
No service fee for lawyers
No service fees, which is very unique.
Rocket Lawyer has no service fees

4

There are no service fees.
That you can hire a lawyer service for 99
dollars.
Incorporate you business for no service
fee.
Not sure.

9

6

4

9

6

4

9

6

4

9

13

4

9

6

4

5

Legal services available at low cost
$99
Fee is $99.00
Cost $99 and no service fees and more
sponsors such as LegalZoom
That it's a better deal than other websites
and/or getting the services in person.

4
4
4

9
9
9

5
5
5

4

0

5

4

9

6

Incorporate
Incorporate
Don't know

4
4

9
9

14
6

4

9

14

None
None
No service fees
That other services cost 99.00, that they
are the better choice.
Business at Rocket Lawyer is better
The service is different.

4
4
4

9
9

14
6
14

4

9

13

4

9

5

4

9

14

4

0

13

4

9

13

4

0

13

4

9

14

4

0

4

9

It promotes Rocket Lawyer over
LegalZoom.
No service fee
Cheap lawyers
Rocket Lawyer has no service fees, while Rocket Lawyer offers several services.
Zoom costs $99.
It states that it's located in California
No service fees, "Rocket Lawyer"
which would be convenient for me.
implies a speedy process.
99 dollars but no service fees.
Zoom costs.
You can incorporate for no service fee
For easy or simple incorporations only.
which implies that there is still a cost but
added fees are waived.

9

EXHIBIT C -2066-

5
14

Isaacson Rep. Exhibit 6 - All Data, Including Verbatims - Code 4
Note: All Code 4 are exclusively from Qcells 5, 6, 13, and 14 (All Ad Experiment Control Stimuli)
68 entries contain "no service fee(s)"

Entry No.

XSURV
NUM

54

1120

55

1122

56

1126

57
58

1144
1198

59

1205

60

1214

61

1222

62
63
64
65

1228
1235
1237
1249

66

1269

67
68

1277
1310

Q1OE

Q2OE

Rocket Lawyer has no service fees for
It implies that another legal service
helping clients to incorporate a business. called 'Zoom' charges $99 for the same
service that Rocket Lawyer will do for
free.
Zoom has hidden fees.
Rocket Lawyer has no service fees.
That the process is very simple and
That this service will help you
affordable to do online.
incorporate with no service fees.
No service fees
None
No service fees.
Incorporate
You can use this service with no service It's a way to incorporate a business.
fees.
Incorporate your business with Rocket
Rocket Lawyer has no service fees
Lawyer.
compared to its competitor.
No service fees.
You can incorporate your business with
them.
$99.00, no service fee.
I don't know.
No service fees
408 people like them
No service fees.
Better than Zoom.
It costs $99
Lawyer has no service fees.
That one charges $99 and the other has That it is sponsored by Rocket Lawyer.
no service fee.
Has no service fees.
Zoom costs $99
No service fee
Incorporated

Q1OE/
Q1OE/
Q1OE/
Q2OE
Q2OE
Q2OE
Qcell
CODE
CODE 1 CODE 2
3
4

0

13

4

0

5

4

9

6

4
4

9

6
6

4

9

6

4

9

5

4

9

6

4
4
4
4

9
9
0
9

5
6
5
5

4

9

5

4
4

0
9

13
6

EXHIBIT C -2067-

EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

12
13
14

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., a Delaware
corporation

15

EXPERT REPORT SUBMITTED
BY DR. BRUCE ISAACSON
MEASURING THE IMPRESSIONS
v.
CONVEYED BY MATERIALS
ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED,
ADVERTISING ROCKET
a Delaware corporation
LAWYER
Defendant.

16
17
18
19

CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRx)

Plaintiff,

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRx)

EXHIBIT D -2068-

1

1.

2

provides the results of a survey I conducted measuring the impressions conveyed by certain

3

materials used by Rocket Lawyer online, including ads from search engine result listings and

4

pages from the Rocket Lawyer website.

5

2.

6

this matter, information I have reviewed in this matter, my expertise, and my experience. I

7

reserve the right to supplement this report.

I have been retained by attorneys for the Plaintiff in the above litigation. This report

The statements and opinions expressed in this report are based on research I conducted in

8
9

OVERVIEW OF MY SURVEY AND FINDINGS

10

3.

11

from the Rocket Lawyer website, including the following test materials:

12

The survey measured the impressions conveyed by ads from Rocket Lawyer and pages

i.

Yahoo ad: An ad for Rocket Lawyer that was displayed in the results of a

13

keyword search on Yahoo. The ad has the headline, “Zoom Costs $99 We’re

14

Free” and offers to “Incorporate Your Business at Rocket Lawyer Free.”

15

ii.

Google ad: An ad for Rocket Lawyer that was displayed in the results of a

16

keyword search on Google. The ad has the headline “Incorporate For Free ǀ

17

RocketLawyer.com” and states, among other text, “Pay No Fees ($0).”

18

iii.

“Plans & Pricing” website page: A page from the Rocket Lawyer website.

19

Among other items, the page offers, “Free help from local attorneys” and a “Try It

20

Free” option for each membership plan.

21

iv.

“Plans & Pricing” and “Terms of Service” website pages: Two pages from the

22

Rocket Lawyer website, including the “Plans & Pricing” page and the “Rocket

23

Lawyer On Call® Terms of Service” page. The Terms of Service page, among

24

other items, defines “Eligible Members” who have access to legal services.

25

4.

26

Lawyer online, or they viewed control materials, similar to the actual materials but altered to add

27

certain disclaimers and/or additional specificity to the copy:

Respondents to my survey viewed either the test materials allegedly displayed by Rocket

28
-1-

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2069-

1

i.

Yahoo ad: The control ad replaces “Zoom Costs $99 We’re Free” with “Zoom

2

Costs $99 But Rocket Lawyer Has No Service Fees.” The text on the control ad

3

includes the statement, “No Service Fees, Only State Fees.”

4

ii.

Google ad: The control ad replaces “Incorporate for Free” with “Incorporate with

5

No Service Fees.” The text on the control ad includes the statement, “Pay No

6

Service Fees (Pay Only State Fees).”

7

iii.

“Plans & Pricing” website page: The control version of the Plans & Pricing page

8

adds text near the top of the page stating that free help from a local attorney is

9

only available if you purchase at least 3 months of a Basic Legal Plan or Pro

10

Legal Plan.

11

iv.

“Plans & Pricing” and “Terms of Service” website pages: The control version of

12

the Plans & Pricing page adds text near the top stating that free help is only

13

available if you purchase at least 3 months of a Basic Legal Plan or Pro Legal

14

Plan. The control version of the Terms of Service page adds text near the top of

15

that page specifying that free help from local attorneys is only available to

16

“Eligible Members,” defined as someone who purchases at least 3 consecutive

17

months of a monthly Legal Plan, or who purchases an annual Legal Plan.

18

5.

19

these materials over time. My survey used the versions of materials referenced in the First

20

Amended Complaint and/or the Motion for Summary Judgment. 1 The materials in the

21

Complaint and the Motion for Summary Judgment are black and white, and somewhat grainy.

22

As described in this report, staff at my firm, under my direction, reproduced those materials in a

23

condition similar to how those items likely looked in their original color format.

24

6.

25

purchase online legal services, such as those sold by LegalZoom or Rocket Lawyer. Among

26
27
28

My understanding is that Rocket Lawyer may have used slightly different versions of

The survey included respondents representative of the consumers and businesses who

1

The ads are referenced in Exhibit B of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, pages 29
and 31. The Plans & Pricing page is referenced on page 38 of the First Amended Complaint and
also in Exhibit E (page 44) of the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Terms of Service page is
referenced in Exhibit F (starting on page 46) of the Motion for Summary Judgment.
-2-

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2070-

1

other criteria, business respondents were qualified as:

2

i.

3

employed by businesses or organizations with either 1 to 9 employees or 10 to 19
employees,

4

ii.

5

past purchasers of legal services for their company or organization, or likely to
consider purchasing such legal services in the next 2 years,

6

iii.

decision-makers in the selection of a provider for legal services,

7

iv.

likely to use the Internet to locate a provider of legal services, and

8

v.

willing to consider purchasing legal services through a website.

9

7.

Consumer respondents passed similar qualification questions on behalf of themselves or

10

other members of their household.

11

8.

12

a test ad, a website page, or website pages), or the altered control version of the same materials.

13

Respondents were then asked questions to measure the impressions conveyed by the materials,

14

particularly relating to the need to pay fees or to pay before obtaining services.

15

9.

16

website page or website pages. Respondents who saw an ad were also asked questions about the

17

need to pay fees, including questions about:

18

After qualification, each respondent was shown either Rocket Lawyer materials (such as

Respondents were first asked to indicate the main messages stated or implied by the ad,

i.

19

whether the materials communicate or imply that you can incorporate a business
without paying any fees to any organization or entity, and

20

ii.

21

whether the amount of fees paid would affect your decision regarding which
service provider to select.

22

10.

23

about obtaining free help from local attorneys, including questions about:

24

Respondents who saw the website page or pages were asked questions about fees and

i.

25

whether the materials communicate or imply that you can try a membership
without paying any fees to any organization or entity,

26

ii.

who can obtain free help from a local attorney,

27

iii.

whether a member has to pay for a Legal Plan before they can get free help from a

28

local attorney, and
-3-

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2071-

1

iv.

2

whether having to pay for a membership before getting free help from a local
attorney would affect your decision regarding using this website’s services.

3

11.

4

among respondents who were shown the Google and Yahoo ads for Rocket Lawyer:

5

As described later in this report, the survey data indicate the following conclusions

i.

Of respondents shown the Rocket Lawyer test ads, 41.4% provided a verbatim

6

survey response indicating that they believed they could obtain free incorporation

7

or a free LLC formation from Rocket Lawyer, compared with only 6.7% of those

8

who saw the altered control versions of these materials. The difference,

9

attributable to the specific language used by Rocket Lawyer, is 34.7% (calculated

10

as 41.4% minus 6.7%). Similarly, 36.4% of those shown the test ads provided a

11

verbatim survey response reflecting the concept of “free” in some unspecified

12

manner, which may or may not include free incorporation, compared with 10.8%

13

for the control ads.

14

ii.

When asked whether or not the ads communicate or imply that you can

15

incorporate a business through this service without paying any fees to any

16

organization or entity, 86.2% of those shown the Rocket Lawyer test ads said yes,

17

compared with 67.3% of respondents shown the control ads. The net difference is

18

18.9% (86.2% minus 67.3%).

19

12.

20

pages from the Rocket Lawyer website:

21

The survey data provide the following conclusions among respondents shown the page or

i.

Of respondents shown the test website page or pages, more than half (52.4%)

22

provided a verbatim response indicating that the page referenced multiple plans,

23

and 13.2% provided a response indicating that the page referenced free

24

membership, a free trial, or free services.

25

ii.

A strong majority (90.5% or 81.2%) of respondents who saw either the test or the

26

control website page or pages provided a response correctly indicating that the

27

materials communicate or imply that you can try a membership without paying

28

any fees to any organization or entity.
-4-

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2072-

1

iii.

Among those who saw the test page or pages from the Rocket Lawyer website,

2

53.3% responded that anyone or anyone who signs up for a free membership can

3

obtain free help from a local attorney, compared with 41.3% among those who

4

saw the control website page or pages. The difference is 12.0%.

5

iv.

Among those who saw the test page or pages, 37.8% correctly responded that a

6

member has to pay for a Basic or Pro Legal plan before they can get free help

7

from a local attorney, compared with 56.7% among those who saw the altered

8

control materials. The difference is 18.9%.

9

13.

The survey data also indicates that most respondents believe that the amount of fees they

10

pay would affect their decision regarding which service provider to select or whether to use the

11

website’s services.

12

14.

13

findings in detail.

After reviewing certain background information, I will discuss the survey and my

14
15

MY QUALIFICATIONS

16

15.

17

and consulting firm, and am an expert in research, surveys, and marketing.

18

16.

19

consisting primarily of the design, execution, and analysis of thousands of surveys, as well as

20

expertise related to marketing and strategy. Our experience includes many surveys used in

21

intellectual property litigation and false advertising matters. Our clients have included well-

22

known organizations, such as Farmers Insurance Group, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company,

23

Cigna Health Insurance, several regions of the American Automobile Association, Nestlé USA,

24

Inc., Smart & Final Stores, RE/MAX, Kaplan Test Prep, Alberto-Culver, and many other

25

organizations, encompassing thousands of studies.

26

17.

I am the owner and President of MMR Strategy Group (“MMR”), a marketing research

For approximately 35 years, 2 MMR has provided marketing research and consulting,

I received a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering from the Technological Institute

27
28

2

Until approximately November, 2009, the firm was known as Marylander Marketing Research.
-5-

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2073-

1

at Northwestern University in 1985, and Master of Business Administration and Doctor of

2

Business Administration degrees from the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration

3

in 1991 and 1996. At Harvard, I received my MBA with highest distinction as a Baker Scholar

4

and was a Dean’s Doctoral Fellow, writing 14 publications on marketing and strategy, including

5

best-selling teaching materials.

6

18.

7

and, for my research, I have won awards from institutions including The Institute for the Study

8

of Business Markets at Penn State University and Harvard University.

9

19.

I have taught marketing and strategy for executive groups and executive MBA programs,

In terms of professional experience, I have been a marketing and strategy consultant at

10

The Boston Consulting Group, Senior Vice President at a publicly traded data processing

11

company that is now a division of Intuit, Division President at a media services company, and

12

Vice President responsible for marketing and strategy at a national financial services company.

13

I also served as the West Coast Practice Leader of Monitor Executive Development, a division

14

of Monitor Group, an international strategy consulting firm, where my responsibilities included

15

developing curriculum and serving as lead faculty for executive education programs in

16

marketing and strategy.

17

20.

18

Association. My firm is a member of the Council of American Survey Research Organizations

19

and the International Trademark Association. I am on the editorial board of the Journal of

20

Business-to-Business Marketing, and am a member of The Trademark Reporter Committee of

21

the International Trademark Association. I regularly consult with clients regarding marketing,

22

research, and strategy, and also address conferences and groups on the same issues. My public

23

speaking includes addressing law firms and bar associations on the use of research and surveys

24

in litigation and related areas. For example:

25

I am a member of the American Marketing Association and the Marketing Research

i.

In April 2013, I was an invited speaker at a multi-day course on surveys and

26

marketing/advertising claims. In May, 2013, I conducted a roundtable discussion

27

on a similar topic at the annual conference of the International Trademark

28

Association.
-6-

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2074-

1

ii.

In May 2013, I was a panelist at a Continuing Legal Education seminar

2

sponsored by the Los Angeles County Bar Association on the topic of

3

“Trademark Infringement and the Internet.”

4

iii.

5

In October 2013, I was a speaker at the Corporate Researchers Conference hosted
by the Marketing Research Association.

6

21.

7

Law Newsletter of the American Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law Section; Intellectual

8

Property, Intellectual Property Magazine, Quirk’s Marketing Research Review, and others.

9

22.

I have authored or co-authored articles for publications such as the Intellectual Property

Over my career, I have personally designed, overseen, and analyzed hundreds of

10

research studies, including dozens of trademark surveys. I have also provided expertise in

11

marketing, strategy, surveys, and consumer behavior to clients in a variety of industries. A copy

12

of my curriculum vitae and litigation expert witness experience is attached as Exhibit 1.

13
14

COMPENSATION AND MATERIALS REVIEWED

15

23.

16

and related activities, such as review of materials, research design and writing this report. After

17

this expert report, I charge $650 per hour for additional activities, if any, and $6,000 per day for

18

testimony at trial or deposition.

19

24.

20

following:

21

The compensation charged by my firm in this matter is $95,000 for the survey research

For purposes of this report, I have reviewed a wide variety of materials, including the

i.

Legal documents from the Plaintiff, including the First Amended Complaint; the

22

Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment, Memorandum of Points

23

and Authorities, and Declaration of Mary Ann T. Nguyen; LegalZoom’s Separate

24

Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Its Motion for Summary

25

Judgment; and LegalZoom’s Supplemental Responses to Rocket Lawyer’s First

26

Set of Special Interrogatories.

27
28

ii.

Legal documents from the Defendant, including the Answer to First Amended
Complaint and Amended Counterclaims; the Defendant’s Memorandum of
-7-

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2075-

1

Evidentiary Objections in Support of Its Opposition to LegalZoom’s Motion for

2

Summary Judgment; Declaration of Hong-An Vu in Support of the Opposition to

3

the Motion for Summary Judgment (including related exhibits); the Opposition to

4

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; the Declaration of Paul Hollerbach;

5

Rocket Lawyer’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of

6

Its Opposition to LegalZoom’s Motion for Summary Judgment; and Objections

7

and Responses to Interrogatory No. 24.

