In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation

Filing 52

MOTION for Settlement (Preliminary Approval) filed by Paloma Gaos. Motion Hearing set for 8/23/2013 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Edward J. Davila. Responses due by 8/2/2013. Replies due by 8/9/2013. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Declaration - Aschenbrener, #2 Exhibit Declaration - Chorowsky, #3 Exhibit Settlement Agreement, #4 Exhibit Declaration - Simmons, #5 Exhibit Declaration - Nassiri, #6 Exhibit Proposed Order)(Aschenbrener, Michael) (Filed on 7/19/2013)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page1 of 98

EXHIBIT 4

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page2 of 98

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

KASSRA P. NASSIRI (215405)
([e-mail])
NASSIRI & JUNG LLP
47 Kearny Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, California 94108
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
MICHAEL J. ASCHENBRENER (SBN 277114)
[e-mail]
ASCHENBRENER LAW, P.C.
795 Folsom Street, First Floor
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

15
16
17

In re GOOGLE REFERRER HEADER
PRIVACY LITIGATION

18
19
20

__________________________________

21
22

Case No. 5:10-cv-04809-EJD
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W.
SIMMONS REGARDING
CLASS NOTICE
Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:

August 23, 2013
9:00 a.m.
Courtroom 4, 5th Floor
Hon. Edward J. Davila

This Document Relates To: All Actions

23
24
25
26
27
28

DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS REGARDING CLASS NOTICE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page3 of 98

1

STATE OF MINNESOTA

2
3

)
) SS

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN

)

4
5
6

I, Richard W. Simmons, declare as follows:
1.

I am the Managing Director of BMC Group Class Action Services (“BMC Group”), a

7

firm with offices near Minneapolis, Minnesota, that provides consulting services relating to the design

8

and administration of class action and mass tort litigation settlements and notice programs.

9

2.

I am responsible for designing the Notice Plan for the proposed settlement in this matter

10

and for overseeing BMC Group’s execution of the Notice Plan. I am over 21 years of age, and I have

11

personal knowledge of the facts herein and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently

12

thereto.

13
14
15

3.

This declaration is based on my personal knowledge, information provided by BMC

Group personnel, and information provided by BMC Group’s media partners.
4.

This declaration describes:

16

a. the methodology used to create the proposed Notice Plan;

17

b. the proposed Notice Plan;

18

c. the digital media (Internet) Notice;

19

d. the Notice design;

20

e. the calculation and verification of reach and frequency;

21

f. earned media;

22

g. the toll-free helpline; and,

23

h.

QUALIFICATIONS

24
25

the Settlement website.

5.

Since 1974, BMC Group has consulted regarding the administration of class action

26

settlements involving, antitrust, consumer fraud, employment, insurance, product liability,

27

discrimination, and securities litigation. For nearly four decades, BMC Group has pioneered

28

developments in landmark consumer, mass tort/personal injury, and securities litigation settlements.
1
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS REGARDING CLASS NOTICE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page4 of 98

1

BMC Group experts led the development of analysis in antitrust litigation (In re Corrugated Container

2

Antitrust Litigation, MDL 310) and helped develop statistical models that are still used today to

3

determine the existence and impact of discrimination (Rajender v. University of Minnesota, No. 4-73-

4

435 (D.Minn)).

5

6.

I joined BMC Group in 1990, and have twenty-three years of experience in designing and

6

implementing class action settlements and notice campaigns. The settlements I have managed range in

7

size from fewer than 100 class members to more than 40 million, including some of the largest and most

8

complex notice and claims administration programs in history.

9

7.

I have been accepted as an expert and testified in state and federal courts as to the design

10

and implementation of notice programs, claims processes, and the impact attorney communications has

11

had on claims rates. As has always been my practice, I personally performed or oversaw BMC Group’s

12

consulting services in each of the cases indicated on my CV, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

13

8.

I have also presented to panels of judges and lawyers on issues regarding class notice,

14

claims processing, and disbursement.

15

workshop/meeting regarding class action notice and settlement administration. I have co-authored and

16

presented CLE programs regarding class notice and class action claims administration.

17

9.

In 2011, I was a panelist at the Federal Judicial Center’s

My clients include corporations, law firms (both plaintiff and defense), the Department of

18

Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission, which since 1998

19

has retained BMC Group (with me specifically as the designated “Contractor’s Representative”) to

20

administer and provide expert advice regarding notice and claims processing in their

21

settlements/distribution funds. I have consulted with the Federal Trade Commission regarding the

22

design of media campaigns to provide notice to individuals whose identities and mailing addresses are

23

unknown regarding the existence of a claims fund.

24

10.

In addition to my class action consulting work, I have taught a college course in antitrust

25

economics, have been a guest lecturer at the University of Minnesota Law School on issues of statistical

26

and economic analysis, was a charter member of the American Academy of Economic and Financial

27

Experts, and am a former referee for the Journal of Legal Economics (reviewing and critiquing peer

28

reviewed articles on the application of economic and statistical analysis to legal issues).
2
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS REGARDING CLASS NOTICE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page5 of 98

1

11.

In forming my opinions, I draw from my in-depth class action case experience, as well as

2

my educational and related work experiences. I graduated from St. Olaf College with a B.A. in

3

Economics, have pursued extensive graduate level statistics and consumer economics work at the

4

University of Minnesota, and received formal media planning training from New York University.

5
6

METHODOLOGY
12.

Working with BMC Group’s media partner, Mediasmith, BMC Group has designed a

7

Notice Plan that primarily utilizes digital (Internet) based advertisements to reach members of the

8

proposed Settlement Class (“Class Member” or “Class”). In developing this Notice Plan, we took into

9

account the nature of the class, the demographics of class members, and shifts in consumer consumption

10

patterns from print to digital media. This Notice Plan relies upon the same contemporary advertising

11

methodologies that are relied upon by companies and advertising agencies world wide to target

12

audiences and deliver advertising messages, including demographic profiling, audience targeting, and

13

advertisement delivery to provide targeted notice of the proposed settlement to Class Members. .

14

13.

The standard method to measure the effectiveness of a media campaign is to calculate it’s

15

“reach and frequency.” These are calculated used established practices and statistical models developed

16

for the marketing and advertising industries. Reach is the estimated percentage of an audience (Class

17

Members) thatwill be exposed one or more times to a message (the Class Notice) during a given period

18

of time. Frequency is the estimated average number of times an audience is exposed to a vehicle

19

carrying the message within a given period of time.

20

14.

The digital Notice program, and the measurement of the effectiveness of that program,

21

will be based on data provided by comScore. comScore is a global Internet information provider on

22

which companies and advertising agencies rely for data regarding consumer behavior and Internet usage.

23

comScore maintains a proprietary database capturing more than 1 trillion transactions monthly, equal to

24

almost 40% of the monthly page views of the entire Internet. Leading advertising and media firms rely

25

on comScore data to design online media campaigns and to measure and verify the effectiveness of

26

those campaigns

27

CLASS MEMBERS AND SEARCH ENGINE USAGE

28
3
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS REGARDING CLASS NOTICE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page6 of 98

1

15.