8

iii.

9

Other documents, such as the Court’s Order regarding the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment; California Senate Bill No. 340; the Electronic Code of

10

Federal Regulations, Title 16, Part 425, “Use of Pre-Notification Negative Option

11

Plans”; and guides produced by the Federal Trade Commission entitled, “FTC

12

Guide Concerning Use of the Word ‘Free’ and Similar Representations” and

13

“.com Disclosures: How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising.”

14

iv.

15

Pages on websites related to this matter, such as www.legalzoom.com and
www.rocketlawyer.com.

16

v.

17

The results of Internet searches on search engines such as Google for terms
relevant to this matter, such as “incorporation.”

18

25.

19

matter, the most relevant of which are cited in this report. In addition, I rely on my knowledge

20

and experience in fields such as surveys and market research.

21

26.

I also reviewed published literature and cases relevant to the issues and theories in this

The next section describes the research I conducted in this matter.

22
23

METHODOLOGY FOR THE SURVEY

24

27.

25

Lawyer from search engine listings, or a page or pages from the Rocket Lawyer website. All

26

aspects of the survey were designed and carried out by me or under my supervision.

27

28.

28

matters, in which one group is shown a test stimulus that allegedly contains misleading material,

My survey measured the impressions formed by respondents who viewed ads for Rocket

The format for the survey is consistent with a format often used in deceptive advertising

-8-

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2076-

1

while another group is shown a control stimulus, which is similar to the test except it is modified

2

to remove allegedly-misleading materials, or to add clarifying elements, such as a disclaimer.

3

Respondents are then asked a similar set of questions, which start with open-ended questions and

4

proceed through the survey to closed-ended questions. 3 The survey also matches accepted

5

practices for deceptive advertising in that the survey questions measure what respondents believe

6

that the stimulus material communicates or implies, rather than what respondents believe based

7

on pre-existing beliefs or understanding. 4

8

29.

9

LegalZoom’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit B, pages 37 and 39. The pictures of the

Exhibit 2 shows all test materials from the survey. The ads tested in the survey appear in

10

ads in the Motion for Summary Judgment are black and white, and somewhat grainy. Under my

11

direction, staff at my firm created color versions of the ads which were designed to appear

12

similar to the likely original appearances of the ads.

13

30.

14

alterations were conducted under my direction using design elements gathered from keyword

15

searches on Google and Yahoo, materials from the Internet Archive (http://archive.org/web/),

16

and materials from the Rocket Lawyer website. The design elements included materials showing

17

colors and graphical elements used in the time period relevant to the materials measured in the

18

survey. To help respondents identify which ads are the subject of the survey, other ads in the

19

Google and Yahoo search results pages were blurred out, and the ads of interest were circled.

20

This helps to replicate the real-world scenario where someone encounters and notices the ads.

21

31.

22

>>

23

>>

24

>>

Starting with the text and layout from the ads in the Motion for Summary Judgment,

Copies of both ads are provided below, in a smaller size than they appeared in the survey:

25
26
27
28

3

William W. Vodra and Randall K. Miller, “’Did He Really Say That?’ Survey Evidence in
Deceptive Advertising Litigation”, The Trademark Reporter, Vol. 92, No. 4, 2002.
4
Jacob Jacoby, Amy H. Handlin, and Alex Simonson, “Survey Evidence in Deceptive
Advertising Cases Under the Lanham Act: An Historical Review of Comments from the
Bench”, The Trademark Reporter, Vol. 84, 1994.
-9-

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2077-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 10 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2078-

1

32.

2

page, and the Plans & Pricing page followed by the Terms of Service page. 5 The website pages

3

tested in the survey appear in the Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit E (page 44) and

4

Exhibit F (starting on page 46). The pictures of the website pages in these documents are black

5

and white, and somewhat grainy. Under my direction, staff at my firm created color versions of

6

these website pages designed to appear similar to their likely original appearance. The process

7

of creating the color versions of the website pages was similar to that described earlier for the

8

ads.

9

33.

The survey also tested two pages from the Rocket Lawyer website: the Plans & Pricing

The top portions of the website pages shown to survey respondents are shown below. To

10

save space, the images included in this report are smaller than the images as they were displayed

11

in the survey, and the images below only show the top portions of the survey stimuli. Exhibit 2

12

shows the complete images from the survey in a larger size, closer to the size as they were shown

13

respondents in the survey.

14

>>

15

>>

16

>>

17

>>

18

>>

19

>>

20

>>

21

>>

22

>>

23

>>

24

>>

25
26
27
28

5

The Plans & Pricing page currently on the Rocket Lawyer website at
http://www.rocketlawyer.com/plans-pricing.rl has different layout and text than the page tested
in the survey. Also, the survey tested only the initial sections of the Terms of Service page; the
initial sections are most relevant because they define the term “Eligible Member” and specify the
requirements to obtain free help from local attorneys.
- 11 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2079-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 12 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2080-

1

34.

2

pages. The control versions were similar to the originals, except that the originals were altered to

3

add disclaimers or clarifying language regarding Rocket Lawyer’s pricing and/or policies. 6

4

35.

5

and to “…test directly the influence of the stimulus.” 8 The control allows the survey to measure

6

what might have occurred if Rocket Lawyer had included additional or different information in

7

the ads or website pages, particularly relating to the need to pay state fees (in the ads) or the need

8

to pay for at least three months of membership before obtaining free help from a local attorney

9

(in the website pages).

As described earlier, the survey also tested “control” versions of the ads and website

In research such as this, a control item is used to remove “general background noise” 7

10

36.

11

The controls were edited to provide additional disclaimers or qualifying information, particularly

12

relating to fees and costs:

13

Exhibit 3 shows all control images, and Exhibit 4 compares the control and test images.

i.

Yahoo ad: The control ad replaces the headline “Zoom Costs $99 We’re Free”

14

with “Zoom Costs $99 But Rocket Lawyer Has No Service Fees.” Text on the

15

control ad replaces “Incorporate Your Business at Rocket Lawyer Free” with the

16

statement, “Incorporate Your Business at Rocket Lawyer. No Service Fees, Only

17

State Fees.”

18

ii.

Google ad: The control ad replaces the headline “Incorporate for Free” with

19

“Incorporate with No Service Fees.” The text on the control ad replaces “Pay No

20

Fees ($0)” with “Pay No Service Fees (Pay Only State Fees).”

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6

Similar methodology has been used in other matters. For example, see Schering Corporation v.
Schering Aktiengesellschaft and Berlex Laboratories, reported in “Experimental Design and the
Selection of Controls in Trademark and Deceptive Advertising Surveys”, by Jacob Jacoby, The
Trademark Reporter, July-August, 2002, pp. 906-908.
7
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, by J. Thomas McCarthy, updated March,
2009, 32:187.
8
Shari Seidman Diamond, “Reference Guide on Survey Research” from Reference Manual on
Scientific Evidence, Third Edition, Federal Judicial Center, National Research Council, 2011,
page 398.
- 13 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2081-

1

iii.

“Plans & Pricing” website page: The control has text added near the top of the

2

page stating, “You can receive free help from local attorneys only if you purchase

3

at least 3 months of a Basic Legal Plan or a Pro Legal Plan.”

4

iv.

“Plans & Pricing” and “Terms of Service” website pages: The control version of

5

the Plans & Pricing page includes the text added near the top of the page stating,

6

“You can receive free help from local attorneys only if you purchase at least 3

7

months of a Basic Legal Plan or Pro Legal Plan.” The control version of the

8

Terms of Service page has a text box added near the top of the page, stating,

9

“Free Help from Local Attorneys is Provided Only to Eligible Members

10

You are entitled to receive free help from local attorneys only if you are an

11

Eligible Member. ‘Eligible Member’ includes any individual who either (a)

12

purchases three (3) consecutive months of a Rocket Lawyer monthly Legal

13

Plan, or (b) purchases a Rocket Lawyer annual Legal Plan.”

14

The definition of Eligible Member was taken directly from text in the Terms of

15

Service website page.

16

37.

17

website pages were shown in the survey in a manner similar to that in which they were displayed

18

online. For example, materials were displayed in approximately the same size in which they

19

would likely appear online. Also, respondents shown the Terms of Service page could scroll to

20

see the entire page, just as they could on the Rocket Lawyer website.

21

38.

22

respondents, the pages were shown one at a time, with the respondent clicking after the first page

23

to indicate they were ready to proceed to the next page.

Table A below provides a summary of the materials tested in the survey. All ads and

Some respondents (Cells 4, 8, 12, and 16) were shown two website pages. For these

24
25
26
27
28
- 14 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2082-

1

Table A: Cells in the Research

3

Cell
1 and 9

Test or
Control
Test

Type
of Item
Ad

Materials Viewed
Yahoo ad, unmodified

4

2 and 10

Test

Ad

Google ad, unmodified

5

3 and 11

Test

Web page

Plans & Pricing page, unmodified

6

4 and 12

Test

Web pages

Plans & Pricing and Terms of Service pages, unmodified

5 and 13

Control

Ad

Yahoo ad, modified

6 and 14

Control

Ad

Google ad, modified

7 and 15

Control

Web page

Plans & Pricing page, modified

8 and 16

Control

Web pages

Plans & Pricing and Terms of Service pages, modified

2

7
8
9
10
11

39.

12

small businesses who might purchase documents or services from LegalZoom or Rocket

13

Lawyer. 9 Exhibit 5 provides a copy of the screening questionnaires, which show the qualifying

14

questions used for both business and consumer respondents.

15

40.

16

The survey included consumer and business respondents representative of consumers and

Business respondents were qualified by criteria that included the following:
i.

Employed full time or part time: Question A asked prospective business

17

respondents, “What is your employment status?” Respondents qualified if they

18

were employed full time, employed part time, or self-employed. Respondents

19

who were not employed would not reasonably need to purchase online legal

20

services for business purposes.

21

ii.

Working in a small business: Question D asked business respondents, “How

22

many employees work at the company or organization where you are employed?”

23

Business respondents qualified if they responded that they work at a company

24

with 1 to 9 employees, or 10 to 19 employees. 10

25
26
27
28

9

Neither party made available information on the demographics of their customer base, or on the
percentage of their customers represented by consumers versus small businesses. Both parties
clearly provide services to both consumers and businesses; for example, LegalZoom’s home
page at www.legalzoom.com offers “Business Services” and “Personal Services,” while Rocket
Lawyer’s home page at www.rocketlawyer.com offers “Personal” and “Business” sections.
10
LegalZoom’s Form S-1, provided in Exhibit 12 of Rocket Lawyer’s Answer to First Amended
- 15 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2083-

1

iii.

Past or prospective purchaser of legal services: Question E asked, “Which, if any,

2

of the following legal services have you purchased for your company or

3

organization in the past 2 years?” Prospective business respondents qualified if

4

they responded in Question E that they had purchased legal services during the

5

past 2 years, or in Question G that they are likely to consider purchasing legal

6

services during the next 2 years. Since LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer provide

7

both services and documents, Questions E and G described legal services as

8

“Legal services, such as preparing legal documents or providing legal advice.”

9

iv.

Involved in the decision process for selecting legal providers: Question I asked,

10

“What is your role in selecting providers for legal services for your company or

11

organization?” Prospective business respondents qualified if they were either the

12

primary decision-maker for legal services, or shared in the decision.

13

v.

Searching for a legal services provider on the Internet: Question J asked, “Which,

14

if any, of the following sources are you likely to use to locate a provider of legal

15

services for yourself or others in your company or organization?” Business

16

respondents qualified if they were likely to use the Internet to locate a provider of

17

legal services.

18

vi.

Consider purchasing online: Question K asked, “Would you consider purchasing

19

legal services for your company or for your organization through a website?”

20

Business respondents qualified if they were willing to consider purchasing legal

21

services for their company or organization through a website.

22

41.

23

modifications to ask them about legal services purchased “for yourself or for others in your

24

household” rather than “for your company or your organization.” For example, Question E for

25

consumer respondents was phrased as, “Which, if any, of the following services have you

Consumer respondents were qualified using a similar set of questions, but with

26
27
28

Complaint and Amended Counterclaims, refers (on page 45) to the legal services market for “…
small businesses with fewer than 10 employees.” LegalZoom or Rocket Lawyer business
customers may also include slightly larger companies, so my survey included small businesses
with 10 to 19 employees, which were 16% of the database of business respondents.
- 16 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2084-

1

purchased in the past 2 years for yourself or for other members of your household?”

2

42.

3

example, they were asked their age, gender, and location, and were excluded if they were

4

younger than 21 years old. 11 All respondents were asked whether they worked in certain types

5

of companies, such as law firms, and were excluded if they work in an industry in which they

6

might gain unusual knowledge, such as a law firm. All respondents were asked what device they

7

were using to take the survey, and were excluded if they used a device such as a smart phone,

8

where survey images might be too small to view properly.

9

43.

All potential respondents to the survey were also asked other qualifying questions. For

The qualification of respondents for the survey was designed to provide an appropriate

10

respondent base for this survey. Specifically, the survey focuses on what Professor McCarthy

11

calls the “reasonably informed shopper,” a hypothetical potential customer who is not

12

necessarily expert but is part of the relevant marketplace as a past or potential purchaser. 12

13

44.

14

questions. Respondents were recruited through online survey panels of consumers and business

15

respondents provided by Survey Sampling International, a well-respected marketing research

16

company that has provided sampling and data collection for 34 years, and currently serves more

17

than 2,000 market research organizations.

18

45.

19

contexts. The particular panel used for this study employs a variety of quality control processes

20

to ensure that panelists are valid and that responses are valid. For example, the panel uses double

21

opt-in recruitment (where respondents must opt-in to the panel twice upon joining), IP address

22

verification (verifying the unique address of computers associated with specific respondents),

23

response time checks (checking responses for those who completed a survey suspiciously

24

quickly), and straight-line checks (searching for those who selected the same response letter for

25

11

26
27
28

The survey was conducted online, with respondents typing their own answers to the

Online panels are used frequently for surveys conducted in litigation and commercial

Regarding geography, the distribution of consumer and business interviews across regions of
the United States matched the distribution of the general population of the United States, based
on data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The consumer interviews matched the U.S. on
gender and age distributions, again based on data from the Census Bureau.
12
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, Updated March, 2009, 32:191, “Secondary
meaning – Secondary meaning survey formats.”
- 17 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2085-

1

multiple questions).

2

46.

3

Rocket Lawyer and LegalZoom are marketed online, can be purchased online, and may be

4

delivered through online methods. The materials under dispute in this case are Internet ads and

5

website pages, which consumers encounter online.

6

47.

7

respondents who are responsible for purchasing legal services. The business respondents who

8

work at small businesses and qualify for this survey occur infrequently in the overall population,

9

representing what is called a low incidence group. Online surveys provide a cost effective

An online survey is particularly appropriate given that the legal services provided by

Online research also is the best way to locate a nationwide representative sample of

10

manner to reach these types of respondents.

11

48.

12

assigned to be shown a test or control ad, website page, or website pages. Exhibit 5 shows the

13

survey questionnaire. Qualified respondents were first given initial instructions. For example,

14

respondents assigned to be shown an ad were given the following initial instruction:

After answering the qualification questions described earlier, respondents were randomly

15

“On the next screen, you will see an ad for legal services. The ad appears in search

16

results from an online search engine. Other ads on the page have been blurred. Please

17

focus only on the circled ad, which is the subject of this survey.

18

Please review the ad as you would if you were considering purchasing legal services.

19

You might need to scroll to see the entire ad. You may take as long as you like to

20

look at it. When you are done looking at the ad, please click the ‘Continue’ button.”

21

49.

22

that it would appear if it was viewed online outside of the survey. They were given additional

23

instructions. For example, respondents shown the ad were told,

Respondents were then shown the test or control image in approximately the same size

24

“You will now be asked some questions about the material you just reviewed. The

25

ad will stay on screen for the remainder of the survey. You may click on it at any

26

time to expand the image.

27

On any question, if you don’t know how to answer, it is all right to indicate that you

28

don’t know or you are not sure. Please do not guess and please do not consult any
- 18 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2086-

1

other person or source, such as the Internet, while you complete this survey.”

2

50.

3

smaller size. Respondents could click on the small images to enlarge them.

4

51.

5

stimuli communicated. Question 1 asked respondents, “What are the main messages that the ad

6

states or implies? Please be as specific as possible.” Responses to Question 1 were open-ended,

7

provided in each respondent’s own words.

8

52.

9

imply?” Responses to this question were also open-ended.

For the remainder of the survey, the test or control images were kept on screen in a

The first two questions asked the respondent to describe, in their own words, what the

Question 2 asked the respondent, “What other messages, if any, does the ad state or

10

53.