It is my understanding that the proposed Settlement Class includes “[a]ll persons in the

2

United States who submitted a search query to Google at any time between October 25, 2006 and the

3

date of the notice to the class of certification.” By definition, all of the interaction between Google and

4

Class Members occurred on-line.

5
6

16.

Since the beginning of the class period, search engine use has been the most popular

online activity. 54% of search engine users indicate that they use a search engine at least once a day. 1
17.

7

To conduct a search, users formulate a search query using keywords and phrases

8

reflecting the information sought by the user. The search engine then matches the search query with

9

websites matching the query and provides a search engine results page identifying relevant websites to

10

the user. According to Alexa, the average Google.com visitor has 15.5 daily page views and spends an

11

average of 14.5 minutes on Google.com2.

12

18.

Google Search (or Google Web Search) is the most used search engine on the Internet,

13

with a market share of ranging from 70% to 80% of all Internet users3. According to Quantcast4, Google

14

is the highest ranked (visited) website in the United States. During 2013, it is estimated that between 183

15

million and 204 million persons in the Unites States used Google per month5.

16

19.

An account (or registration) is not required to conduct a search using Google.com. Thus,

17

the names and addresses for Class Members are not readily available, and providing notice directly to

18

Class Members by mail is not a feasible option. In instances where Google also provides email service

19

to class members, because individuals have multiple email addresses, it is not currently possible to

20

determine the reach of notice, if any, provided by email addresses should they be available.

21

PROPOSED NOTICE PLAN

22
23

20.

The objective of the proposed Notice Plan is to provide notice of the proposed Settlement

to Class Members in a manner that satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

24
25
26
27
28

1

Pew Internet, Search Engine Use 2012, pp. 5-6.
See http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/google.com#keywords (last visited July 15, 2013).
3
See http://marketshare.hitslink.com/search-engine-market-share.aspx?qprid=5&qpcustomb=0 (last visited July 15, 2013).
4
Quantcast is a digital advertising company specialized in audience measurement and real-time advertising. As the pioneer
of direct audience measurement in 2006, Quantcast has today the most in-depth understanding of digital audiences across the
web.
5
See https://www.quantcast.com/google.com#!traffic (last visited July 15, 2013).
2

4
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS REGARDING CLASS NOTICE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page7 of 98

1

Procedure. To meet that objective, we have designed the Notice Plan to satisfy the notice guidelines

2

established by the Federal Judicial Center’s Manual for Complex Litigation, 4th Edition (2004) and the

3

Federal Judicial Center’s Judges’ Class Action Notice and Claims Process Checklist and Plain

4

Language Guide (2010).

5

Target Audience

6

21.

As noted above, it is my understanding that the proposed class includes “[a]ll persons in

7

the United States who submitted a search query to Google at any time between October 25, 2006 and the

8

date of the notice to the class of certification.”

9

22.

To develop a profile of potential Class Members, my staff and I relied upon data made

10

available by the Pew Research Center Internet & American Life Project (www.pewinternet.org) as well

11

as nationally syndicated media research bureaus such as comScore6.

12
13

23.

The Pew Internet and American Life Project provides a comprehensive view of Internet

Users and their usage of Search Engines (See Exhibit B). In summary:

14

a. 80% of all American Adult Males are online and 90% have used search engines;

15

b. 82% of all American Adult Females are online and 92% have used search engines;

16

c. Internet usage increases with education, with only 51% of adults with no high school

17

diploma utilizing the Internet (of which 78% utilized a search engine), while 95% of

18

adults with at least a college degree utilize the Internet (of which 95% have used a search

19

engine.

20

24.

In order to directly target class members for the purpose of notice/digital media planning,

21

comScore data was studied among individuals aged 18 or older in the United States who have visited

22

Google.com within the last six months. This group represents and 129,979,000 individuals, or 72.6% of

23

the US Internet population.

24

25.

Accordingly, while there is some targeting that can be done to target individuals who

25

conducted searches using Google, the primary goal in this matter is to effectuate the wide spread

26

distribution of information regarding the settlement.

27

6

28

comScore is a global Internet information provider on which companies and advertising agencies rely for data regarding consumer
behavior and Internet usage. comScore maintains a proprietary database capturing more than 1 trillion transactions monthly, equal to
almost 40% of the monthly page views of the entire Internet. Leading advertising and media firms rely on comScore data to design online
media campaigns and to measure and verify the effectiveness of those campaigns.

5
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS REGARDING CLASS NOTICE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page8 of 98

1
2

Selection of Media
26.

In the past few years, American consumers have significantly shifted their consumption

3

of media from print-based consumption to online consumption. In response to this consumer shift in

4

consumption, advertisers have moved advertising spending from print-based advertising spending to

5

online-based spending:

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

27.

In the year 2000, advertisers spent a collective $72.68 billion on magazine and newspaper

20

advertising. In 2005, this number increased to $74.14 billion. It has since been on a significant and

21

steady decline, totaling $36.0 billion in 2011. During the same period, online spending is projected to

22

significantly surpass print media advertising.

23

discontinuance by Newsweek Magazine of its print edition.

24

28.

This effect of this is shown, for example, by the

Consequently, because: (a) the class consists of individuals who are online; (b) the lack

25

of available information regarding class members (physical or email addresses); (c) the ability to

26

communicate the same message via banner advertisements as you would with either the outside of an

27

envelope or the subject line of an email; and (d) the ability to control the volume of and target digital

28
6
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS REGARDING CLASS NOTICE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page9 of 98

1

advertisement, published notice via Internet banner advertising represents the best notice practicable in

2

this matter.

3

Notice Plan

4
5

29.

The proposed Notice Plan was designed to reach a substantial percentage of Class

Members with multiple opportunities to be exposed to the Notice via four media channels:

6

a. Internet-based notice using paid banner ads targeted to potential class members;

7

b. Notice via earned media - nationwide press release via PR Newswire’s US1 distribution

8

to more than 7,000 traditional media outlets (print, TV, and radio) and 5,700 online

9

outlets;

10

c. A dedicated case website through which Class Members can obtain more detailed

11

information about the Settlements and access case documents; and,

12

d. A toll-free telephone helpline by which Class Members can obtain additional information

13

about the Settlements and request a Notice.

14

30.

In providing guidance on meeting the standards of Rule 23, the Judicial Conference has

15

set presumptive acceptable reach benchmarks at 70% to 95%.7 In order to reach 70%+ of Class

16

Members, BMC Group will utilize a web-based notice campaign utilizing banner-style notices that link

17

directly to the to the Settlement website.

18

31.

Digital notice will be provided through the use of targeted Internet advertising. Banner

19

advertisements will be placed on a wide range of websites targeted to meet the demographics of the

20

Class, enabling maximum exposure opportunities to reach the Target Audience.