11

asked, “Although you may have already mentioned this, does or doesn’t the ad communicate or

12

imply that you can incorporate a business through this service without paying any fees to any

13

organization or entity?” Response options included “Yes, the ad does communicate or imply

14

that you can incorporate a business without paying any fees,” “No, the ad does not communicate

15

or imply that you can incorporate a business without paying any fees,” and “I don’t know or am

16

not sure.”

17

54.

18

provider to incorporate a business, would the amount of fees you pay affect your decision

19

regarding which service provider to select?” Respondents could answer “Yes,” “No,” or “I don’t

20

know or am not sure.”

21

55.

22

website pages. Question 5 asked, “Although you may have already mentioned this, does or

23

doesn’t [or do or don’t] the website page[s] communicate or imply that you can try a

24

membership without paying any fees to any organization or entity?” Response options included

25

“Yes, the website page does [or website pages do] communicate or imply that you can try a

26

membership without paying any fees,” “No, the website page does not [or website pages do not]

27

communicate or imply that you can try a membership without paying any fees,” and “I don’t

28

know or am not sure.”

The next two questions were asked only of respondents who viewed an ad. Question 3

For respondents who viewed an ad, Question 4 asked, “If you were selecting a service

The next series of questions were asked only of respondents who viewed one or both

- 19 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2087-

1

56.

2

review of the website page[s], who can obtain free help from a local attorney?” Response

3

options included “Anyone,” “Anyone who has signed up for a Free Membership,” “Anyone who

4

has signed up for a Basic Legal Plan,” “Anyone who has signed up for a Pro Legal Plan,” “None

5

of the above,” and “I don’t know.”

6

57.

7

Basic Legal Plan” or “Anyone who has signed up for a Pro Legal Plan” in response to Question

8

6. Question 7 asked, “Does a member have to pay for a Basic Legal Plan or Pro Legal Plan

9

before they could get free help from a local attorney?” Response options included “Yes, they do

Question 6 asked respondents who saw the website page or pages, “Based solely on your

Question 7 was asked only of those who answered “Anyone who has signed up for a

10

have to pay,” “No, they do not have to pay,” and “I don’t know.”

11

58.

12

“Would having to pay for a membership before getting free help from a local attorney affect your

13

decision regarding whether to use this website’s services? Response options included “Yes, it

14

would affect my decision,” “No, it would not affect my decision,” and “I don’t know or am not

15

sure.”

16

59.

17

following:

18

Question 8, also asked of respondents who viewed the website page or pages, asked

The survey included a number of quality control and validation checks, including the

i.

The survey was pre-tested. Before starting the full survey, a small number of

19

surveys were conducted online and the data examined to make sure that the data

20

were being recorded and coded properly, that the survey skip patterns were being

21

followed accurately, and that responses showed an understanding of the questions.

22

ii.

Certain questions and responses were rotated to reduce the possibility of order

23

bias, which occurs if respondents are more likely to select a response in a

24

particular position, such as first or last listed response. For example, the order of

25

responses in questions E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 was

26

rotated. Each respondent saw responses to those questions in essentially random

27

order, with “don’t know” presented last.

28

iii.

During qualification, qualifying responses were hidden among other, non- 20 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2088-

1

qualifying responses. This tends to disguise the true purpose of the survey or

2

which questions qualify respondents for the survey.

3

iv.

Respondents were required to enter their ZIP Code twice, once in Question B, and

4

again later in the survey with Questions 9 and 10. The ZIP Codes in either

5

Question 9 or Question 10 were required to match in order to proceed.

6

v.

After the interviews were conducted, the open-ended data was reviewed to make

7

sure that respondents provided answers that indicated they understood the

8

questions and were paying attention to the survey.

9

60.

In surveys that involve live (in-person) interviewers, it is common procedure to validate a

10

percentage of the interviews, confirming key elements such as whether the interviews actually

11

took place and whether the respondent qualified. 13 Validation may help to notify interviewers

12

that their work is being checked and to verify the honesty and accuracy of the interviewers, such

13

as identifying interviewers who may have fabricated the answers instead of following

14

instructions. 14 In other words, the validation checks the interviewer, as opposed to checking the

15

interview.

16

61.

17

Despite this, I validated the interviews by matching respondents’ survey answers to the

18

respondents’ information on file with the sample provider for age, gender, and ZIP code. By

19

comparing these sets of data, I was able to confirm that respondents were qualified. All

20

respondents in the final database were validated in this manner. 15

21

62.

22

of 1,280 interviews completed, 97 (7.6%) were removed 16 during data cleaning, leaving 1,183

My survey did not use live interviewers, so the need for validation is greatly diminished.

Data gathering took place from March 26, 2014, to April 2, 2014. From the original base

23
24
25
26
27
28

13

J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, Fourth Edition,
Updated March, 2009, 32:170.
14
U.S. District Court, S.D. New York. Paco Sport, Ltd., v. Paco Rabanne Parfums. No. 96 Civ.
1408(JES). Feb. 17, 2000.
15
Respondents were dropped from the final database if their gender did not match the preexisting information on file, if the age they reported in the survey was either younger or much
older than pre-existing information, or if their ZIP code had changed and either age or gender did
not match pre-existing information.
16
This included respondents who failed validation as well as respondents who provided open- 21 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2089-

1

respondents in the final database. Of this final database, 256 responses (21.6%) are from

2

business respondents, while 927 responses (78.4%) are from consumers. 17 In my opinion, this

3

survey database is of sufficient size to be reliable for analysis.

4

63.

The next section describes the findings from the data gathered in the survey.

5
6

FINDINGS FROM THE SURVEY

7

64.

8

questions for all respondents, while Exhibit 8 presents cross-tabulation tables from the data

9

analysis.

This section summarizes the data from the survey. Exhibit 6 provides the responses to all

10

65.

11

inherent in the comments. Exhibit 7 lists the codes used to analyze responses from verbatim

12

questions in the survey. Some verbatim responses may reflect more than one theme, in which

13

case they were assigned more than one code.

14

66.

15

own words the main messages that the ad, website page, or website pages state or imply. When

16

answering open-ended questions such as these, respondents often provide relatively brief

17

comments reflecting top-of-mind reactions to survey stimuli. (Open-ended questions typically

18

do not elicit detailed lists of everything respondents notice in a stimulus.)

19

67.

20

commonly reflected in the answers provided by survey respondents. The columns in Table B

21

add up to more than 100% because each response may reflect more than one theme.

22

68.

23

business respondents are included in Table B. Also, Table B provides responses from the

24

combined test cells for the ads or the website pages, and the combined control cells for the ads or

25

website pages.

26
27
28

Verbatim (open-ended) responses were analyzed by assigning codes that reflect themes

The first two survey questions, Questions 1 and 2, asked respondents to indicate in their

Table B analyzes the comments from Questions 1 and 2, listing the themes most

As with other data tables in the main body of this report, data from both consumer and

ended responses that reflected a lack of attention to the survey.
The ads and website pages tested in the survey offer a variety of legal services that may be of
interest to consumers or small businesses. As discussed later, Exhibit 9 shows that survey results
do not materially differ between consumer and business respondents.
17

- 22 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2090-

1
2
3
4

Table B: Summary of Results from Question 1 and Question 218
Website Pages
(Plans & Pricing or
Plans & Pricing and
Ads
Q.1 and Q.2 Main messages that the ad,
(Google or Yahoo)
Terms of Service)
website page, or website pages state or
imply
Test
Control
Test
Control
Sample size
(297)
(297)
(296)
(293)

5

Free incorporation / free LLC

41.4%

6.7%

6

Free services of an unspecified nature

36.4%

10.8%

7

No service fees

0.3%

56.2%

8

Pay only state fees

0.3%

37.0%

LegalZoom / Zoom

22.2%

17.8%

9

Multiple plans / 3 plans

13

13.2%

15.4%

10.5%

22.9%

Free access to local attorneys

12

53.6%

Access to local attorneys

11

52.4%

Free membership / free trial / free service

10

0.3%

1.7%

Other themes

63.3%

62.6%

69.9%

63.8%

Don’t know / nothing

14

2.0%

1.0%

0.3%

0.7%

15
16

69.

17

that the main message is free incorporation or free LLC, compared with 6.7% in the control cells.

18

Examples of verbatim comments from respondents who were shown the Rocket Lawyer test ads

19

and provided a comment reflecting free incorporation in response to Question 1 or Question 2

20

include the following: 19

21

As can be seen from Table B, in the test cells for the ads, 41.4% of respondents indicated

i.

22

ID #56: “You can incorporate your business for free with Rocket Lawyer. It costs
$99 at their competitor Zoom”

23

ii.

ID #82: “Incorporate free”

24

iii.

ID #246: “Free services for incorporating business or self”

25

iv.

ID #256: “Incorporating business without needing to pay fee.”

26
27
28

18

The tables in the main body of this report use the total number of respondents as a
denominator. Also, the tables in the report may differ slightly from the cross-tabulation tables
due to rounding.
19
Verbatim responses are included with the respondent identification number first.
- 23 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2091-

1

v.

ID #508: “Incorporate for free and pay no fees”

2

vi.

ID #698: “Start a corporation for free with a lawyer.”

3

70.

4

responded to Question 1 or 2 that the main message was an offer of free services of an

5

unspecified nature, compared with 10.8% among those shown the control ads. Although these

6

respondents may have been thinking that the incorporation or LLC was free, their comments did

7

not specify which service they believed was free, or the nature of the free offer. Examples of

8

such comments include the following:

Table B also shows that among respondents shown the Rocket Lawyer test ads, 36.4%

9

i.

ID #8: “LegalZoom costs and this is free.”

10

ii.

ID #40: “Another company Zoom costs $99 but their company is free.”

11

iii.

ID #173: “Zoom (which I am assuming is LegalZoom), is $99 but their service is

12

free.”

13

iv.

ID #642: “That they are free and LegalZoom costs $99”

14

v.

ID #771: “Try that other company for free instead of LegalZoom”

15

vi.

ID #1092: “This ad states that Zoom cost $99 and that they are a free service.”

16

71.

17

comment in Question 1 or 2 reflecting that there were no service fees, compared with 56.2% of

18

respondents shown the control materials. Similarly, only 0.3% of respondents shown the test

19

materials provided a verbatim response reflecting that members would pay only state fees to

20

incorporate, compared with 37.0% of respondents shown the control materials.

21

72.

22

answered Question 1 with “No service fees” and Question 2 with “Only state fees.” Respondent

23

289 answered, “Lawyer charging no service fees” and “You pay only state fees.” Respondent

24

224 answered Question 1 with, “They charge no fees to incorporate. Just filing fees.”

25

73.

26

themes of free incorporation / free LLC, free services of an unspecified nature, pay only state

27

fees, and no service fees would all be statistically significant at the 95% level of confidence.)

28

74.

Table B also shows that only 0.3% of respondents shown the test ads provided a verbatim

For example, among respondents shown the control cell materials, respondent 153

(Among respondents shown the ads, the difference between test and control relating to

Among those shown the website page or pages, Table B shows that most respondents
- 24 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2092-

1

shown the test materials (52.4%) or the control materials (53.6%) provided a verbatim comment

2

reflecting multiple plans or three plans. This is consistent with the format of the first website

3

page, which prominently discusses “Plans & Pricing.”

4

75.

5

15.4% of control cell respondents provided a verbatim answer to Question 1 or Question 2

6

reflecting that the main message was one of free membership, free trial, or free services.

7

Examples of comments reflecting this theme include the following:

Among respondents shown the website page or pages, 13.2% of test cell respondents and

8

i.

ID #26: “Largest network of professional attorneys, free to try.”

9

ii.

ID #481: “There is an online legal service called Rocket Lawyer On Call which

10

gives you legal services at a greatly reduced rate. You can try it for free or pay a

11

monthly rate or an annual rate. Well-known entities agree that it's a good service

12

worth looking into.”

13

iii.

14

ID #1070: “That sign up is free and membership is free but if you choose this
company that you will benefit greatly by using their services.”

15

iv.

ID #1194: “You can try their services for free before you purchase.”

16

76.

17

materials and 22.9% of those shown the control materials responded to Question 1 or 2 that the

18

main message was one of access to local attorneys; these comments either did not specify

19

whether the access was free, or specified that the access was not free or had purchase

20

requirements. For example, respondent 857 answered Question 2 with, “Connects you to a local

21

lawyer for representation if needed.” Respondent 1179 answered Question 1 with, “If you

22

purchase 3 months of basic legal plan, you can receive free advice from local lawyers.”

23

77.

24

Question 1 or Question 2.

25

78.

26

from these questions are summarized below in Table C.

Among respondents shown the web page or web pages, 10.5% of those shown the test

Fewer than 2% in either cell mentioned free access to local attorneys in response to

Questions 3 and 4 were only asked of respondents who were shown the ads. The results

27
28
- 25 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2093-

1

Table C: Summary of Responses to Questions About Ads
(Questions 3 and 4)

2
3
4
5
6

Questions about the Google or Yahoo Ad
Sample size
Q.3 Does or doesn’t the ad communicate or imply
that you can incorporate a business through this
service without paying any fees to any organization
or entity?
Yes, the ad does communicate or imply that you can
incorporate a business without paying any fees

Net
Test Google Control Google (Test minus
or Yahoo Ad or Yahoo Ad
Control)
(297)
(297)

86.2%

67.3%

18.9%

No, the ad does not communicate or imply that you
can incorporate a business without paying any fees

8.8%

28.6%

(19.8%)

I don’t know

5.1%

4.0%

Yes

82.8%

88.9%

13

No

8.8%

4.7%

14

I don’t know

8.4%

6.4%

7
8
9
10
11
12

Q.4 If you were selecting a service provider to
incorporate a business, would the amount of fees
you pay affect your decision regarding which service
provider to select?

15
16

79.

17

business through this service without paying any fees to any organization or entity. As shown by

18

Table C, 86.2% of respondents shown the test ads indicated that you could incorporate a business

19

through Rocket Lawyer without paying any fees to any organization or entity, while 67.3% of

20

respondents shown the control ads indicated that you could incorporate a business through

21

Rocket Lawyer without paying any fees. The difference, calculated by subtracting test from

22

control, is 18.9%. 20

23

80.

24

decision regarding which service provider to select. As shown by Table C, 82.8% of respondents

25

in the test cells answered yes to this question, while 88.9% of respondents in the control cells

26

answered yes. Table C does not provide a net for Question 4 because there is no reason to expect

Question 3 asked whether the ad communicates or implies that you can incorporate a

Question 4 asked respondents shown the ads if the amount of fees would affect their

27
28

20

This difference would be statistically significant at the 95% level of confidence.
- 26 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2094-

1

that test cell responses would differ from control cell responses on Question 4.

2

81.

3

of the website pages; results from those questions are summarized in Table D below.

4

>>

5

>>

6

>>

7

>>

8

>>

9

>>

10

>>

11

>>

12

>>

13

>>

14

>>

15

>>

16

>>

17

>>

18

>>

19

>>

20

>>

21

>>

22

>>

23

>>

24

>>

25

>>

26

>>

27

>>

28

>>

The next series of questions were asked only of respondents who were shown one or both

- 27 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2095-

Table D: Summary of Responses to Questions About Website Pages
(Questions 5, 6, 7, and 8)

1

Plans & Pricing Page or
Plans & Pricing/ Terms of Service Pages
Net
(Test minus
Test
Control
Control)
(296)
(293)

2
3
4
5
6
7

Questions about Website Pages
Sample size
Q.5 Does or doesn’t the website page(s)
communicate or imply that you can try a
membership without paying any fees to any
organization or entity?
Yes, the website page does/the website pages do
communicate or imply that you can try a membership
without paying any fees

90.5%

81.2%

9.3%

No, the website page does not/the website pages do
not communicate or imply that you can try a
membership without paying any fees

5.4%

15.7%

(10.3%)

I don’t know

4.1%

3.1

53.3%

41.3%

12.0%

Anyone

20.9%

11.9%

9.0%

Anyone who has signed up for a Free Membership

32.4%

29.4%

3.0%

Anyone who has signed up for a Basic Legal Plan

48.0%

60.1%

17

Anyone who has signed up for a Pro Legal Plan

39.2%

46.8%

18

None of the above

4.1%

3.8%

I don’t know

4.1%

2.4%

8
9
10
11
12
13

Q.6 Based solely on your review of the website
page/website pages, who can obtain free help from a
local attorney?

14

Anyone or anyone signed up for a free membership

15
16

19
20
21

Q.7 Does a member have to pay for a Basic Legal
Plan or Pro Legal Plan before they can get free help
from a local attorney?
Yes, they do have to pay

37.8%

56.7%

(18.9%)

22

No, they do not have to pay

12.2%

4.8%

7.4%

23

I don’t know

2.4%

2.0%

24
25

Q.8 Would having to pay for a membership before
getting free help from a local attorney affect your
decision regarding whether to use this website’s
services?

26

Yes, it would affect my decision

63.2%

58.7%

4.5%

27

No, it would not affect my decision

26.0%

31.7%

(5.7%)

28

I don’t know

10.8%

9.6%

- 28 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2096-

1

82.

2

can try a membership without paying any fees to any organization or entity. As summarized in

3

Table D, 90.5% of respondents shown the test website page or website pages from Rocket

4

Lawyer answered yes to this question, compared with 81.2% of respondents shown the control

5

website page or pages.

6

83.

7

among respondents shown the test website pages from Rocket Lawyer, 20.9% answered anyone,

8

and 32.4% answered anyone who has signed up for a free membership. In total, 53.3% of test

9

cell respondents (calculated as 20.9% plus 32.4%) answered anyone or anyone who signed up for

Question 5 asked whether or not the website page(s) communicated or implied that you

Question 6 asked who could obtain free help from a local attorney. As shown in Table D,

10

a free membership.

11

84.

12

responded anyone, and 29.4% responded anyone who has signed up for a free membership. In

13

total, 41.3% of control cell respondents answered anyone or anyone who signed up for a free

14

membership. The net difference between test cell and control cell respondents is 12.0%.

15

85.

16

Basic Legal Plan” or “Anyone who has signed up for a Pro Legal Plan” in response to Question

17

6. Question 7 asked if a member has to pay for a Basic Legal Plan or Pro Legal Plan before they

18

can get free help from a local attorney. The summary in Table D shows that 37.8% of website

19

page test cell respondents and 56.7% of website page control cell respondents answered yes.

20

The net difference between test and control for Question 7 is 18.9%.

21

86.

22

a local attorney would affect the decision regarding whether to use Rocket Lawyer’s services.

23

As can be seen in Table D, 63.2% of website page test cell respondents and 58.7% of website

24

page control cell respondents answered yes to this question.

25

87.

26

for the yes answers on Question 5, anyone or anyone signed up for a free membership on

27

Question 6, and the yes answers on Question 7 would be statistically significant at the 95% level

28

of confidence.)

Among respondents shown the control Rocket Lawyer website page or pages, 11.9%

Question 7 was asked of respondents who selected “Anyone who has signed up for a

Finally, Question 8 asked if having to pay for a membership before getting free help from

(Among those shown the website page or pages, the differences between test and control

- 29 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2097-

1

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ACROSS STIMULI, GEOGRAPHIES, AND GROUPS

2

88.

3

website pages), geographies (California versus the rest of the country), and groups (consumers

4

versus business). 21

5

89.

6

versus Yahoo) and the two sets of website stimuli (the Plans & Pricing page versus the Plans &

7

Pricing and Terms of Service pages). The tables in Exhibit 9 show some differences in results

8

for the Google ad versus the Yahoo ad. For example, 60.0% of respondents shown the Google

9

test ad provided a verbatim comment in Question 1 or Question 2 referencing free incorporation

The cross tabulation tables in Exhibit 9 compare results across different stimuli (ads and

Regarding stimuli, Exhibit 9 includes tables comparing results for the two ads (Google

10

or free LLC, compared with 22.4% of respondents shown the Yahoo ad. Also, 92.0% of

11

respondents shown the Google ad answered yes to Question 3, compared with 80.3% of

12

respondents shown the Yahoo ad. (Among respondents shown the control ads, the percentage of

13

respondents mentioning the message of no service fees or pay only state fees was greater among

14

those shown the Google ad than the Yahoo ad.) Overall, these results indicate that the Google ad

15

is more likely than the Yahoo ad to convey the message of free incorporation.

16

90.

17

Terms of Service page were relatively minor, and in my opinion are not material to any

18

conclusions.

19

91.

20

includes tables comparing results for California respondents versus respondents in other states.

21

The comparison in Exhibit 9 shows only minor differences, and no material differences, in

22

results on the Google ad for California respondents versus respondents from other states.

23

92.

24

business respondents. The tables also show only minor differences, and no material differences,

25

in results for consumer respondents versus business respondents.

The differences for the Plans & Pricing page versus the Plans & Pricing page with the

Because the Google ad references “Simple California Incorporation,” Exhibit 9 also

Exhibit 9 also includes tables comparing results for consumer respondents versus

26
27
28

21

Some of these break-out analyses divide the database into small groups for business
respondents and California respondents. These results for these small groups should be viewed
as directional only.
- 30 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2098-

1

DISCUSSION OF SURVEY RESULTS

2

93.

3

regarding the ads for Rocket Lawyer from Google and Yahoo. Among respondents shown the

4

ads, 41.4% responded to Question 1 or Question 2 with a comment reflecting the thought that

5

they could obtain free incorporation or a free LLC formation from Rocket Lawyer, compared

6

with only 6.7% of those shown the altered control versions of these materials. The difference,

7

attributable to the specific language used by Rocket Lawyer, is 34.7% (calculated as 41.4%

8

minus 6.7%).

9

94.

As described earlier in this report, the survey data support a number of conclusions

The difference between test and control is likely due to the fact that the test materials

10

reference the concept of free incorporation but do not clarify that only the service fees are free,

11

and do not specify that the state fees are not free. The control ads include language referencing

12

service fees and state fees.

13

95.

14

and 2 with a comment reflecting the concept of “free” in some unspecified manner; some of

15

these respondents may have been thinking about a free incorporation or free LLC, but their

16

verbatim comment may not have reflected all that they were thinking.

17

96.

18

majority of respondents shown the test and control website page or pages provided a response

19

correctly indicating that the materials communicate or imply that you can try a membership

20

without paying any fees to any organization or entity. However, 53.3% responded that anyone or

21

anyone who signs up for a free membership can obtain free help from a local attorney, compared

22

with 41.3% among those who saw the control website page or pages.

23

97.

24

member has to pay for a Basic or Pro Legal plan before they can get free help from a local

25

attorney, compared with 56.7% among those who saw the altered control materials. The

26

difference associated with the addition of clarifying information is 18.9%.

27

98.

28

respondents believe that the amount of fees they pay would affect their decision regarding which

Also, 36.4% of respondents who saw the Rocket Lawyer ads responded to Questions 1

Among respondents shown the page or pages from the Rocket Lawyer website, a strong

Among respondents shown the test page or pages, 37.8% correctly responded that a

For both the ads and the website page or pages, the survey data also indicates that most

- 31 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2099-

1

service provider to select or whether to use the website’s services.

2

>>

3

>>

4

>>

5

>>

6

>>

7

>>

8

>>

9

>>

10

>>

11

>>

12

>>

13

>>

14

>>

15

>>

16

>>

17

>>

18

>>

19

>>

20

>>

21

>>

22

>>

23

>>

24

>>

25

>>

26

>>

27

>>

28

>>
- 32 -

Expert Report of Dr. Bruce Isaacson
CASE NO. CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRX)

EXHIBIT D -2100-

EXHIBIT D -2101-

Exhibit 2:
Test Images for Survey
(Note: In the survey, the images were displayed in a
size as close as possible to the likely original size.)

EXHIBIT D -2102-

Yahoo Ad - Test

Exhibit 2 – Isaacson Expert Report

EXHIBIT D -2103- Page 1

Google Ad - Test

Exhibit 2 – Isaacson Expert Report

EXHIBIT D -2104- Page 2

Plans and Pricing Website Page - Test

Exhibit 2 – Isaacson Expert Report

EXHIBIT D -2105- Page 3

Terms of Service Website Page - Test

Exhibit 2 – Isaacson Expert Report

EXHIBIT D -2106- Page 4

Exhibit 3:
Control Images for Survey
(Note: In the survey, the images were displayed in a
size as close as possible to the likely original size.)

EXHIBIT D -2107-

Yahoo Ad - Control

Exhibit 3 – Isaacson Expert Report

EXHIBIT D -2108- Page 1 

Google Ad - Control

Exhibit 3 – Isaacson Expert Report

EXHIBIT D -2109- Page 2 

Plans and Pricing Website Page - Control

Exhibit 3 – Isaacson Expert Report

EXHIBIT D -2110- Page 3 

Terms of Service Website Page - Control

Exhibit 3 – Isaacson Expert Report

EXHIBIT D -2111- Page 4 

Exhibit 4:
Comparison of Test and Control Images for Survey

EXHIBIT D -2112-

Yahoo Ad - Test

Yahoo Ad - Control

Exhibit 4 – Isaacson Expert Report

EXHIBIT D -2113- Page 1 

Google Ad - Test

Google Ad - Control

Exhibit 4 – Isaacson Expert Report

EXHIBIT D -2114- Page 2 

Plans and Pricing Website Page – Test
(Top of full image from the survey)

Plans & Pricing Website Page – Control
(Top of full image from the survey)

Exhibit 4 – Isaacson Expert Report

EXHIBIT D -2115- Page 3 

Terms of Service Website Page – Test
(Top of full image from the survey)

Terms of Service Website Page – Control
(Top of full image from the survey)

Exhibit 4 – Isaacson Expert Report

EXHIBIT D -2116- Page 4 

Exhibit 5:
Survey Screeners and Main Questionnaire

EXHIBIT D -2117-

MMR Strategy Group
Study #628-001
March 2014
Online Advertising Study
Consumer Screener
[DO NOT ALLOW RESPONDENTS TO GO BACK TO ANY PREVIOUS QUESTION.]
Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in our survey. If you need glasses or contact lenses to
see the screen clearly, please wear them to complete the survey. Please answer every question honestly
and to the best of your ability. There are no right or wrong answers; we are only interested in your
opinions.
On any question, if you don’t know how to answer, it is all right to indicate that you don’t know or you are
not sure. Please do not guess and please do not consult any other person or source, such as the
Internet, while you complete this survey.
Your individual responses are confidential and will not be shared with anyone.
Also, please do not use your browser's Back button to return to a prior question or your survey will be
terminated.
A. What is your gender? (Select one response.)
Male
Female
Prefer not to answer
[IF QUOTA AVAILABLE, CONTINUE. IF “PREFER NOT TO ANSWER” OR QUOTA FILLED,
TERMINATE AND SKIP TO Q.100]

B. Please enter the zip code of your home address.
[______________]
[FORCE 5-DIGIT NUMERIC RESPONSE]
[IF QUOTA IS AVAILABLE FOR Q.B THEN CONTINUE. OTHERWISE, TERMINATE AND SKIP TO
Q.100.]

C. What is your age? (Select one response.)
Younger than 21 years old
21 to 34 years old
35 to 49 years old
50 to 69 years old
Older than 69 years old
Prefer not to answer
[IF Q.C = “YOUNGER THAN 21 YEARS OLD,” “OLDER THAN 69 YEARS OLD,” OR “PREFER NOT
TO ANSWER” OR AGE QUOTA FILLED, TERMINATE AND SKIP TO Q.100. OTHERWISE
CONTINUE.]
D. [THERE IS NO Q.D.]

Exhibit 5 – Isaacson Expert Report

Page 1
EXHIBIT D -2118-

E. Which, if any, of the following services have you purchased in the past 2 years for yourself or for
other members of your household? For each service listed, please answer [ROTATE: yes, I have
purchased that service in the past 2 years; no, I have not purchased that service in the past 2 years,]
or I don’t know. (Select one response for each service.)
Responses
[MATCH ORDER OF RESPONSES TO Q.E]
Yes, I have purchased that service in the past 2 years
No, I have not purchased that service in the past 2 years
I don’t know
Services
[ROTATE ORDER OF SERVICES]
Legal services, such as preparing legal documents or providing legal advice
Medical services, such as performing check-ups, surgery, or physical therapy
Accounting services, such as preparing tax returns or providing audit support
Dental services, such as performing exams, conducting cleanings, or filling cavities
[IF YES TO LEGAL SERVICES IN Q.E, ASK Q.F. IF NOT THEN SKIP TO Q.G.]

F. Which, if any, of the following types of legal services have you purchased in the past 2 years for
yourself or for others in your household? For each type of legal service, please answer [ROTATE TO
MATCH Q.E: yes, I have purchased this service; no, I have not purchased this service,] or I don’t
know. (Select one response for each service.)
Responses
[ROTATE RESPONSES TO MATCH Q.E WITH “DON’T KNOW” LAST.]
Yes, I have purchased this service
No, I have not purchased service
I don’t know
Services
[RANDOMIZE ORDER OF SERVICES WITH NONE AND DON’T KNOW LAST.]
Services to incorporate a business or form a business entity
Services to lease real estate
Services to obtain loans or make purchases

Exhibit 5 – Isaacson Expert Report

Page 2
EXHIBIT D -2119-

G. Which, if any, of the following services are you likely to consider purchasing in the next 2 years for
yourself or for other members of your household? For each service listed, please answer [ROTATE
TO MATCH Q.E: yes, I am likely to consider purchasing that service in the next 2 years; no, I am not
likely to consider purchasing that service in the next 2 years,] or I don’t know. (Select one response
for each service.)
Responses
[MATCH ORDER OF RESPONSES TO Q.E]
Yes, I am likely to consider purchasing that service in the next 2 years
No, I am not likely to consider purchasing that service in the next 2 years
I don’t know
Services
[MATCH ORDER OF SERVICES TO Q.E]
Legal services, such as preparing legal documents or providing legal advice
Medical services, such as performing check-ups, surgery, or physical therapy
Accounting services, such as preparing tax returns or providing audit support
Dental services, such as performing exams, conducting cleanings, or filling cavities
[IF YES TO LEGAL SERVICES IN Q.G, ASK Q.H; OTHERWISE, SKIP TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE
Q.I.]

H. Which, if any, of the following types of legal services are you likely to consider purchasing in the next
2 years, for yourself or for others in your household? For each type of legal service, please answer
[ROTATE TO MATCH Q.E: yes, I am likely to consider purchasing this service; no, I am not likely to
consider purchasing this service,] or I don’t know. (Select one response for each service.)
Responses
[ROTATE RESPONSES TO MATCH Q.E WITH “DON’T KNOW” LAST.]
Yes, I am likely to consider purchasing this service
No, I am not likely to consider purchasing this service
I don’t know
Services
[RANDOMIZE ORDER OF SERVICES WITH NONE AND DON’T KNOW LAST.]
Services to incorporate a business or form a business entity
Services to lease real estate
Services to obtain loans or make purchases
[MUST ANSWER YES TO LEGAL SERVICES IN Q.E OR Q.G TO CONTINUE. IF NOT, TERMINATE
AND SKIP TO Q.100.]

Exhibit 5 – Isaacson Expert Report

Page 3
EXHIBIT D -2120-

I.

What is your role in selecting providers for legal services for yourself and others in your household?
(Select one response.)

[ROTATE ORDER FROM TOP TO BOTTOM AND BOTTOM TO TOP, KEEPING “DON’T KNOW”
LAST.]
I am the primary decision-maker
I share in the decisions with others
I have some influence
I have little or no involvement
I don’t know
[IF Q.I = “PRIMARY” OR “SHARE,” CONTINUE. OTHERWISE, TERMINATE AND SKIP TO Q.100.]

J.

Which, if any, of the following sources are you likely to use to locate a provider of legal services for
yourself or others in your household? For each source, please answer [ROTATE TO MATCH Q.E:
yes, I am likely to use this source; no, I am not likely to use this source,] or I don’t know. (Select one
response for each source.)
Responses
[MATCH ORDER TO Q.E.]
Yes, I am likely to use this source
No, I am not likely to use this source
I don’t know
Information Sources
[RANDOMIZE ORDER WITH NONE AND DON’T KNOW LAST.]
The Internet
Yellow Pages
Recommendations from friends or family
Newspapers or magazines

[IF Q.J = “YES” FOR “INTERNET,” CONTINUE. OTHERWISE, TERMINATE AND SKIP TO Q.100.]

K. Would you consider purchasing legal services for yourself or for others in your household through a
website? (Select one response.)
[MATCH ORDER TO Q.E.]
Yes
No
Don’t know/Not sure
[IF Q.K = “YES,” CONTINUE. OTHERWISE, TERMINATE AND SKIP TO Q.100.]

Exhibit 5 – Isaacson Expert Report

Page 4
EXHIBIT D -2121-

L. Have you participated in any survey about legal services or legal providers during the past month?
(Select one response.)
[MATCH ORDER TO Q.E.]
Yes
No
Don’t know/Not sure
[IF Q.L = “NO,” CONTINUE. OTHERWISE, TERMINATE AND SKIP TO Q.100.]