21

32.

The banner notices will appear in standard Internet (IAB) formats, and will include

22

Leaderboard (728 x 90) and Medium Rectangle (300 x 250) size alternatives. These advertisements will

23

appear on a of a subset group of websites known as the “comScore 2000,” which represents the top

24

2,000 highest trafficked websites on the Internet. The banner notices will run on a website when the

25

website’s demographics match our target audience. Spanish language banner ads will be displayed on

26

Spanish language websites.

27
28

7

Federal Judicial Center, Judges’ Class Action Notice Claims Process Checklist and Plain Language Guide (2010)

7
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS REGARDING CLASS NOTICE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page10 of 98

1

33.

To further target the appropriate demographic, we will place targeting filters on the

2

Internet advertising based upon the comScore demographic profile of class members. Once this is

3

complete the next step is choosing which websites and in which ad locations to display the Notice. In

4

part, this choice is based upon the relative cost and effectiveness of the individual websites, Cost and

5

effectiveness is evaluated by previous notice campaigns, comparative data, and overall knowledge of the

6

digital space. All advertisements purchased will be priced on a “cost-per-thousand impressions”

7

(“CPM”) basis and vary based on available inventory and real time market pricing.

8

34.

In this case, we will reach potential Class Members on popular, highly trafficked

9

websites and focus on banner advertisements that are “above the fold” – i.e., on the top half of the

10

webpage that the user first sees when going to a site. Sample websites include: NYTimes.com,

11

Huffingtonpost.com, Yahoo.com, Weather.com, LAtimes.com, LinkedIn.com, Facebook.com.

12

35.

All banner advertisements will be linked directly to the Case Website. This provides the

13

ability to transfer Class Members directly from a summary message regarding the settlement to a

14

comprehensive online resource providing detailed information regarding the Settlement. Specifically,

15

users who “click” on our banner advertisements will be routed directly to the website, where they will

16

find information regarding the case in greater detail. This combination of reaching our audience and

17

connecting them to greater detail via the Settlement website provides us with a comprehensive approach

18

to inform Class Members of the Settlement.
36.

19

The Notice Plan outlined in Exhibit C has been designed to reach 70.8% of class

20

members with a frequency of 2.2 times each8 through 202 million targeted digital impressions. Coverage

21

and exposure will be further increased by the earned media campaign, the website and the toll-free

22

helpline. Moreover, this Notice Plan can be rapidly altered to meet a higher percentage of the class by

23

increasing digital impressions, if necessary.

24

37.

While the primary goal is to reach as many Internet users as possible, the plan also targets

25

a subset of Internet users that are “security conscious”. This target audience, defined using comScore

26

data and definitions, includes individuals who: a) use Google Search, and (b) have high on-line security

27
28

8

One advantage of digital media over traditional print media is that the scope, reach and frequency of the campaign can be
adjusted to meet Court requirements, including alternate target audiences or changing class definitions.

8
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS REGARDING CLASS NOTICE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page11 of 98

1

consciousness or are highly worries about online financial transaction security, and (c) are influential

2

and frequently advices other on Internet content/services. This supplemental plan has been designed to

3

increase the reach among these individuals to 91.8% and the frequency to 3.1 times each through an

4

additional 12.8 million targeted digital impressions.

5

38.

The number of times that a Class Member sees a notice will be limited (so we do not

6

have instances where some class members are inundated and others receive no opportunities to see the

7

Notice). This method of controlling exposure is called "frequency capping." A frequency cap limits the

8

number of times a given ad is served to a unique user. In this program, we are planning a frequency cap

9

of 2.0, meaning we will only show our ads to unique web browsers two times.

10

39.

Frequency capping will be based on the use of "cookies." A cookie, or browser cookie, is

11

a piece of data sent from a website and stored on user's computer. As used here, cookies were designed

12

to remember when an individual is shown an advertisement. Using this method, we can effectively cap

13

the number of times a unique web browser is shown a notice banner.

14

40.

The measurement of the delivery of the Internet-based Notice will be accurate because

15

browser-based “cookies” will enable precise tracking of where and to which particular Internet Protocol

16

(“IP”) addresses – unique identifiers assigned to each computer browsing the Internet – the Notice was

17

delivered and displayed.

18
19

41.

implementation of the Notice Plan and provide the final reach and frequency results.

20
21

At the conclusion of the Notice Plan, BMC Group will provide a final report verifying

NOTICE DESIGN
42.

Rule 23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that class action notices be

22

written in “plain, easily understood language.” The proposed Notices – a concise “Summary Notice” and

23

more comprehensive “Long Form Notice” – have been designed to be noticed, read and understood by

24

potential Class Members. Both the Summary Notice and the Long Form Notice, which will be available

25

to those who call the toll-free helpline or visit the website, contain substantial, easy-to-understand

26

descriptions containing all key information about the Settlements and Class Members’ rights and

27

options. The Long Form Notice will also be available in Spanish. A copy of the Long Form Notice is

28
9
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS REGARDING CLASS NOTICE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page12 of 98

1

attached as Exhibit D. Copies of the Banner Advertisements, substantially similar to the ads that will be

2

published, are attached as Exhibit E.

3

CALCULATION OF REACH AND FREQUENCY

4

Reach

5

43.

Using standard advertising media industry methodologies, we arrive at a net percentage

6

reach of approximately 73.1% of likely Class Members. Reach will be further enhanced by the press

7

release and case website.

8
9

Average Frequency of Exposure
44.

The Notice Plan is intended to provide Class members with the opportunity to view and

10

understand the Notice and their rights, including their right to exclude themselves from the litigation. A

11

by-product of a broad reaching notice effort is the frequency of notice exposure that results from the

12

overlapping media audiences. For example, each potential Class Member reached will, on average, have

13

2.2 exposure opportunities to the Notice.
EARNED MEDIA

14
15

45.

The proposed Notice Plan will also include earned media to supplement the paid media

16

portion of the plan. “Earned media” refers to promotional efforts outside of direct, paid media

17

placement. The earned media efforts will provide additional awareness of the Settlement to Class

18

Members, though the effect is not measurable as is it with the paid media portion of the Notice

19

campaign.

20

46.

Concurrent with the launch of the print and online Notices, BMC Group will release a

21

national press release via PR Newswire. The press release will be distributed by PR Newswire to 5,815

22

newspapers, television stations, radio stations and magazines. In addition, PR Newswire will send the

23

press release to approximately 5,400 websites and online databases, including all major search engines.
Case Website

24
25
26
27
28

47.

Prior to the launch of the print and web-based media campaigns, BMC Group will

coordinate and integrate into the Notice Plan a Settlement website at www.googlesearchsettlement.com.
48.

Supporting the digital advertisements will be a neutral Website that will provide Class

Members the opportunity to obtain additional information and documents about the litigation. The
10
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS REGARDING CLASS NOTICE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page13 of 98

1

website address will be cited in all notice materials and will be registered with search engines to make i

2

easier to locate the website when searching for various related keyword combinations. The websit

3

established and maintained by BMC Group will be accessible 24-hours a day, 7-days a week.

4

49.

BMC Group has worked with counsel to develop the content for the Settlement website

5

The website will be published in both English and Spanish and will provide Class Members with genera

6

information about the Settlements, answers to frequently asked questions, important date and deadlin

7

information, a summary of Settlement benefits, a means by which to review and print copies of certai

8

Settlement documents including the Long Form Notice in both English and Spanish and a link to contac

9

the Settlement Administrator via email.

10
11

Other
50.

Additionally, a toll free number will be established to allow Class Members to call an

12

listen to answers to frequently asked questions and request to have a Detailed Notice mailed to them

13

The toll free number will be prominently displayed in all notice documents. The toll free numbe

14

established and maintained by BMC Group will be accessible 24-hours a day, 7-days a week.

15

16

51.

A post office box will also be established to allow Class Members the opportunity t

request additional information or ask questions by mail.

17
18

CONCLUSION
52.

In class action notice planning, execution, and analysis, we are guided by due proces

19

considerations, local rules and statutes, and case law pertaining to notice. Sound code of conduct an

20

communications planning practices also mandate that the notice program be designed to reach th

21

greatest practicable number of potential class members and, in a situation such as this, that the notice o

22

notice program itself should not limit the ability of class members to exercise their rights in any way

23

All of these requirements will be met in this case.

24
25

53.

I believe the Notice Program will provide the best notice practicable under th

circumstances of this case.

26
27

28

Richard W. Simmons
11
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS REGARDING CLASS NOTICE
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page14 of 98

EXHIBIT 4-A

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page15 of 98

RICHARD W. SIMMONS
EDUCATION
St. Olaf College
Northfield, Minnesota, 1986-1990
Bachelor of Arts in Economics with Concentration in Quantitative Methods
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, Minnesota, 1994-2000
A.B.D: Completion of all graduate study and preliminary exams. Dissertation suspended
due to management of class action and mass tort consulting practice
Fields:

Microeconomics
Econometrics
Consumption and Household Economics
Industrial Organization: Prices and Markets
Natural Resource and Energy Economics

New York University
New York City, New York, 2012
Media Planning, Buying, and Analysis
Other Training
GfK MRI: Media Planning - MRI Methodology 101
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Managing Director
BMC Group Class Action Services
18750 Lake Drive East
Chanhassen, MN 55331
Date:

May 2008 to Present
January 2002 to May 2008 (President)
May 1997 to December 2002 (Vice President)
May 1996 to May 1997 (Principal)
June 1990 to May 1996 (Associate)

Instructor, Department of Economics
Industrial Organization/Antitrust Economics
St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN
Date:
June 1998 to December 1998

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page16 of 98

ARTICLES AND MONOGRAPHS
Richard W. Simmons and Richard C. Hoyt, "Economic Damage Analysis in Rule 10b-5
Securities Litigation" Journal of Legal Economics, March 1993.
Richard W. Simmons and Richard C. Hoyt, “Calibration of Damage Models in Rule 10b-5
Securities Litigation” May 1995 Working Paper.
Richard W. Simmons, “Optimal Regulation of Polluting Oligopolists,” February 1998 Working
Paper.
Richard W. Simmons, “Is Your Claims Administrator Out of Control? What You Need to Know
to About Protecting Class Member Data, Your Firm, And Your Reputation.” August
2011 Monograph
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PRESENTATIONS
Developments in Class Action Notice and Claims Administration, 2010 – 2011
Data Privacy and Class Action/Mass Tort Settlements, 2011
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Panelist, Federal Judicial Center Workshop on Class Action Settlements, 2011
Charter Member, American Academy of Economic and Financial Experts
Former Referee, Journal of Legal Economics

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page17 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 1 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Antitrust

All Star Carts and Vehicles, Inc., et al. v. BFI Canada Income Fund, et al.
08-CV-1816 (E.D. NY
In re Aftermarket Filters Antitrust Litigation
No. 1:08-cv-4883, MDL No. 1957 (N.D. Ill.)
In re Aftermarket Filters Antitrust Litigation
No. 1:08-cv-4883, MDL No. 1957 (N.D. Ill.)
In Re: Aluminum Phosphide Antitrust Litigation
Case No. 93-cv-2452 (D. Kan.)
In Re: Beef Antitrust Litigation
MDL No. 248 (N.D. Tex.)
In Re: Bromine Antitrust Litigation
MDL No. 1310 (S.D. Ind.)
In Re: Industrial Silicon Antitrust Litigation
Case No. 95-cv-2104 (W.D. Pa.)
In Re: Workers Compensation Insurance Antitrust Litigation
Case No. 4:85-cv-1166 (D. Minn.)
Red Eagle Resources Corporation, Inc., et al. v. Baker Hughes Inc., et al.
Case No. 91-cv-627 (S.D. Tex.)

Rob'n I, Inc., et al. v. Uniform Code Counsel, Inc.
Case No. 03-cv-203796-1 (Spokane County, Wash.)
Sarah F. Hall d/b/a Travel Specialist, et al. v. United Airlines, Inc., et al.
Case No. 7:00-cv-123-BR(1) (E.D. S.C.)
Business

Afton House Corp. v. Genesco, Inc.
Case No. 4:75-cv-271 (D. Minn.)
American Golf Schools, LLC, et al. v. EFS National Bank, et al.
Case No. 00-cv-005208 (D. Tenn.)
AVR, Inc. and Amidon Graphics v. Churchill Truck Lines
Case No. 4:96-cv-401 (D. Minn.)
Do Right's Plant Growers, et al. v. RSM EquiCo, Inc., et al.
Case No. 06-CC-00137 (Orange County, Cal.)
F.T.C. v. Ameritel Payphone Distributors
Case No. 00-cv-514 (S.D. Fla.)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page18 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 2 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Business

F.T.C. v. Datacom Marketing, Inc.
Case No. 06-cv-2574 (N.D. Ill.)
F.T.C. v. Davison & Associates, Inc.
Case No. 97-cv-01278 (W.D. Pa.)
F.T.C. v. Fidelity ATM, Inc.
Case No. 06-cv-81101 (S.D. Fla.)
F.T.C. v. Financial Resources Unlimited, Inc.
Case No. 03-cv-8864 (N.D. Ill.)
F.T.C. v. First American Payment Processing Inc.
Case No. 04-cv-0074 (D. Ariz.)
F.T.C. v. Group C Marketing, Inc.
Case No. 06-cv-6019 (C.D. Cal.)
F.T.C. v. Jordan Ashley, Inc.
Case No. 09-cv-23507 (S.D. Fla.)
F.T.C. v. Medical Billers Network, Inc.
Case No. 05-cv-2014 (S.D. N.Y.)
F.T.C.  v.  Minuteman  Press  Int’l
Case No. 93-cv-2496 (E.D. N.Y.)