M. Do you or does anyone in your household work for any of the following types of companies? (Select
one response for each type of company.)
Responses
[MATCH ORDER TO Q.E.]
Yes
No
I don’t know
Companies
[RANDOMIZE ORDER OF COMPANIES.]
Advertising or public relations
Marketing research
Law firm or other type of legal services provider
[IF Q.M = “NO” FOR ALL INDUSTRIES, CONTINUE. OTHERWISE, TERMINATE AND SKIP TO
Q.100.]

N. Do you usually wear eyeglasses or contact lenses when you surf the Internet? (Select one
response.)
[MATCH ORDER TO Q.E.]
Yes
No
[IF Q.N = “YES,” CONTINUE. OTHERWISE, SKIP TO Q.P.]

O. Are you wearing your eyeglasses or contact lenses? (Select one response.)
[MATCH ORDER TO Q.E.]
Yes
No
[IF Q.O = “YES,” CONTINUE. OTHERWISE, TERMINATE AND SKIP TO Q.100.]

Exhibit 5 – Isaacson Expert Report

Page 5
EXHIBIT D -2122-

P. Please indicate below the device you are using to take this survey. (Select one response.)
[ROTATE ORDER OF RESPONSES BELOW WITH OTHER TYPE OF DEVICE AND DON’T
KNOW ALWAYS LAST]
Laptop computer
Desktop computer
Tablet
Smartphone
Other type of device not listed above
Don’t know/not sure
[IF “LAPTOP COMPUTER” OR “DESKTOP COMPUTER” SELECTED IN Q.P, CONTINUE.
OTHERWISE, TERMINATE AND SKIP TO Q.100.]
[RANDOMLY ASSIGN CONSUMER RESPONDENTS TO CELLS 1-8]

Exhibit 5 – Isaacson Expert Report

Page 6
EXHIBIT D -2123-

MMR Strategy Group
Study #628-001
March, 2014
Online Advertising Study
Business Screener
[DO NOT ALLOW RESPONDENTS TO GO BACK TO ANY PREVIOUS QUESTION.]
Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in our survey. If you need glasses or contact lenses to
see the screen clearly, please wear them to complete the survey. Please answer every question honestly
and to the best of your ability. There are no right or wrong answers; we are only interested in your
opinions.
On any question, if you don’t know how to answer, it is all right to indicate that you don’t know or you are
not sure. Please do not guess and please do not consult any other person or source, such as the
Internet, while you complete this survey.
Your individual responses are confidential and will not be shared with anyone.
Also, please do not use your browser's Back button to return to a prior question or your survey will be
terminated.

A. What is your employment status? (Select one response.)
Self-employed
Employed full-time
Employed part-time
Homemaker
Retired
Unemployed
Prefer not to answer
[IF “SELF-EMPLOYED”, “FULL TIME”, OR “PART TIME”, CONTINUE. OTHERWISE, TERMINATE
AND SKIP TO Q.100.]

B. Please enter the zip code of your business address.
[______________]
[FORCE 5-DIGIT NUMERIC RESPONSE]
[IF QUOTA IS AVAILABLE FOR Q.B THEN CONTINUE. OTHERWISE, TERMINATE AND SKIP TO
Q.100.]

Exhibit 5 – Isaacson Expert Report

Page 7
EXHIBIT D -2124-

C. What is your age? (Select one response.)
Younger than 21 years old
21 to 34 years old
35 to 49 years old
50 to 69 years old
Older than 69 years old
Prefer not to answer
[IF Q.C IS “YOUNGER THAN 21 YEARS OLD,” “OLDER THAN 69 YEARS OLD,” OR “PREFER NOT
TO ANSWER,” TERMINATE. OTHERWISE CONTINUE.]

D. How many employees work at the company or organization where you are employed? Please
include all employees at all locations of the company or organization. (Select one response.)
1 to 9 employees
10 to 19 employees
20 to 99 employees
100 employees or larger
Prefer not to answer
[IF Q.D = “1 TO 9” OR “10 TO 19”, CONTINUE. OTHERWISE, TERMINATE AND SKIP TO Q.100.]

E. Which, if any, of the following services have you purchased for your company or organization in the
past 2 years? For each service listed, please answer [ROTATE: yes, I have purchased that service
for my company or organization in the past 2 years; no, I have not purchased that service for my
company or organization in the past 2 years,] or I don’t know. (Select one response for each
service.)
Responses
[MATCH ORDER OF RESPONSES TO Q.E.]
Yes, I have purchased that service for my company or organization in the past 2 years
No, I have not purchased that service for my company or organization in the past 2 years
I don’t know
Services
[ROTATE ORDER OF SERVICES]
Legal services, such as preparing legal documents or providing legal advice
Consulting services, such as providing management advice or technology support
Accounting services, such as preparing tax returns or providing audit support
Insurance services, such as reviewing policies or processing claims

[IF YES TO LEGAL SERVICES IN Q.E, ASK Q.F. IF NOT THEN SKIP TO Q.G.]

Exhibit 5 – Isaacson Expert Report

Page 8
EXHIBIT D -2125-

F. Which, if any, of the following types of legal services have you purchased for your company or
organization in the past 2 years? For each type of legal service, please answer [ROTATE TO
MATCH Q.E: yes, I have purchased this service; no, I have not purchased this service,] or I don’t
know. (Select one response for each service.)
Responses
[ROTATE RESPONSES TO MATCH Q.E WITH “DON’T KNOW” LAST.]
Yes, I have purchased this service
No, I have not purchased service
I don’t know
Services
[RANDOMIZE ORDER OF SERVICES WITH NONE AND DON’T KNOW LAST.]
Services to incorporate a business or form a business entity
Services to lease real estate
Services to obtain loans or make purchases

G. Which, if any, of the following services are you likely to consider purchasing for your company or
organization in the next 2 years? For each service listed, please answer [ROTATE TO MATCH Q.E:
yes, I am likely to consider purchasing that service for my company or organization in the next 2
years; no, I am not likely to consider purchasing that service for my company or organization in the
next 2 years,] or I don’t know. (Select one response for each service.)
Responses
[MATCH ORDER OF RESPONSES TO Q.E]
Yes, I am likely to consider purchasing that service for my company or organization in the next 2
years
No, I am not likely to consider purchasing that service for my company or organization in the next
2 years
I don’t know
Services
[MATCH ORDER OF SERVICES TO Q.E]
Legal services, such as preparing legal documents or providing legal advice
Consulting services, such as providing management advice or IT support
Accounting services, such as preparing tax returns or providing audit support
Insurance services, such as reviewing policies or processing claims

[IF YES TO LEGAL SERVICES IN Q.G, ASK Q.H; OTHERWISE, SKIP TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE
Q.I.]

Exhibit 5 – Isaacson Expert Report

Page 9
EXHIBIT D -2126-

H. Which, if any, of the following types of legal services are you likely to consider purchasing in the next
2 years for your company or organization? For each type of legal service, please answer [ROTATE
TO MATCH Q.E: yes, I am likely to consider purchasing this service; no, I am not likely to consider
purchasing this service,] or I don’t know. (Select one response for each service.)
Responses
[ROTATE RESPONSES TO MATCH Q.E WITH “DON’T KNOW” LAST.]
Yes, I am likely to consider purchasing this service
No, I am not likely to consider purchasing this service
I don’t know
Services
[RANDOMIZE ORDER OF SERVICES WITH NONE AND DON’T KNOW LAST.]
Services to incorporate a business or form a business entity
Services to lease real estate
Services to obtain loans or make purchases
[MUST ANSWER YES TO LEGAL SERVICES IN Q.E OR Q.G TO CONTINUE. IF NOT, TERMINATE
AND SKIP TO Q.100.]

I.

What is your role in selecting providers for legal services for your company or organization? (Select
one response.)

[ROTATE ORDER FROM TOP TO BOTTOM AND BOTTOM TO TOP, KEEPING “DON’T KNOW”
LAST.]
I am the primary decision-maker
I share in the decisions with others
I have some influence
I have little or no involvement
I don’t know
[IF Q.I = “PRIMARY” OR “SHARE,” CONTINUE. OTHERWISE, TERMINATE AND SKIP TO Q.100.]

J.

Which, if any, of the following sources are you likely to use to locate a provider of legal services for
your company or organization? For each source, please answer [ROTATE TO MATCH Q.E: yes, I
am likely to use this source; no, I am not likely to use this source,] or I don’t know. (Select one
response for each source.)
Responses
[MATCH ORDER TO Q.E.]
Yes, I am likely to use this source
No, I am not likely to use this source
I don’t know
Information Sources
[RANDOMIZE ORDER WITH NONE AND DON’T KNOW LAST.]
The Internet
Yellow Pages
Recommendations from friends or family
Newspapers or magazines

[IF Q.J = “YES” FOR “INTERNET,” CONTINUE. OTHERWISE, TERMINATE AND SKIP TO Q.100.]

Exhibit 5 – Isaacson Expert Report

Page 10
EXHIBIT D -2127-

K. Would you consider purchasing legal services for your company or for your organization through a
website? (Select one response.)
[MATCH ORDER TO Q.E.]
Yes
No
Don’t know/Not sure
[IF Q.K = “YES,” CONTINUE. OTHERWISE, TERMINATE AND SKIP TO Q.100.]

L. Have you participated in any survey about legal services or legal providers during the past month?
(Select one response.)
[MATCH ORDER TO Q.E.]
Yes
No
Don’t know/Not sure
[IF Q.L = “NO,” CONTINUE. OTHERWISE, TERMINATE AND SKIP TO Q.100.]

M. Do you or does anyone in your household work for any of the following types of companies? (Select
one response for each type of company.)
Responses
[MATCH ORDER TO Q.E.]
Yes
No
I don’t know
Companies
[RANDOMIZE ORDER OF COMPANIES.]
Advertising or public relations
Marketing research
Law firm or other type of legal services provider
[IF Q.M = “NO” FOR ALL INDUSTRIES, CONTINUE. OTHERWISE, TERMINATE AND SKIP TO
Q.100.]

N. Do you usually wear eyeglasses or contact lenses when you surf the Internet? (Select one
response.)
[MATCH ORDER TO Q.E.]
Yes
No
[IF Q.N = “YES,” CONTINUE. OTHERWISE, SKIP TO Q.P.]

Exhibit 5 – Isaacson Expert Report

Page 11
EXHIBIT D -2128-

O. Are you wearing your eyeglasses or contact lenses? (Select one response.)
[MATCH ORDER TO Q.E.]
Yes
No
[IF Q.O = “YES,” CONTINUE. OTHERWISE, TERMINATE AND SKIP TO Q.100.]

P. Please indicate below the device you are using to take this survey. (Select one response.)
[ROTATE ORDER OF RESPONSES BELOW WITH OTHER TYPE OF DEVICE AND DON’T
KNOW ALWAYS LAST]
Laptop computer
Desktop computer
Tablet
Smartphone
Other type of device not listed above
Don’t know/not sure
[IF “LAPTOP COMPUTER” OR “DESKTOP COMPUTER” SELECTED IN Q.P, CONTINUE.
OTHERWISE, TERMINATE AND SKIP TO Q.100.]
[RANDOMLY ASSIGN CONSUMER RESPONDENTS TO CELLS 9-16]

Exhibit 5 – Isaacson Expert Report

Page 12
EXHIBIT D -2129-

MMR Strategy Group
Study #628-001
March, 2014
Online Advertising Study
Main Questionnaire

Cell
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Exhibit 5 – Isaacson Expert Report

Group
Consumer
Consumer
Consumer
Consumer
Consumer
Consumer
Consumer
Consumer
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business
Business

Stimulus
Ad 100
Ad 200
Website 300
Website 400A&B
Ad 101
Ad 201
Website 301
Website 401A&B
Ad 100
Ad 200
Website 300
Website 400A&B
Ad 101
Ad 201
Website 301
Website 401A&B

Page 13
EXHIBIT D -2130-

[INTRODUCTION FOR CELLS 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14]
On the next screen, you will see an ad for legal services. The ad appears in search results from an online
search engine. Other ads on the page have been blurred. Please focus only on the circled ad, which is
the subject of this survey.
Please review the ad as you would if you were considering purchasing legal services. You might need to
scroll to see the entire ad. You may take as long as you like to look at it. When you are done looking at
the ad, please click the “Continue” button.
[INTRODUCTION FOR CELLS 3, 7, 11, 15]
On the next screen, you will see a page from a website offering legal services. Please review the website
page as you would if you were considering purchasing legal services. You might need to scroll to see the
entire website page. You may take as long as you like to look at it. When you are done looking at the
website page, please click the “Continue” button.
[INTRODUCTION FOR CELLS 4, 8, 12, 16]
On the next two screens, you will see two website pages. Both pages are from the same website. The
first page describes legal services offered by a company, and the second page lists some of the terms for
those legal services.
Please review both website pages as you would if you were considering purchasing legal services. You
might need to scroll to see the entire website pages. You may take as long as you like. Click the
“Continue” button to see the first page. When you are done looking at that page, please click the
“Continue” button again to review the terms for services described on the first page.
[ON THE NEXT SCREEN SHOW STIMULUS APPROPRIATE TO MATCH CELL. ALSO SHOW
“Continue” button. FOR CELLS 4, 8, 12, 16, DISPLAY THE “A” IMAGE FIRST, THEN THE “B”
IMAGE.]
[AFTER CONTINUE IS PRESSED KEEP THE STIMULUS ON SCREEN IN THUMBNAIL SIZE WITH
“CLICK TO EXPAND” AVAILABLE. PLACE THE TEXT “You may click to expand” BELOW THE
STIMULUS. FOR CELLS 4, 8, 12, 16, DISPLAY “click to expand” IMAGES FOR BOTH THE “A”
IMAGE AND THE “B” IMAGE.]
You will now be asked some questions about the material you just reviewed. The [CELLS 1, 2, 5, 6, 9,
10, 13, 14: ad; CELLS 3, 7, 11, 15,: website page; CELLS 4, 8, 12, 16: website pages] will stay on
screen for the remainder of the survey. You may click on [CELLS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15: it;
CELLS 4, 8, 12, 16: either one] at any time to expand the image.
On any question, if you don’t know how to answer, it is all right to indicate that you don’t know or you are
not sure. Please do not guess and please do not consult any other person or source, such as the
Internet, while you complete this survey.

Exhibit 5 – Isaacson Expert Report

Page 14
EXHIBIT D -2131-

1. What are the main messages that the [CELLS 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14: ad states or implies; CELLS 3,
7, 11, 15: website page states or implies; CELLS 4, 8, 12, 16: website pages state or imply]?
Please be as specific as possible.

[RESPONDENT MUST ANSWER Q.1]

2. What other messages, if any, [CELLS 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14: does the ad; CELLS 3, 7, 11, 15:
does the website page; CELLS 4, 8, 12, 16: do the website pages] state or imply?

[RESPONDENT MUST ANSWER Q.2]
[CELLS 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, ASK Q.3, AND Q.4
CELLS 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, SKIP TO INSTRUCTION BEFORE Q.5.]

3. Although you may have already mentioned this, does or doesn’t the ad communicate or imply that
you can incorporate a business through this service without paying any fees to any organization or
entity? (Select one response.)
[MATCH ORDER TO Q.E. KEEP “DON’T KNOW” LAST.]
Yes, the ad does communicate or imply that you can incorporate a business without
paying any fees
No, the ad does not communicate or imply that you can incorporate a business without
paying any fees
I don’t know or am not sure

4. If you were selecting a service provider to incorporate a business, would the amount of fees you pay
affect your decision regarding which service provider to select? (Select one response.)
[MATCH ORDER TO Q.E. KEEP “DON’T KNOW” LAST.]
Yes
No
I don’t know or am not sure
[CELLS 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, ASK Q.5 AND Q.6.
CELLS 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, SKIP TO Q.9.]

Exhibit 5 – Isaacson Expert Report

Page 15
EXHIBIT D -2132-

5. Although you may have already mentioned this, [CELLS 3, 7, 11, 15: does or doesn’t the website
page; CELLS 4, 8, 12, 16: do or don’t the website pages] communicate or imply that you can try a
membership without paying any fees to any organization or entity? (Select one response.)
[MATCH ORDER TO Q.E. KEEP “DON’T KNOW” LAST.]
Yes, [CELLS 3, 7, 11, 15: the website page does; CELLS 4, 8, 12, 16: the website
pages do] communicate or imply that you can try a membership without paying any fees
No, [CELLS 3, 7, 11, 15: the website page does not; CELLS 4, 8, 12, 16: the website
pages do not] communicate or imply that you can try a membership without paying any
fees
I don’t know or am not sure

6. Based solely on your review of the [CELLS 3, 7, 11, 15: website page, CELLS 4, 8, 12, 16: website
pages,] who can obtain free help from a local attorney? (Select all that apply.)
Anyone [EXCLUSIVE]
Anyone who has signed up for a Free Membership
Anyone who has signed up for a Basic Legal Plan
Anyone who has signed up for a Pro Legal Plan
None of the above [EXCLUSIVE]
I don’t know [EXCLUSIVE]
[IF Q.6 = “BASIC” OR “PRO,” ASK Q.7. OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q.8.]