F.T.C. v. Netfran Development Corp
Case No. 05-cv-22223 (S.D. Fla.)
F.T.C. v. USA Beverages, Inc
Case No. 05-cv-61682 (S.D. Fla.)
F.T.C. v. USA Beverages, Inc.
Case No. 05-cv-61682 (S.D. Fla.)
Garcia, et al. v. Allergan, Inc.
11-CV-9811 (C.D. CA)
Physicians of Winter Haven LLC v. STERIS Corp.
Case No. 1:10-cv-00264 (N.D. Ohio)
Todd Tompkins, Doug Daug and Timothy Nelson v. BASF Corporation, e
Case No. 96-cv-59 (D. N.D.)
United States of America v. $1,802,651.56 in Funds Seized from E-Bulli
Case No. 09-cv-01731 (C.D. Cal.)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page19 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 3 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Business

Waxler Transportation Company, Inc. v. Trinity Marine Products, Inc., e
Case No. 08-cv-01363 (E.D. La.)

Civil Rights

Cazenave, et al. v. Sheriff Charles C. Foti, Jr., et al.
Case No. 00-cv-1246 (E.D. La.)
Garcia, et al v. Metro Gang Strike Force, et al.
Case No. 09-cv-01996 (D. Minn.)
Gregory Garvey, Sr., et al. v. Frederick B. MacDonald & Forbes Byron
3:07-cv-30049 (S.D. Mass.)
McCain, et al. v. Bloomberg, et al.
Case No. 41023/83 (New York)
Nancy Zamarron, et al. v. City of Siloam Springs, et al.
Case No. 08-cv-5166 (W.D. Ark.)
Nathan Tyler, et al. v. Suffolk County, et al.
Case No. 1:06-cv-11354 (S.D. Mass.)
Nilsen v. York County
Case No. 02-cv-212 (D. Me.)
Richard S. Souza et al. v. Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson
2002-0870 BRCV (Superior Ct., Mass.)

Travis Brecher, et al. v. St. Croix County, Wisconsin, et al.
Case No. 02-cv-0450-C (W.D. Wisc.)
Consumer

Andrew J. Hudak, et al. v. United Companies Lending Corporation
Case No. 334659 (Cuyahoga County, Ohio)
Angela Doss, et al. v. Glenn Daniels Corporation
Case No. 02-cv-0787 (E.D. Ill.)
Anthony Talalai, et al. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company
Case No. L-008830-00-MT (Middlesex County, NJ)
Ballard, et al. v. A A Check Cashiers, Inc., et al.
Case No. 01-cv-351 (Washingotn County, Ark.)
Belinda Peterson, et al. v. H & R Block Tax Services, Inc.
Case No. 95-CH-2389 (Cook County, Ill.)
Carideo et al. v. Dell, Inc.
Case No. 06-cv-1772 (W.D. Wash.)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page20 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 4 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Consumer

Carnegie v. Household International, Inc.
No. 98-C-2178 (N.D. Ill.)
Clair Loewy v. Live Nation Worldwide Inc.
Case No. 11-cv-04872 (N.D. Ill.)
Covey, et al. v. American Safety Council, Inc.
2010-CA-009781-0 (Orange County, FL)
Cummins, et al. v. H&R Block, et al.
Case No. 03-C-134 (Kanawha County, W.V.)
David and Laurie Seeger, et al. v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC
No. 09-CI-3094, (Boone Circuit Court, Boone County, Ky.)
Don C. Lundell, et al. v. Dell, Inc.
Case No. 05-cv-03970 (N.D. Cal.)
Duffy v. Security Pacific Autmotive Financial Services Corp., et al.
Case No. 3:93-cv-00729 (S.D. Cal.)
Edward Hawley, et al. v. American Pioneer Title Insurance Company
No. CA CE 03-016234 (Broward County, Fla.)
F.T.C. and The People of the State of New York v. UrbanQ
Case No. 03-cv-33147 (E.D. N.Y.)

F.T.C. v. 1st Beneficial Credit Services LLC
Case No. 02-cv-1591 (N.D. Ohio)
F.T.C. v. 9094-5114 Quebec, Inc.
Case No. 03-cv-7486 (N.D. Ill.)
F.T.C. v. Ace Group, Inc.
Case No. 08-cv-61686 (S.D. Fla.)
F.T.C. v. Affordable Media LLC
Case No. 98-cv-669 (D. Nev.)
F.T.C. v. AmeraPress, Inc.
Case No. 98-cv-0143 (N.D. Tex.)
F.T.C. v. American Bartending Institute, Inc., et al.
Case No. 05-cv-5261 (C.D. Cal.)
F.T.C. v. American International Travel Services Inc.
Case No. 99-cv-6943 (S.D. Fla.)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page21 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 5 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Consumer

F.T.C. v. Bigsmart.com, L.L.C., et al.
Case No. 01-cv-466 (D. Ariz.)
F.T.C. v. Call Center Express Corp.
Case No. 04-cv-22289 (S.D. Fla.)
F.T.C. v. Capital Acquistions and Management Corp.
Case No. 04-cv-50147 (N.D. Ill.)
F.T.C. v. Capital City Mortgage Corp.
Case No. 98-cv-00237 (D. D.C.)
F.T.C. v. Certified Merchant Services, Ltd., et al.
Case No. 4:02-cv-44 (E.D. Tex.)
F.T.C. v. Check Inforcement
Case No. 03-cv-2115 (D. N.J.)
F.T.C. v. Chierico et al.
Case No. 96-cv-1754 (S.D. Fla.)
F.T.C. v. Clickformail.com, Inc.
Case No. 03-cv-3033 (N.D. Ill.)
F.T.C. v. Consumer Credit Services
Case No. 96-cv-1990 (S.D. N.Y.)

F.T.C. v. Consumer Direct Enterprises, LLC.
Case No. 07-cv-479 (D. Nev.)
F.T.C. v. Debt Management Foundation Services, Inc.
Case No. 04-cv-1674 (M.D. Fla.)
F.T.C. v. Digital Enterprises, Inc.
Case No. 06-cv-4923 (C.D. Cal.)
F.T.C. v. Dillon Sherif
Case No. 02-cv-00294 (W.D. Wash.)
F.T.C. v. Discovery Rental, Inc., et al.
Case No: 6:00-cv-1057 (M.D. of Fla.)
F.T.C. v. EdebitPay, LLC.
Case No. 07-cv-4880 (C.D. Cal.)
F.T.C. v. Electronic Financial Group, Inc.
Case No. 03-cv-211 (W.D. Tex.)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page22 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 6 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Consumer

F.T.C. v. Eureka Solutions
Case No. 97-cv-1280 (W.D. Pa.)
F.T.C. v. Federal Data Services, Inc., et al.
Case No. 00-cv-6462 (S.D. Fla.)
F.T.C. v. Financial Advisors & Associates, Inc.
Case No. 08-cv-00907 (M.D. Fla.)
F.T.C. v. First Alliance Mortgage Co.
Case No. 00-cv-964 (C.D. Cal.)
F.T.C. v. First Capital Consumer Membership Services Inc., et al.
Case No. 1:00-cv-00905 (W.D. N.Y.)
F.T.C. v. First Capital Consumers Group, et al.
Case No. 02-cv-7456 (N.D. Ill.)
F.T.C. v. Franklin Credit Services, Inc.
Case No. 98-cv-7375 (S.D. Fla.)
F.T.C. v. Global Web Solutions, Inc., d/b/a USA Immigration Services, et
Case No. 03-cv-023031 (D. D.C.)
F.T.C. v. Granite Mortgage, LLC
Case No. 99-cv-289 (E.D. Ky.)