7. Does a member have to pay for a Basic Legal Plan or Pro Legal Plan before they can get free help
from a local attorney? (Select one response.)
[MATCH ORDER TO Q.E. KEEP “DON’T KNOW” LAST.]
Yes, they do have to pay
No, they do not have to pay
I don’t know
[CELLS 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, ASK Q.8; OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q.9]

8. Would having to pay for a membership before getting free help from a local attorney affect your
decision regarding whether to use this website’s services? (Select one response.)
[MATCH ORDER TO Q.E. KEEP “DON’T KNOW” LAST.]
Yes, it would affect my decision
No, it would not affect my decision
I don’t know or am not sure

Exhibit 5 – Isaacson Expert Report

Page 16
EXHIBIT D -2133-

9. Please enter the ZIP code of your [CELLS 1-8: home; CELLS 9-16: business] address.
[5 DIGIT NUMERIC RESPONSE]
[__________________]
[IF ZIP CODE IN Q.9 DOES NOT MATCH TO Q.B, ASK Q.10; IF IT DOES MATCH, SKIP TO Q.11]

10. To verify, please re-enter the ZIP code of your [CELLS 1-8: home; CELLS 9-16: business] address.
[5 DIGIT NUMERIC RESPONSE]
[__________________]
[IF ASKED, ZIP CODE IN Q.10 MUST MATCH ZIP CODE IN Q.B. IF NOT, TERMINATE AND SKIP TO
Q.100.]

11. Please read the statement that follows and click either “I Agree” or “I Disagree”. If any portion of the
statement is not true, please click “I Disagree”.
STATEMENT
I am the person who was invited to participate in this survey. I completed this survey myself,
without assistance or advice from any other person or source, and in accordance with the
instructions provided in the survey. The answers I have given are truthful expressions of my
situation and opinions.
I Agree

I Disagree

Your response to the above statement will not affect your rewards for completing the survey.
[THANK AND REWARD RESPONDENT FOR COMPLETION, REGARDLESS OF ANSWER TO Q.11.
TERMINATE RESPONDENTS THAT ANSWERED “I DISAGREE”, BUT DO NOT SKIP THEM TO
Q.100.]
Thank you for completing our survey.

[SHOW Q.100 ONLY IF TERMINATED. DO NOT SHOW IF TERMINATED AT Q11.]
Q.100
Thank you for your interest in this survey. However, we are looking for individuals with
specific qualifications.

Exhibit 5 – Isaacson Expert Report

Page 17
EXHIBIT D -2134-

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT E -2135-

EXHIBIT E -2136-

EXHIBIT E -2137-

EXHIBIT E -2138-

EXHIBIT E -2139-

EXHIBIT E -2140-

EXHIBIT E -2141-

EXHIBIT E -2142-

EXHIBIT E -2143-

EXHIBIT E -2144-

EXHIBIT E -2145-

EXHIBIT E -2146-

EXHIBIT E -2147-

EXHIBIT E -2148-

EXHIBIT E -2149-

EXHIBIT E -2150-

EXHIBIT E -2151-

EXHIBIT E -2152-

EXHIBIT E -2153-

EXHIBIT E -2154-

EXHIBIT E -2155-

EXHIBIT E -2156-

EXHIBIT E -2157-

EXHIBIT E -2158-

EXHIBIT E -2159-

EXHIBIT F

[CONFIDENTIAL - LODGED
UNDER SEAL]

EXHIBIT F

EXHIBIT G

[CONFIDENTIAL - LODGED
UNDER SEAL]

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT H

[CONFIDENTIAL - LODGED
UNDER SEAL]

EXHIBIT H

EXHIBIT I

[CONFIDENTIAL - LODGED
UNDER SEAL]

EXHIBIT I

EXHIBIT J

[CONFIDENTIAL - LODGED
UNDER SEAL]

EXHIBIT J

EXHIBIT K

[CONFIDENTIAL - LODGED
UNDER SEAL]

EXHIBIT K

EXHIBIT L

[CONFIDENTIAL - LODGED
UNDER SEAL]

EXHIBIT L

EXHIBIT M

EXHIBIT M

Incorporation Services - Incorporating your Business | LegalZoom

Page 1 of 2

My Account

Log Out | Check Order Status | Contact Us | Our Satisfaction Guarantee

Speak to a Customer Care Specialist: [phone]

Over two dozen companies on the INC.
500 lists were started through
LegalZoom

I want to start a new
business
I want to convert an
existing business

■ Save time calling attorneys' offices, driving to appointments,

and looking for parking

■ Live U.S.-based customer support 15 hours a day

I want to form my
Corporation in:

(M-F) and even 9 hours on Saturday and Sunday

■ In the past 12 years, LegalZoom has been trusted by more

Select a State

than 2 million customers
from

$ 99 + state filing fee
See details

■ Is a corporation right for me?
When you're just starting out, getting legal help can be key to growing
your business. With an attorney to guide you, you can proceed with
confidence knowing all your legal questions have been answered.
■ Create better contracts

■ What are the main differences between a C corporation and an S
corporation?
■ Who can form a corporation?
■ Do I need an attorney to form a corporation?

■ Protect your company from risk

■ What is the procedure for forming a corporation, and what legal
documents are required?

■ Understand the common legal issues new companies face
Get a free business start-up consultation! As part of our Express Gold
package, you get a 30-day trial to the LegalZoom Business Legal Plan.*
Learn more

View more questions
View sample documents

Questions? Call [phone]
Monday–Friday
5:00am - 8:00pm PT
Saturday and Sunday
7:00am - 4:00pm PT

Excellent service. I continue to be a
completely satisfied customer and we have
used LegalZoom for starting a
corporation...and have always been
impressed with the service.

Email us

Karin L., Glendale, CA

9 out of 10 customers
would recommend us
to friends and family.

Upfront. Reliable.
No hourly fees.

Our documents have been
accepted by courts and government
agencies in all 50 states.

* Available in most states. After the 30-day trial period, benefits to the Business Legal Plan (also Business Advantage Pro) continue automatically for $29.99 per month. For states
where Business Advantage Pro is not available, benefits to Business Advantage Standard continue automatically for $7.99. You can cancel by calling [phone]. For full
details, see the Legal Plan Contract and Advantage Terms of Service.

About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Press

Education Center
Video Center
Legal Articles
Incorporation vs. LLC

EXHIBIT M -2208-

http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-incorporation/incorporation-overview.html

1/2/2014

Incorporation Services - Incorporating your Business | LegalZoom

Affiliate
Sitemap
Articles

Wills vs. Living Trusts
Trademark vs. Copyright
Small Business Resources

Page 2 of 2

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
See the January Issue

© LegalZoom.com, Inc. All rights reserved.

View Site Directory

Number of customers who would recommend LegalZoom is based on surveys conducted in 2012.
Disclaimer: Communications between you and LegalZoom are protected by our Privacy Policy but not by the attorney-client privilege or as work product. LegalZoom provides access to
independent attorneys and self-help services at your specific direction. We are not a law firm or a substitute for an attorney or law firm. We cannot provide any kind of advice, explanation, opinion,
or recommendation about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options, selection of forms or strategies. Your access to the website is subject to our Terms of Use.

EXHIBIT M -2209-

http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-incorporation/incorporation-overview.html

1/2/2014

EXHIBIT M -2210-

LLC Package Details | LegalZoom.com

Page 1 of 2

My Account

Log Out | Check Order Status | Contact Us | Our Satisfaction Guarantee

Speak to a Customer Care Specialist: [phone]

Back to overview

[phone]
Monday–Friday
5:00am - 8:00pm PT
Saturday and Sunday
7:00am - 4:00pm PT

Each LegalZoom LLC package is backed
by our 100% satisfaction guarantee and
comes with lifetime customer support.

The LLC packages include:

+ state fee

+ state fee

+ state fee

■ Overview
■ Pricing Overview

Preliminary LLC name clearance
■ Package Details

Filing of Articles of Organization

■ 3-Step Process

Personalized operating agreement

■ LLC Education

Indemnification clause

■ FAQ
■ Glossary

Clause governing restrictions on
transfer
Company resolution for banking
LegalZoom Peace of Mind Review™
The LegalZoom business newsletter
(includes business tips, discounts
and more)
Deluxe LLC Kit embossed with your
company name

With 2 million customers, your satisfaction
is 100% guaranteed.

Official company seal
20 customized membership
certificates

Blank Partnership
Certificates (up to 10)

Membership transfer ledger

FREE online PR and social media
suite for 1 year — a $179 value

QuickBooks Online Accounting
Software for Small Business —
3 Months FREE (a $119 value)
Priority Rush service, typically 7-10
business days or less (vs. 20-35
business days for our regular
service)
Federal Tax ID (EIN) application
preparation
Two-day delivery of final package

Business Advantage Pro
30-day trial***
After the 30-day trial period, benefits will
continue automatically for $29.99 per month.
Cancel at any time with no further obligation by
calling [phone]. We'll send you periodic
emails about your benefits, which continue until
canceled. Program includes:

■ Attorney advice on running your
business. Covers company
management, liability protection,
employees, business contracts and
more
■ Attorney consultations on an
unlimited number of new legal
matters
■ Tax advice from tax professionals at
Corporate Tax Network

EXHIBIT M -2211-

http://www.legalzoom.com/limited-liability-company/limited-liability-company-packages.html

1/2/2014

LLC Package Details | LegalZoom.com

Page 2 of 2

Each LegalZoom LLC package is backed
by our 100% satisfaction guarantee and
comes with lifetime customer support.
■ Attorney-drafted letter on your behalf
(at attorney's discretion)
■ Legal document review (up to 10
pages)
■ CreditAlert™ Plus: a D&B D-U-N-S®
Number, and 24/7 email alerts to
changes to your company's credit
scores and ratings by Dun &
Bradstreet Credibility Corp.
■ Unlimited access to LegalZoom's
extensive library of downloadable
forms
■ Exclusive members-only discounts:
25% off attorney's regular hourly rate
for additional work, 20% off
additional tax services, 10% off
LegalZoom document services****

Get started now and choose your package at checkout

Calculate Your State Filing Fee: (required)*
For more information on business filing fees, click here.

Select a State
Economy / Standard

(select state)

Express Gold

(select state)

Optional Services
Complete Federal Tax ID Application

$30.00

Included in Gold Package

Complete & Obtain Tax ID from IRS

$79.00

-$30 Savings with Gold Package

Registered Agent Fee**

$159.00

Annual Compliance Calendar Subscription

$69.00

Professional LLCs

$50.00

International Packages and Next Day Expedited Order

Contact us for details

Amendments, Foreign Qualification and other services

Included in Registered Agent

Click here for details

*Pricing does not include post-formation requirements such as annual report fees, statement of officers fees or taxes. Please see
the LLC Education Center for examples of these fees. You may also contact the state, an accountant or LegalZoom for more
information about these fees.
**Once your LLC becomes legally effective, your card will automatically be charged $159.00. Service renews annually thereafter
for the same fee until canceled. For full terms and conditions, click here.
***Available in most states. After the 30-day trial period, benefits to the Business Legal Plan (also Business Advantage Pro)
continue automatically for $29.99 per month. For states where Business Advantage Pro is not available, benefits to Business
Advantage Standard continue automatically for $7.99. You can cancel by calling [phone]. For full details, see the Legal
Plan Contract and Advantage Terms of Service.
****Some restrictions apply. See our Legal Plan Contract and Advantage Terms of Service for details. Any product discounts are
applied at checkout.
+Does not include required newspaper publication fee.

About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Press
Affiliate
Sitemap
Articles

Education Center
Video Center
Legal Articles
Incorporation vs. LLC
Wills vs. Living Trusts
Trademark vs. Copyright
Small Business Resources

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
See the January Issue

© LegalZoom.com, Inc. All rights reserved.

View Site Directory

Disclaimer: Communications between you and LegalZoom are protected by our Privacy Policy but not by the attorney-client privilege or as work product. LegalZoom provides access to
independent attorneys and self-help services at your specific direction. We are not a law firm or a substitute for an attorney or law firm. We cannot provide any kind of advice, explanation, opinion,
or recommendation about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options, selection of forms or strategies. Your access to the website is subject to our Terms of Use.

EXHIBIT M -2212-

http://www.legalzoom.com/limited-liability-company/limited-liability-company-packages.html

1/2/2014

EXHIBIT N

EXHIBIT N

Target your ads – AdWords – Google Ads

Page 1 of 2

Ads
AdWords

Reach the right people

Already an AdWords customer? Sign in

at the right time
With AdWords you can get the right message in front of the people you most want to reach.
Here are a few tips on how to target your ads:
Get started now For free support call:1-800-919-9922*

Pick specific keywords
When people search the web, they tend to use specific phrases like “yoga studio in
springfield,” rather than general ones like “yoga.” So, when it comes to selecting keywords,
be specific, and keep your ads (and budget) targeted to the most interested people. Get
more tips about choosing keywords

EXHIBIT N -2213-

http://www.google.com/adwords/how-it-works/target-your-ads.html

6/27/2014

Target your ads – AdWords – Google Ads

Page 2 of 2

Try out multiple ads
Ads, like keywords, help people decide if your business is what they’re searching for. If you
offer several different products or services, try creating a unique ad for each one. A yoga
studio, for example, might want to create one ad for beginners and another for more
advanced classes. Get more tips about writing ads

Target specific locations
AdWords makes it easy to put your message in front of people anywhere in the world. But
what if you’re only interested in potential customers within a 10-mile drive? No problem: you
can use geo-targeting to show your ads in a particular area, whether it’s a city, region,
country or specific distance from your business.

Advanced targeting options
All that was just the beginning. We didn’t even get around to talking about how you can
show your ads on specific days of the week, hours in a day, or different placements or
devices. Check out the Ad types section for more info.

EXHIBIT N -2214-

http://www.google.com/adwords/how-it-works/target-your-ads.html

6/27/2014

Advertise on Bing

Drive customers to your site and increase leads,
sales and awareness of your business with Bing
Ads.

Page 1 of 1

Your customers search on Bing and Yahoo
Search engines for keywords that you have
selected.

Call us toll-free at 1-888-959-5734

Your ad appears on both the Bing and Yahoo
results pages. Customers click on your ad and
visit your site.

Saturday: 8 AM to 6 PM (Pacific Time)

Monday - Friday: 6 AM to 6 PM (Pacific Time)

1. comScore Explicit Core Search (custom), March 2014; the Yahoo Bing Network includes Microsoft and Yahoo Core Search sites in the U.S.

EXHIBIT N -2215-

http://advertise.bingads.microsoft.com/en-us/reachyournextcustomer

6/27/2014

incorporation - Google Search

Page 1 of 2

incorporation

Web

Books

Sign in

Images

Maps

Videos

More

Search tools

About 27,200,000 results (0.15 seconds)

Incorporate in California - Incorporate in CA for Only $74

Ads

Ad www.incorporate.com/California_INC
Limited Time Only. Apply Now.
Enhance Your Credibility … Complete in 3 Easy Steps … Available All 50 States

CA Corps $149.95 Complete

Incorporate at LegalZoom - LegalZoom.com
Ad www.legalzoom.com/
[phone]
Form a Corporation in 3 Easy Steps. Featured by CNN and Entrepreneur.
LegalZoom has 1,073 followers on Google+
Incorporate vs. LLC - Incorporate Now - Featured by CNN & MSNBC - S Corp

$49 Online Incorporation - Free Minutes and Bylaws
Ad www.incfile.com/Easy_Corp_Today
Free Registered Agent!
A+ Rating – Better Business Bureau
Incorporation Station - Contact - Check Pricing

Incorporation (business) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(business)
Wikipedia
Incorporation (Inc.) is the forming of a new corporation (a corporation being a legal
entity that is effectively recognized as a person under the law).
In the United States - In the United Kingdom - International perspective - See also

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
Wikipedia
The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by
which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the ...
History - Specific amendments - Reverse incorporation - References

Incorporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation
Wikipedia
Incorporation may refer to: Incorporation (business), the creation of a corporation;
Incorporation (association), giving legal form to an association by registering it ...

Incorporation Services - Incorporating your Business ...
www.legalzoom.com/...incorporation/incorporation-overvie...
LegalZoom
File your incorporation online. Learn whether a C Corp or S Corp is right for you. Get
started today.

Incorporation Definition | Investopedia
www.investopedia.com/terms/i/incorporate.asp
Investopedia
The process of legally declaring a corporate entity as separate from its owners.
Incorporation has many advantages for a business and its owners, including: 1) ...