F.T.C. v. ICR Services, Inc.
Case No. 03-cv-5532 (N.D. Ill.)
F.T.C. v. iMall, Inc. et al.
Case No. 99-cv-03650 (C.D. Cal.)
F.T.C. v. Ira Smolev, et al.
Case No. 01-cv-8922 (S.D. Fla.)
F.T.C. v. Jeffrey L. Landers
Case No. 00-cv-1582 (N.D. Ga.)
F.T.C. v. Jewelway International, Inc.
Case No. 97-cv-383 (D. Ariz.)
F.T.C. v. Komaco International, Inc., et al.
Case No. 02-cv-04566 (C.D. Cal.)
F.T.C. v. LAP Financial Services, Inc.
Case No. 3:99-cv-496 (W.D. Ky.)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page23 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 7 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Consumer

F.T.C. v. Marketing & Vending, Inc. Concepts, L.L.C., et al.
Case No. 00-cv-1131 (S.D. N.Y.)
F.T.C. v. Mercantile Mortgage
Case No. 02-cv-5078 (N.D. Ill.)
F.T.C. v. Meridian Capital Management
Case No. 96-cv-63 (D. Nev.)
F.T.C. v. NAGG Secured Investments
Case No. 00-cv-02080 (W.D. Wash.)
F.T.C. v. National Consumer Counsil, Inc., et al.
Case No. 04-cv-0474 (C.D. Cal.)
F.T.C. v. National Credit Management Group
Case No. 98-cv-936 (D. N.J.)
F.T.C. v. National Supply & Data Distribution Services
Case No. 99-cv-128-28 (C.D. Cal.)
F.T.C. v. Nationwide Information Services, Inc.
Case No. 00-cv-06505 (C.D. Cal.)
F.T.C. v. Pace Corporation
Case No. 94-cv-3625 (N.D. Ill.)

F.T.C. v. Paradise Palms Vacation Club
Case No. 81-1160D (W.D. Wash.)
F.T.C. v. Patrick Cella, et al.
Case No. 03-cv-3202 (C.D. Cal.)
F.T.C. v. Platinum Universal, LLC
Case No. 03-cv-61987 (S. D. Fla.)
F.T.C. v. Raymond Urso
Case No. 97-cv-2680 (S.D. Fla.)
F.T.C. v. Robert S. Dolgin
Case No. 97-cv-0833 (N.D. Cal.)
F.T.C. v. Southern Maintenance Supplies
Case No. 99-cv-0975 (N.D. Ill.)
F.T.C. v. Star Publishing Group, Inc.
Case No. 00-cv-023D (D. Wy.)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page24 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 8 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Consumer

F.T.C. v. Stuffingforcash.com Corp.
Case No. 02-cv-5022 (N.D. Ill.)
F.T.C. v. Target Vending Systems, L.L.C., et al.
Case No. 00-cv-0955 (S.D. N.Y.)
F.T.C. v. The College Advantage, Inc.
Case No. 03-cv-179 (E.D. Tex.)
F.T.C. v. The Crescent Publishing Group, Inc., et al.
Case No. 00-cv-6315(S.D. N.Y.)
F.T.C. v. The Tungsten Group, Inc.
Case No. 01-cv-773 (E.D. Va.)
F.T.C. v. Think Achievement Corp.
Case No. 2:98-cv-12 (N.D. Ind.)
F.T.C. v. Think All Publishing
Case No. 07-cv-11 (E.D. Tex.)
F.T.C. v. Unicyber Gilboard, Inc.
Case No. 04-cv-1569 (C.D. Cal.)
F.T.C. v. US Grant Resources, LLC.
Case No. 04-cv-0596 (E.D. La.)

F.T.C. v. Verity International, Ltd., et al.
Case No. 00-cv-7422-LAK (S.D. N.Y.)
F.T.C. v. Wellquest International, Inc.
Case No. 2:03-cv-05002 (C.D. Cal.)
F.T.C. v. Wolf Group
Case No. 94-cv-8119 (S.D. Fla.)
F.T.C. v.Trustsoft, Inc.
Case No. 05-cv-1905 (S.D. Tex.)
Fernando N. Lopez and Mallory Lopez, et al. v. City Of Weston
Case No. 99-8958 CACE 07 (FL 17th Jud Dist)
Fiori, et al. v. Dell Inc., et al.
Case No. 09-cv-01518 (N.D. Cal.)
FMS, Inc. v. Dell, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 03-2-23781-7SEA (King County, Wash.)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page25 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 9 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Consumer

Galatis, et al. v. Psak, Graziano Piasecki & Whitelaw, et. al.
No. L-005900-04 (Middlesex County, NJ)
Garcia v. Allergan
11-cv-9811 (C.D. Cal.)
Grabowski v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.
No. 3:12-cv-00204 (W.D. Ky.)
Greg Benney, et al. v. Sprint International Communications Corp. et al.
Case No. 02-cv-1422 (Wyandotte County, KS)
Griffin v. Dell Canada Inc
Case No. 07-cv-325223D2 (Ontario, Superio Court of Justice)
Harris, et al. v. Roto-Rooter Services Company
Case No. 00-L-525 (Madison County, IL)
Harrison, et al. v. Pacific Bay Properties
No. BC285320 (Los Angeles County, CA)
Henderson, et al . V. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, et al.
09-04146 (D. NJ)
In Re: Bancomer Transfer Services Mexico Money Transfer Litigation
BC238061, BC239611(Los Angeles County, CA)

IN RE: H&R Block Express IRA Marketing Litigation
Case No. 06-md-01786 (W.D. Mo.)
In Re: High Carbon Concrete Litigation
Case No. 97-cv-20657 (D. Minn.)
In Re: High Sulfur Content Gasoline Products Liability Litigation
MDL No. 1632 (E.D. La.)
In Re: Ria Telecommunications and Afex Mexico Money Transfer Litiga
Case No. 99-cv-0759 (San Louis Obispo, Cal.)
In Re: Salmonella Litigation
Case No. 94-cv-016304 (D. Minn.)
Janet Figueroa, et al. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company
Case No. 04-cv-0898 (Miami Dade County, Fla.)
Jerome H. Schlink v. Edina Realty Title
Case No. 02-cv-18380 (D. Minn.)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page26 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 10 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Consumer

Joel E. Zawikowski, et al. v. Beneficial National Bank, et al.
Case No. 98-cv-2178 (N.D. Ill.)
John Babb, et al. v. Wilsonart International, Inc.
Case No. CT-001818-04 (Memphis, Tenn.)
Kenneth Toner, et al. v. Cadet Manufacturing Company
Case No. 98-2-10876-2SEA (King County, Wash.)
Kiefer, et al. v. Ceridian Corporation, et al.
Case No. 3:95-cv-818 (D. Minn.)
Long et al v. Americredit Financial Services, Inc.
0:2011-02752 (Hennepin County, MN)
Louis Thula, et al. v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation
Case No. 0405324-11 (Broward County, Fla.)
Lynn Henderson, et al. v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, et al.
No. 2:09-cv-04146-CCC-JAD (D. N.J.)
Lynnette Lijewski, et al. v. Regional Transit Board, et al.
Case No. 4:93-cv-1108 (D. Minn.)
Mark Laughman, et al. v. Wells Fargo Leasing Corp. et al.
Case No. 96-cv-0925 (N.D. Ill.)

Mark Parisot et al v. US Title Guaranty Company
Case No. 0822-cc-09381 (St. Louis Circuit Court, Mo.)
Mark R. Lund v. Universal Title Company
Case No. 05-cv-00411 (D. Minn.)
Melissa Castille Dodge, et al. v. Phillips College of New Orleans, Inc., et
Case No. 95-cv-2302 (E.D. La.)
Michael Drogin, et al. v. General Electric Capital Auto Financial Service
Case No. 95-cv-112141 (S.D. N.Y.)
Michael Sutton v. DCH Auto Group, et al.
(Essex County, NJ)
Michael T. Pierce et al. v. General Electric Capital Auto Lease
CV 93-0529101 S
Mitchem, et al v. Illinois Collection Service, Inc.
Case No. 09-cv-7274 (N.D. Ill.)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page27 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 11 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Consumer

Northcoast Financial Services v. Marcia Webster
2004 CVF 18651 (Cuyahoga County, OH)
Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan
No. 625-567 (Jefferson Parish, LA)
Patricia Faircloth, et a. v. Certified Finance, Inc., et al.
Case No. 99-cv-3097 (E.D. La.)
Pistilli v. Life Time Fitness, Inc.
Case No. 07-cv-2300 (D. Minn.)
Rawlis Leslie, et al. v. The St. Joe Paper Company
Case No. 03-368CA (Gulf County, Fla.)
Regayla Loveless, et al. v. National Cash, Inc, et al.
Case No. 2001-cv-892-2 (Benton County, Ark.)
Ricci, et al., v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co.
Case No. 27-cv-05-2546 (D. Minn.)
Ronnie Haese, et al. v. H&R Block, et al.
Case No. 96-cv-423 (Kleberg County, Tex.)
Sara Khaliki, et al. v. Helzberg Diamond Shops, Inc.
4:11-cv-00010 (W.D. Mo.)

Shepherd, et al. v. Volvo Finance North America, Inc., et al.
Case No. 1:93-cv-971 (D. Ga.)
Skusenas v. Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson, LLC.
Case No. 1:10-cv-8119 (N.D. Ill.)
Skusenas v. Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson, LLP
Case No. 1:10-cv-8119 (N.D. Ill.)
Skusenas v. Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson, LLP
1:10-cv-8119 (N.D. Ill)
Smith v. NRT Settlement Services of Missouri, LLC
Case No. 06-cv-004039 (St. Louis County, MO)
Terrell Ervin v. Nokia Inc. et al.
Case No. 01-L-150 (St. Clair County, Ill.)
Theresa Boschee v. Burnet Title, Inc.
Case No. 03-cv-016986 (D. Minn.)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page28 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 12 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Consumer

Thomas Losgar, et al. v. Freehold Chevrolet, Inc., et al.
Case No. L-3145-02 (Monmouth County, NJ)
Tom Lundberg, et al. v. Sprint Corporation, et al.
Case No. 02-cv-4551 (Wyandotte County, Kan.)
Truc-way, Inc., et al. v. General Electric Credit Auto Leasing
Case No. 92-CH-08962 (Cook County, Ill.)
Trudy Latman, et al. vs. Costa Cruise Lines, N.V., et al
Case No. 96-cv-8076 (Dade County, Fla.)
United States of America v. Elite Designs, Inc.
Case No. 05-cv-058 (D. R.I.)
Vicente Arriaga, et al. v. Columbia Mortgage & Funding Corp, et al.
Case No. 01-cv-2509 (N.D. Ill.)
William R. Richardson, et al., v. Credit Depot Corporation of Ohio, et al.
Case No. 315343 (Cuyahoga County, Ohio)

Employment

Adam P. Kelly, et al. v. Bank of America, et al.
No., 10-CV-5332 (N.D. Ill.)
Alice Williams, et a. v. H&R Block Enterprises
RG 08366506, (County of Alameda, CA)

Balandran, et al. v. Labor Ready, et al.
BC 278551 (Losa Angeles County, Cal.)
Ballard, et al., v. Fogo de Chao, LLC
Case No. 09-cv-7621 (D. Minn.)
Beasley, et al. v. GC Services LP
09-cv-01748 (E.D. Mo.)
Beasley, et al. v. GC Services LP
Case No. 09-cv-01748 (E.D. Mo.)
Bishop et al. v. AT&T Corp.
Case No. 08-cv-00468 (W.D. Pa.)
Chandler Glover and Dean Albrecht, et al., v. John E. Potter
EEOC No. 320-A2-8011X; Agency No. CC-801-0015-99
Claudine Wilfong, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.
Case No. 00-cv-680 (S.D. Ill.)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page29 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 13 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Employment

Doe, et al. v. Cin-Lan, Inc, et al.
Case No. 4:08-cv-12719 (E.D. Mich.)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) v. Star Tribune Co
Case No. 08-cv-5297(D. Minn.)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v Faribault Foods, Inc.
Case No. 07-cv-3976 (D. Minn.)
Fisher, et al. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Company
Case No. 09-cv-10802 (E.D. Mich.)
Frank,  Peasley,  Waters,  and  Wilhelm,  v  Gold’n  Plump  Poultry,  Inc.
Case No. 04-cv-1018 (D. Minn.)
Geelan, et al. v. The Mark Travel Coporation
Case No. 03-cv-6322 (D. Minn.)
Gipson, et al. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
Case No. 08-cv-2017 (D. Kan.)
Gregory Hernandez v. The Children's Place
No. CGC 04-4300989 (San Francisco, CA)
Helen Bernstein, et al. v. M.G. Waldbaum
Case No. 08-cv-0363 (D. Minn.)