The Company Corporation: LLC & Incorporation - Small ...
https://www.incorporate.com/
The Company Corporation
Incorporation and LLC formation services. Wilmington, Delaware.

www.amerilawyer.com/
[phone]
Includes State Fee, Book, Seal.
Minutes, Stock, Atty Fee & More.

Incorporation Lawyer
www.drasonlaw.com/
We help you Incorporate, provide
Tax guidance, compliance, contracts
560 South Winchester Boulevard #500
[phone]

Incorporation In Wyoming?
www.wyomingcompany.com/
[phone]
Incorporate in Wyoming & Save Big!
Many Advantages. Contact Us Now.

California Incorporation
www.smallbiz.com/
Only $31 + state fees. We mean it.
1000's formed annually for 10 years

Incorporate Online Now
www.delawareinc.com/Same_Day_Filing
[phone]
Start Your New Business Today!
30+ yrs. Of Lightning-Fast Filings.

California Incorporation
www.directincorporation.com/
[phone]
Need to Incorporate? Form an LLC,
C or S-Corp. Free corp name check!

Incorporation Made Simple
www.mynewcompany.com/
4.9
advertiser rating
LLC or Corp In Any State - $79
BBB Honor Roll, Professional, Fast

Incorporate Free Today
www.incforfree.com/
[phone]
Pay State Fees Only. 3 Easy Steps.
Since 1989. Over 60k Corps formed.
See your ad here »

Incorporation | Define Incorporation at Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com/browse/incorporation
Dictionary.com
the act of incorporating or the state of being incorporated. 2. the act of forming a legal
corporation. 3. Grammar. the inclusion of the object or object reference ...

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Incorporation Debate
law.umkc.edu/.../incor...
University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law
The Incorporation Debate. The Issue: Does the Fourteenth Amendment "Incorporate"
the Protections of the Bill of Rights and Make Them Enforceable Against ...

How to Incorporate | Register a Business - The Company ...
www.shopify.com › How to Start a Business
Shopify
by Mark Hayes - Dec 14, 2012 - Many new online business owners aren't sure if they
should incorporate, what their business structure options are, what incorporation
might ...

incorporation - The Free Dictionary
www.thefreedictionary.com/incorporation

EXHIBIT N -2216-

https://www.google.com/

6/27/2014

incorporation - Google Search

Page 2 of 2

... antonyms. Information about incorporation in the free online English dictionary and
encyclopedia. articles of incorporation, certificate of incorporation.

Searches related to incorporation
incorporation doctrine

incorporation synonym

incorporation vs llc

incorporation dictionary

incorporation government definition

incorporation in california

incorporation inc

incorporation of the bill of rights

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Next

Menlo Park, CA - From your Internet address - Use precise location - Learn more
Help

Send feedback

Privacy & Terms

EXHIBIT N -2217-

https://www.google.com/

6/27/2014

incorporation - Bing

WEB

IMAGES

Page 1 of 2

VIDEOS

MAPS

NEWS

MORE

2

1

Sign in

incorporation
14,100,000 RESULTS

Any time

Ads related to incorporation

Incorporation in 3 Steps | LegalZoom.com
LegalZoom.com
(1) Sign Up (2) Fill in online form (3) Launch your new corporation.

Related searches
Articles of Incorporation Forms
Incorporation vs LLC

Incorporate vs. LLC

S Corp

Incorporation Government

Sole Proprietorship

Incorporations,LLC, DBA

Incorporation Definition

3 Easy Steps

Incorporate Now

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

Inc. Leader Since 1899 - Custom packages to fit your needs!
www.Incorporate.com/Incorporation
We incorporate in every state.

Incorporate Your Business
Types of Incorporation
Non Profit Incorporation

Incorporation Services | Incorporation-Services.InCorp.com

Ads related to incorporation

Incorporation-Services.InCorp.com
We will beat any competitor's price on Corporation/LLC Formations!

Incorporate Online Now

$49 Online Incorporation - Form an LLC in 3 Easy Steps.
quickcorps.com
Includes Bylaws & Operating Agreement.

Incorporation (business) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(business)
Incorporation (Inc.) is the forming of a new corporation (a corporation being a legal entity
that is effectively recognized as a person under the law).
In the United States · In the United Kingdom · International perspective

California Department of Corporations
www.corp.ca.gov
Licenses and regulates securities brokers and dealers, investment advisers and financial
planners, some fiduciaries and lenders, and the offer and sale of securities ...
Business Search · Corporate Info · Licensee Listing · Online Tools

Related searches for incorporation

www.delawareinc.com/Same_Day_Filing
Start Your New Business Today! 30+ yrs.
Of Lightning-Fast Filings.

$49 Online Incorporation
incfile.com
Incorporate - $49 + State Filing Fee. Free
1st Year Registered Agent.

Corp. Forming Services
MyUSACorporation.com
$49.00+State Fees. Fast, Cheap, Reliable.
myusacorporation.com is rated
on Bing (74 reviews)
See your ad here »

Twitter
nicholas peters

Articles of Incorporation Forms

Incorporation Definition

@dentaltalkshow · 3 hours ago

Incorporation vs LLC

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

Incorporation Government

Incorporate Your Business

Dental Talk Show - Policy for
Incorporation of Primary Dental
Contracts youtu.be/0vOmLqa7Xs

Incorporation: Definition from Answers.com
www.answers.com › Library › Literature & Language › Webster 1913
n. [L. incorporatio: cf. F. incorporation.] 1. The act of incorporating, or the state of being
incorporated. 2. The union of different ingredients in one mass ...

Forms and Fees - Business Programs - California Secretary ...
www.sos.ca.gov/business/forms.htm
Forms, Samples and Fees. Please select the applicable program area from the list below:
Business Entities

incorporate - LLC & Incorporation - Small Business ...
https://www.incorporate.com
A provider of incorporation and start up services to small businesses. Includes
information about corporation and LLC formations.

Forms, Samples and Fees - Business Entities - California ...
www.sos.ca.gov/business/be/forms.htm
California (domestic) Corporations: Foreign (out-of-state or out-of-country) Corporations:
California Corporations (Filing Tips) Fees: 1. Articles of Incorporation ...

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_bill_of_rights
The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by
which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the ...
History · Specific amendments · Reverse incorporation · Further reading

See on Twitter
See more on Twitter

Blogs & opinions
Gil Silberman

12 Jun 2014

What parts of an incorporation document
send bad signals to investors?
www.quora.com
An online incorporation service. A wall
of .pdf documents...

Ramanuj Mukherjee
10 Dec 2013

What are some typical terms for early legal
representation (incorporation, angel
round)?
www.quora.com
This answer is with respect to India.
Incorporation and...

EXHIBIT N -2218-

http://www.bing.com/search?q=incorporation

6/27/2014

incorporation - Bing

Page 2 of 2

MyCorporation.com - Official Site
www.mycorporation.com
MyCorporation makes it easy to incorporate a business or form an LLC online. Browse
through our Incorporation packages starting at $69 today.
Ads related to incorporation

Incorporation in 3 Steps | LegalZoom.com
LegalZoom.com
(1) Sign Up (2) Fill in online form (3) Launch your new corporation.

Inc. Leader Since 1899 - Custom packages to fit your needs!
www.Incorporate.com/Incorporation
We incorporate in every state.

1

2

3

Learn more

4

5

Info for

Support

Privacy and Cookies

Advertise

Help

Legal

About our ads

Feedback

© 2014 Microsoft

EXHIBIT N -2219-

http://www.bing.com/search?q=incorporation

6/27/2014

EXHIBIT O

EXHIBIT O

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

Supplemental Report of Yoram (Jerry) Wind
I. Objectives
1.

I, Yoram (Jerry) Wind, was asked by counsel for Rocket Lawyer Incorporated (“Rocket
Lawyer”), to evaluate Dr. Isaacson’s Rebuttal Report dated May 15, 2014 (“Isaacson Reb.”),
which purported to evaluate my opening report and survey provided to LegalZoom on April 15,
2014. Specifically, I was asked to evaluate and address Dr. Isaacson’s criticisms.
II. Qualifications

2.

I am the Lauder Professor and Professor of Marketing at the Wharton School of the University
of Pennsylvania. I joined the Wharton staff in 1967, upon receipt of my doctorate from Stanford
University. Dr. Isaacson has not challenged my qualifications, which can be found in my April
15, 2014 expert report and appendices.
III. Approach

3.

Approach and criteria for evaluation. In preparing this supplemental report, I relied on
marketing, consumer behavior, marketing research and consumer research concepts,
methods, and findings and the theory and practice of conducting surveys, (a) as reflected in
the professional literature and as taught by me and others at Wharton and other leading
universities, and (b) as practiced by me and other leading professionals in conducting and
evaluating marketing research and consumer research, for academic peer reviewed
publications, and for management and courts as input into their decisions. These principles are

1
EXHIBIT O -2220-

consistent with the criteria outlined in the Manual for Complex Litigation (4th Edition), published
in 2004 by the Federal Judicial Center.
4.

Material Reviewed and Considered. I reviewed Dr. Isaacson’s rebuttal report and exhibits
thereto, provided on May 15, 2014. I also reviewed the Declaration of Paul Hollerbach in
support of Rocket Lawyer’s Opposition to LegalZoom’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(“Hollerbach Declaration”), the court’s Order Denying LegalZoom’s motion for summary
judgment, ECF No. 44 (“SJ Order”), my April 15, 2014 expert report and supporting materials
(the “Wind Report”), and all other materials referenced herein.

5.

Structure of Report. Section IV states my conclusions. Section V provides a detailed
response to Dr. Isaacson’s critique. Section VI summarizes my conclusion that Dr. Isaacson’s
rebuttal is unreliable and invalid, and how nothing in his study undermines my findings.
IV. Conclusions

6.

Dr. Isaacson’s criticisms are speculative and/or guided by the same unreliable
methodologies that render his survey and opinion unreliable, biased, and leading. My
survey tested consumer perception and comprehension of Rocket Lawyer’s ads and services in
a manner most close to the typical consumer’s real-life experience in searching for online legal
services, investigating RocketLawyer.com, and deciding whether or not to purchase services
from Rocket Lawyer.

The stimuli used in my survey replicated the typical consumer

experience, the respondents were properly qualified, the sample size was sufficient, the
questions were properly constructed, and I properly conducted an unbiased analysis in taking
into account all answers provided by respondents. On the whole, Dr. Isaacson’s criticisms are
mere nitpicks and even if taken at face value, should not be enough to undermine my survey.
In addition, Dr. Isaacson’s criticisms stem from how he improperly designed his survey –
artificially simplifying the consumer experience and removing all context for the Rocket Lawyer
2
EXHIBIT O -2221-

ads, designing biased stimuli and questionnaires, and conducting biased analysis to deliver
LegalZoom’s requested results by, among other things, eliminating over 60% of actual
responses provided. The stark differences in our two surveys demonstrates the importance of
sound principles in conducting an impartial survey. In this supplemental report, I will respond to
his “criticisms” on the following topics:
a. Stimuli: My stimuli was realistic and replicated the consumer experience.
b. Design: I designed my survey to test the critical questions of diversion and effect of
the ads on consumers purchasing decisions at the correct stages in the consumer
journey.
c. Universe: Qualified Respondents: I properly included in my sample consumers who
(i) looked for online legal services in the past few years and/or (ii) have the potential
to look for online legal services in the next six months (and for the incorporation
service, consumers who were primary decision makers).
d. Sample Size:

The sample size of 422 respondents (over 100 per cell) was

sufficiently large and in-line with the sample size of other studies and Isaacson’s
own prior opinions and practice.
e. Questions Asked: The questionnaire was logical and relied on a combination of
open and close end questions to impartially gauge consumer perceptions and
comprehension.
f. Personnel: I have identified the personnel who have assisted in the survey.
g. “Problematic” Responses: I explain that, contrary to Dr. Isaacson’s methodology
of removing actual responses that do not fit his and LegalZoom’s expectations and
intended results, I included all responses in my analysis. Indeed, all respondents
provided answers to the closed end questions and a vast a majority of those
3
EXHIBIT O -2222-

respondents Dr. Isaacson suggested removing provided substantive responses to
the questionnaire. There is no basis to remove these responses.
V. Detailed Response to Dr. Isaacson’s Criticisms of My Report
7.

Proper Stimuli: The stimuli used in my survey mirrored the real life consumer experience and
properly tested the claims at issue in this litigation. Dr. Isaacson asserts that “[t]he complexity
of these stimuli effectively hide the very small differences between the test and control stimuli.”
Isaacson Reb. at 5. His criticism of the stimuli is not valid because they were designed to test
the questions raised by this lawsuit in context as directed by the Court (SJ Order at 7): whether
addressing LegalZoom’s concerns about 1) Rocket Lawyer’s state fee disclosures in
incorporation/entity formation ads and 2) formatting of its free trial offers had any effect on
consumers’ understanding of Rocket Lawyer’s services. Amended Compl. at ¶ 14.
a.

My stimuli was realistic and tested Rocket Lawyer’s actual advertisements. The
stimuli in my survey were designed to test the real world experience of a consumer
shopping for online legal services. Dr. Isaacson asserts that the Rocket Lawyer ads
shown to the respondents were “hidden in a very complex stimulus” of other search
results. Isaacson Reb. at 6. But this is the real context in which a consumer would
review Rocket Lawyer’s advertising.

The stimuli used real pages with the actual

information disclosed on RocketLawyer.com in the order that consumers actually
encounter them on the way to a purchasing decision. Isaacson’s criticism of my stimuli
stems from his defense of his own improper stimuli, which are entirely artificial in that
they forced respondents to view the ads in complete isolation, at times even blurring out
relevant information. Whether a consumer might be confused or misled by an
advertisement viewed outside its context sheds no light on whether the ads, which are
never divorced from neighboring search results, are actually misleading. Thus, his test
4
EXHIBIT O -2223-

was fatally flawed and provides no basis for concluding what is important to consumers
in making a purchasing decision.
b.

The stimuli are realistic and not unnecessarily complex. The stimuli presented
were either equally complex or less complex than what consumers would encounter in
real life. For incorporation test, the stimuli had the same number of pages that
consumers would have encountered along the incorporation journey with minor
adjustments explained in my report. The stimuli used for the Other Legal Services
experiment was less complex than real life. I reduced the number of pages from the
typical consumer journey for each form to (1) make the page numbers consistent across
the four stimuli, and (2) provide just enough context to mirror the consumer experience
without making the survey overly burdensome. Respondents were shown the same
disclosures that are made to consumers as part of the typical user journey.

Dr.

Isaacson concedes as much, by noting that “[a]t least 5 of the website pages shown in
the Incorporation survey . . . would be seen only during the process of making an actual
purchase.” Isaacson Reb. at 9. His criticism regarding complexity supports my findings
that LegalZoom’s allegations have no merit. In context of the consumer journey and
disclosures made on RocketLawyer.com, the minor changes that LegalZoom demands
would not have had a significant effect on consumers’ understanding or purchasing
decisions.
Overall, showing respondents merely an advertisement and one or two pages of a website and
blurring the competitive environment is not a realistic way of looking at a website. Had I
conducted my survey as Dr. Isaacson suggests, and implemented in his study, my results and
conclusions would have been unreliable and invalid for the same reasons that Dr. Isaacson’s
survey and conclusions are unreliable and invalid.
5
EXHIBIT O -2224-

8.

Proper Design: I tested the critical questions at the proper points along the consumer journey.
a. By allowing consumers to choose which company to investigate, I tested
diversion at the search engine stage. Unlike Dr. Isaacson’s survey, my survey tested
whether consumers were diverted at the ad stage. After viewing just the search engine
ad, respondents were asked which companies they would be interested in exploring
further. As stated on page 25 of my opening report, at Table 1, “The Rocket Lawyer
search engine ad had no impact on the selection of either Rocket Lawyer or
LegalZoom 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.”

Dr.

Isaacson’s survey did not test diversion at all. He did not allow respondents to select
Rocket Lawyer from a number of competitors at the ad stage. He did not even allow
respondents to choose either Rocket Lawyer or LegalZoom at the ad stage.1 Instead
he directed respondents to focus on Rocket Lawyer in his instructions and by circling
Rocket Lawyer while blurring out the other companies. Thus, his stimuli is artificial,
biased and leading, which undermines his criticisms about my stimuli.
b.

I tested consumers’ perceptions and decision making at the point of purchase.
After consumers viewed the ad, disclosures on RocketLawyer.com, and reach the
account registration and free trial pages, I began the questionnaire, including asking
respondents what they were going to do with respect to Rocket Lawyer. This was
proper, as consumers reached the point of purchase. Dr. Isaacson should not have
tested consumer understanding and perceptions at the search engine advertisement
stage, where no purchasing decision can be made and before consumers have

1

This would still have been improper because it ignores the competitive landscape, but better than Isaacson’s actual
methodology,

6
EXHIBIT O -2225-

received all available information. Dr. Isaacson’s criticism, see id. at 10, merely mirrors
LegalZoom’s failed strategy to ignore the context in which consumers view Rocket
Lawyer’s advertising, see SJ Order at 9 (“Plaintiff’s arguments in support of its false
advertising claim fail to consider Defendant’s advertisements in context and instead
improperly focus on the word ‘free’ divorced from the advertisements and services as a
whole”), and ignores the Court’s description of what LegalZoom must prove, see id. at
9-10 (LegalZoom “bears the ultimate burden of proving actual deception by using
consumer surveys or market research.”).
9.

Universe – Qualified Respondents: Dr. Isaacson’s criticism of the survey’s qualification of
prospective purchasers is a semantic quibble.
a. Prospective Consumers are the proper universe. Dr. Isaacson himself concedes
that the relevant population and the correct universe is prospective purchasers, not
actual purchasers. See Isaacson Reb. at 11 (“For example, consumers who are
prospective purchasers may know more about the product category than consumers
who are not considering making a purchase.”); id. at 12 (“The proper survey
universe for a false advertising survey focuses on actual and prospective
purchasers.”). He then, however, criticizes my survey because it “did not qualify
respondents as purchasers, and few of the survey participants in fact purchased
online legal services,” Isaacson Reb. at 12, and because it “[did] not qualify on
purchase.”

By his own admission, prospective purchasers should be surveyed.

Customers who are “looking for” online legal services are prospective purchasers.
Dr. Isaacson asserts that respondents should have been limited to actual
purchasers, but there is no basis for such a restriction.

7
EXHIBIT O -2226-

b. There is no basis for exclusion of the “May or May Not” Group. Because we
were dealing with intended behavior, not only past behavior which may be more
certain, there is no basis to exclude respondents where they said that they may
search for legal services in the near future. This is conceptually the right universe.
In many consumer concept tests, how likely a consumer is to buy or look for a
service is measured in a range of responses from: (i) Definitely will; (ii) Probably will;
(iii) May or may not; (iv) Probably will not; and (v) Definitely will not. Validation
studies over the years have shown that when intended behavior is compared to
actual behavior, many of those who responded “may or may not” actually do the
intended behavior. For example, the relationship one would expect between the
intended behavior and the subsequent behavior is portrayed in the following figure,
which contrasts the generally expected behavior with Dr. Isaacson’s simplistic and
unrealistic implicit assumption of the same.

8
EXHIBIT O -2227-

No study has shown that there is no possibility that consumers who responded “may
or may not” would all decide not to do the intended behavior. Similarly, studies have
shown that not all individuals who responded that they “definitely will” do the
intended behavior actually do the behavior. The proper universe for this case is
consumers who have purchased online legal services and/or have the potential to
search for online legal services in the near future. This is exactly who is in my
sample set and Dr. Isaacson’s criticism is unfounded.
c. Inclusion of the May or May Not Group did not have a significant effect on the
survey results. To illustrate this point, for a few key questions, I compared side-byside the results of the Probably/Definitely Group with the May or May Not Group for
the following questions:
i. Table 1 Incorporation Service2 (Q2: After looking at the search results, please
indicate which of the following companies would you be interested in
exploring further based on what you see?).
ii. Table 6 Incorporation Service (QB.10a: Now reflecting on the Google ad and
the Rocket Lawyer website, do you recall if you had to pay state fees to the
state for Incorporation with the free offer?);
iii. Table 8 Incorporation Service and Table 4 Other Legal Services (Q12a Do
you recall if the free trial offer has a time limit?); and
iv. Table 12 Incorporation Service and Table 8 Other Legal Services (Q14a
Which if any of the following options best describe what you are likely to do
after having seen the Google Ad and Rocket Lawyer website

2

Table numbers correspond to the tables in the Wind Report.

9
EXHIBIT O -2228-

In each of these comparisons, there is no significant difference between the test and
control groups in the Probably/Definitely Group.

Similarly, there is no significant

difference between the test and control groups for the May or May Not Group. See
Appendix A for supporting data and Appendix B for the statistical analysis. Dr.
Isaacson’s criticism that including the May or May Not Group in the survey had an effect
on the survey results is unsupported speculation. The universe was proper and had we
removed the May or May Not Group (as improperly suggested by Dr. Isaacson) it would
not have changed the results.
10.

Proper Sample Size: My survey has a sample size of over 100 respondents for each group.
As Dr. Isaacson essentially concedes, this is a sufficiently large sample size to provide reliable
information. See Isaacson Reb. at 17 (“A reading of 45% with a sample size of 100 interviews
has a margin of error at the 95% level of confidence of approximately +/- 10%.”).3 In addition,
to make sure to provide reliable information, all tables were reported along with their sample
sizes and any tables with small samples were reported in real numbers instead of percentages.
As part of my report, I over saw a statistical analysis of the survey data that took into account
sample size for each question and set of responses. The statistical analysis was provided as
part of my report.
Ultimately, what matters is the difference between the control and test groups—and these
sample sizes are large enough to reflect real world results. It should be noted that my survey
conducted a number of tests of these individuals. Looking at the results in a holistic way,

3

Dr. Isaacson’s own prior work supports that these sample sizes are sufficient and undercuts his criticism here. In 2009,
Dr. Isaacson conducted a survey of “potential buyers and evaluators of medical imaging systems and related equipment”
that relied on a 103-respondent test group and a 130 respondent control group. See Codonics, Inc. v. Datcard Systems,
Inc., No. 1:08CV1885, 2009 WL 5454582, at ¶ 14 (N.D. Ohio) (“After passing screening questions, 233 survey
respondents were asked to read a brochure for the PacsCube Express 100X and 200X. For 103 respondents, the
brochure was the actual brochure found on the DatCard website. For the other 130 respondents, page 4 of the brochure
was modified to remove references to UL in the product specification section found on that page.”).

10
EXHIBIT O -2229-

across 26 comparisons between the two experiments,4 and accounting for the sample size of
each question, it becomes clear that there are no significant differences in the behavior of the
control and the test groups. This means the results definitively show that there is no difference
in reaction to the control stimuli versus the test stimuli.
11.

Proper Questions Asked: Dr. Isaacson’s critique that the questions led to respondents’
confusion is speculative and contrary to common sense.
a.

First, he lists vague questions that are anything but. No reasonable respondent would
interpret an answer of “yes” to “Do you recall if you had to pay state fees to the state for
Incorporation with the free offer?” to mean “Yes, I recall that there were no state fees to
pay.” See Isaacson Reb. at 18, ¶ 62.i. Likewise, no reasonable consumer would intend
a “yes” in response to “Do you recall if the free trial has a time limit?” to mean “Yes, I
recall that there was no time limit.” Id. at 18, ¶ 62.ii. Such interpretation of these
questions ignores common sense.

b.

Second, he criticizes Question 14a as being vague regarding time.

But time is

irrelevant to the question. It asks what a consumer is “likely to do,” full stop. When the
consumer is likely to take the relevant action, whether now or in the next few months,
has no bearing on whether or not it will happen, which is the salient point.
c.

Third, Dr. Isaacson criticizes two questions essentially for allowing the respondent to
draw on the full context of the ad, including the respondent’s prior knowledge. But this
is the real world! Consumers don’t behave in a vacuum. As throughout his criticism, this
point disregards the court’s dictate and correct consumer research methodology that
ads be considered in their full context.

A consumer’s sophistication is part of that

context. See Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1161 (“Whether an

4

See Wind Report, Incorporation Tables 1-14, 16; Other Legal Services Tables 1-10, 12.

11
EXHIBIT O -2230-

advertisement is ‘misleading’ must be judged by the effect it would have on a
reasonable consumer.”); see also Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 105 Cal. App. 4th
496, 504 (2003) (rejecting “least sophisticated consumer” standard).
d.

Fourth, Dr. Isaacson criticizes the failure to define “online legal services” in question S9
and S11a. But he ignores that any respondent included in the survey results had to
have also seen and responded to question S10a and/or S11b, both of which listed
specific online legal services. And in any case, “online legal services” is not a complex
term requiring a definition for a reasonable consumer.

e.

Fifth, Dr. Isaacson seems to assert that every question should have included a “don’t
know” response. However, as Dr. Isaacson’s own criticism notes, the lack of a “don’t
know” option only poses a problem where an opinion is sought. The questions he
criticizes are not matters of opinion, but screening questions to which any reasonable
consumer will be able to provide a response, such as S8a, “Which of the following best
describes your position with your company”; S8b “Do you have any aspirations or plan
to start your own company/business”; and S12 “In the event you were in need of online
legal services, which of the following describes your role in determining how to go about
obtaining these services” (assessing whether respondent would be a decision maker).

f.

Sixth, Dr. Isaacson criticizes the survey’s decision tree, but his criticism shows he does
not understand the meaning of the tree diagram. The decision tree is not designed to
mirror the stages of decision making by the respondent, nor should it be. Its aim is to
identify the allegedly harmed population—that is individuals who saw a value in the
advertisement in question, did not understand the terms of the service offered, and
actually gave business to Rocket Lawyer on that basis. Any consumer who does not fit
this description is outside of the population relevant to LegalZoom’s claims, and is
12
EXHIBIT O -2231-

therefore irrelevant to this litigation (except to show that consumers are not, in fact,
misled by Rocket Lawyer’s advertisements).5
12.

Proper Methods and Personnel: Dr. Isaacson poses a number of questions regarding the
preparation of the survey. I answer each below:
a.

Who wrote the questionnaire? I wrote the questionnaire and Radius Global Market
Research (“Radius”) formatted the questionnaire. At all times, Radius was under my
overall supervision.

b.

Were the survey responses validated?

One does not validate internet panel

responses.6
c.

Who coded the survey responses? As stated in my report on page 21, open-ended
responses were coded by a professional coder who did not know the purpose of the
experiment or identity of the sponsor.

d.

Which codes are assigned to which responses? The coding tabulations and framework
were provided in the Appendices to my report, also provided on April 15, 2014.

e.

Who analyzed the survey data? I analyzed the survey data. Under my supervision,
Research Now collected the panel data, the independent coder coded the open ended
responses, Radius conducted the computer tabulation and project management, and
Abba Krieger, Professor of Statistics at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania,
conducted the statistical analysis.

5

Dr. Isaacson correctly points out that “the number of potentially-deceived people gets lower as one progresses through
the stages.” This results from the disclosures that are present at each of the stages. To view this as a criticism requires,
again, a belief that the advertisement should be viewed without any reference to its context and with disregard for how
consumers act in the real world. The advertisement must be viewed with reference to the numerous disclosures and
additional information provided on Rocket Lawyer’s website which is accessible by the link provided in each search
engine advertisement. See SJ Order at 7-8.
6
Validation is commonly done when interviewers are involved. The purpose of the validation is to ensure that the
interview actually took place. In an internet panel, which has many safeguards (see Rep. at 17-18), validation is rarely, if
ever, conducted.

13
EXHIBIT O -2232-

f.

Who generated the decision trees and how? Based on my understanding of the
allegations in this case, false advertising law, and Rocket Lawyer’s business practices, I
designed the decision trees to identify potentially harmed consumers.
i.

Those who did not chose Rocket Lawyer at the search engine ad were properly
eliminated from this population because they would not have chosen Rocket
Lawyer. I should note that they would not have necessarily chosen LegalZoom
either.7

ii.

Those who did not notice a free offer were properly eliminated because if they
were not drawn to Rocket Lawyer because of the allegedly misleading statement,
then they are irrelevant as they had other reasons to explore Rocket Lawyer.

iii.

Those who did not see value in the free offer were also properly eliminated
because the free offer was not material to their decision making. Many of these
respondents are part of the skeptical consumer population that has been growing
in recent years. The allegedly misleading statement would not have been a
reason why the skeptical consumer would have chosen to do business with
Rocket Lawyer.

iv.

Those who understood the entire free offer (state fees and the free trial) were
properly eliminated because they were not misled.

v.

Finally, those who did not provide business to Rocket Lawyer were properly
eliminated because they were not harmed, and accordingly, LegalZoom was not
harmed by any loss of sales.

13.

“Problematic” Reponses. Dr. Isaacson claims that there were 141 problematic responses
that should have been removed from the survey database. Isaacson Reb. at 3, 24. The basis

7

In fact, only about 66.2% of all respondents chose LegalZoom in response to Q2, . Wind Rep. at 25.

14
EXHIBIT O -2233-

for this opinion is that I (a) included those who may or may not look for online legal services
and did not do so in the past; (b) assigned to a service based on what they may or may not
look for in the future even though they had previously searched for online services; and (c)
includes questionable verbatim responses.
a.

May or May Not Respondents were properly included. As stated in paragraph 9
above, there is no reason to exclude respondents who said they “may or may not” look
for online legal services in the next six months. These respondents are part of the
relevant universe because they have the potential to search for and perhaps purchase
services from Rocket Lawyer. In addition, whether I had limited the sample to just those
who would Probably/Definitely look for online legal services in the near future, the
survey results would have been the same as there was no significant difference
between the results in the May or May Not and the Probably/Definitely groups.

b.

Respondents were not assigned the wrong service. There is no basis to conclude
that these users were assigned to the wrong service. Respondents were assigned the
service they were most likely to look for in the future.

c.

Verbatim responses were actual responses to the stimuli. Dr. Isaacson’s criticisms
of these verbatim responses demonstrates how unsound his methodology was. The
purpose of open ended responses is to gauge respondents’ reaction to the stimuli
without any guidance.

That some respondents provided responses that were not

relevant to the purpose of the survey for some questions is to be expected and is not a
basis for exclusion. Out of the 17 respondents he found to have provided questionable
responses, a vast majority provided substantive responses to the questionnaire when
viewed in its entirety.

Several of Dr. Isaacson’s examples provided “problematic”

responses to follow-up questions such as “anything else?” after they had already
15
EXHIBIT O -2234-

provided substantive responses in the prior question or on the whole, provided
substantive responses.8

Dr. Isaacson seeks exclusion of several respondents who

criticized the ad, the offer, or the website.9 Why these respondents should be excluded
is unclear, as these responses reflect the consumers’ reaction to the stimuli and gives
insight into why they may not have provided Rocket Lawyer with business.

Five

respondents did not provide substantive information in response to many of the open
ended questions. Isaacson Reb., Ex. 2 (Case IDs: 3260, 6348, 6624, 6964, 7251).
However, each of these respondents responded to the closed end question and all
(except one, 3260) provided some substantive responses to open ended questions. Id.
Dr. Isaacson’s criticism of these respondents is consistent with his unsound
methodology: In his survey, he eliminated between 62% and 69.9% of the responses
provided in his survey by relegating them to a category called “other themes” that he did
not analyze further. Isaacson Rep. at 23. As stated in my rebuttal report from May 15,
2014, many of these “other themes” contained information relevant to this case, but that
did not favor LegalZoom. See Wind Reb. at 21-25. Such biased analysis is improper
and not consistent with sound survey methodology or my practice.10
VI. Summary of Response to Dr. Isaacson’s Conclusions
14.

Dr. Isaacson’s Rebuttal Report should be disregarded as invalid. Nothing in the report
undermines the findings of my survey, where information was gathered based on realistic
stimuli and through unbiased open ended and closed end questions. My study had the proper

8

Case IDs: 2040, 2233,5648, 6392, 6499. Attached hereto as Appendix C are the complete responses of these
respondents. Dr. Isaacson only provided partial scripts of the verbatim responses for these respondents in his Rebuttal.
The full verbatims are provided to demonstrate how fully these individuals responded to the questionnaire. Not providing
additional follow-up information to open ended questions is no basis for excluding these individuals.
9
Case IDs:5817, 6581, 6582, 6624, 6657, 6766, 6886, 7068, Attached hereto as Appendix D are the complete responses
of these respondents. The full verbatims are provided for each of these respondents to demonstrate how these
consumers responded to the questionnaire and that there is no reason to exclude their actual reactions from my analysis.
10
By on average removing 64.9% of respondents across the test and control groups in both experiments, Dr. Isaacson’s
real sample size is approximately 415 respondents – smaller than my sample size, which he criticizes.

16
EXHIBIT O -2235-

stimuli, design, universe, a large enough sample size, a logical and non-leading questionnaire,
personnel, and impartial analysis that included all responses provided by respondents.
15.

My opinion and conclusions stand. Nothing in Dr. Isaacson’s criticisms or his own study
raise any doubts in my mind that my conclusions are valid and that the Court can rely on them.

June 27, 2014

Respectfully,

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

17
EXHIBIT O -2236-