John Alba, et al. v. Papa John's USA, Inc.
Case No. 05-cv-7487 (W.D. Cal.)
John Alba, et al. v. Papa John's USA, Inc.
Case No. 05-cv-7487 (W.D. Cal.)
Johnson v. General Mills, Inc.
Case No. 10-cv-1104 (W.D. Mo.)
Johnson, et al v. General Mills, Inc.
Case No. 10-cv-1104 (W.D. Mo.)
Kelly Marie Camp, et al. v. The Progressive Corporation, et al.
Case No. 01-cv-2680 (E.D. La.)
Lang, et al v DirecTV, Inc., et al.
No. 10-1085 (E.D. La)
Lynn Lietz, et al. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company, et al.
No. 1:11-cv-0108 (N.D. Ill.)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page30 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 14 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Employment

Michelle Jackson, et al. v. Jamba Juice Company
Case No. 8:02-cv-00381 (C.D. Cal.)
Pamela Adams, et al., v. MedPlans Partners, Inc
Case No. 3:07-cv-259 (W.D. Ky.)
Phillip Busler, et al. v. Enersys Energy Products Inc., et al.
Case No. 09-cv-0159 (W.D. Mo.)
Rocher, et al. v. Sav-on Drugs, et al.
Case No. BC 227551 (Los Angeles County, Cal.)
Russell, et al. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company
Case No. 08-cv-1871 (N.D. Ill.)
Smallwood, et al. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company,
Case No. 09-cv-4072 (N.D. Ill.)
Smith v. Family Video
No. 11-cv-01773 (N.D. Ill.)
Smith v. Pizza Hut, Inc.
No. 09--cv-01632-CMA-BNB (D. Colo.)
Teeter v. NCR Corporation
Case No. 08-cv-00297 (C.D. Cal.)

Thomas Dege, et al., v. Hutchinson Technology, Inc.
Case No. 06-cv-3754 (D. Minn.)
Wilkinson, et al. v. NCR Corporation
Case No. 1:08-cv-5578 (N.D. Ill.)
William Perrin, et al. v. Papa John's International
No. 4:09-CV-01335 (E.D. Mo.)
Williams, et al. v. Dollar Financial Group, et al.
Case No. RG03099375 (Alameda County, Cal.)
Wittemann, et al. v. Wisconsin Bell, Inc.
Case No. 09-cv-440 (W.D. Wisc.)
Wlotkowski, et al. v. Michigan Bell
Case No. 09-cv-11898 (E.D. Mich.)
Environmental

Bernice Samples, et al. v. Conoco, Inc., et al.
Case No. 01-0631-CA-01 (Escambia Country, Fla.)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page31 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 15 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Environmental

Billieson, et al. v. City of New Orleans, et al.
No. 94-19231 (Orleans Parish, LA)
City of Greenville, et al., v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., and Syngent
No. 3:10-cv-00188-JPG-PMF (S. D. Ill.)
In Re: Duluth Superior Chemical Spill Litigation
Case No. 92-cv-503 (W.D. Wis.)
Mehl v. Canadian Pacific Railway, Limited
Case No. 02-cv-009 (D. N.D.)
Michelle Marshall, et al. v. Air Liquide -- Big Three, Inc. et al.
No. 2005-08706 (Orleans Parish, LA)
Perrine, et al. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, et al.
01-0631-CA-01 (Harrison C., WV)

ERISA

In Re: Broadwing Inc ERISA Litigation
Case No. 02-cv-00857 (S.D. Ohio)
In Re: Xcel Energy, Inc. ERISA Litigation
Case No. 03-cv-2218 (D. Minn.)
Quince Rankin v. Charles C. Conway (Kmart ERISA Litigation)
Case No. 02-cv-71045 (E.D. Mich.)

FACTA

Albright v. Metrolink
No. 4:11-CV-01691AGF (E.D. MO)
Ebert, et al. v. Warner's Stellian
No. 11-cv-02325 JRT/ SER (D. Minn)
Jones v. Dickinson
No. 11 CV 02472 (D. MO)
Linda Todd, et al. v. Medieval Times
Case No. 1:10-cv-00120 (D. N.J.)
Masters  v.  Lowe’s  Home  Centers,  Inc.
Case No. 3:09-cv--255 (S.D. Ill.)
Seppanen et al. v. Krist Oil Company
Case No. 2:09-cv-195 (W.D. Mich.)
Waldman v. Hess Corporation
Case No. 07-cv-2221 (D. N.J.)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page32 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 16 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

FLSA

Creed, et al. v. Benco Dental Supply Co.
3:12-CV-1571 (E.D. PA)
DuBeau, et al. v. Sterling Savings Bank, et al.
1:12-cv-01602-CL (D. OR)
Holt v. Living Social
1:2012cv00745 (D. DC)
Kelly, et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al.
No. 10-5332 (ND IL)
Lynn Lietz, et al. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company, et al.
No. 1:11-cv-0108 (N.D. Ill.)
Williams, et al. v. H&R Block Enterprises, Inc.
No. RG 08366506 (Alameda County, CA)

Injury/Death

Joel Mitchell, et al. v. Rebecca Carlson, et al.
C5-91-600775 (Minn 6th Jud. Dist.)

Insurance

Ann Castello v. Allianz Life Insurance Company
Case No. 03-cv-20405 (D. Minn.)
Boyd Demmer, et al. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Company
Case No. MC 00-017872 (Hennepin County, Minn.)

Chultem v. Ticor Title Insur. Co., et al.
Case No. 2006-CH-09488 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill.)
Colella v. Chicago Title Insur. Co., et al
2006-CH-09489 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill)
Colella v. Chicago Title Insur. Co., et al.
Case No. 2006-CH-09489 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill.)
Doan v. State Farm
108CV129264 (Santa Clara Co, CA)
Dorothea Pavlov v. Continental Casualty Company
Case No. 07-cv-2580 (N.D. Ohio)
Frank Rose, et al. v. United Equitable Insurance Company, et al.
Case No. 00-cv-02248 (Cass County, ND)
Froeber v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
Case No. 00C15234 (Marion County, OR)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page33 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 17 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Insurance

Garrison, et al., v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company
Case No. 02-cv-324076 (Cole County, Mo.)
Harold Hanson, et al. v. Acceleration Life Insurance Company, et al.
Case No. 3:97-cv-152 (D. N.D.)
Hofstetter, et al. v. Chase Home Finance, LLC., et al.
Case No. 10-cv-1313 (N.D. Cal.)
In Re: Lutheran Brotherhood Variable Insurance Products Co. Sales Pra
Case No. 99-md-1309 (D. Minn.)
Irene Milkman, et al. v. American Travellers Life Insurance Company, e
No. 03775 (Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pa.)
Jacobs v. State Farm General Insurance Company
No. CJ-96-406 (Sequoyah County, Okla.)
James M. Wallace, III, et al. v. American Agrisurance, Inc., et al.
Case No. 99-cv-669 (E.D. Ark.)
James Ralston, et al. v. Chrysler Credit Corporation, et al.
Case No. 90-cv-3433 (Lucas County, Ohio)
Michael T. McNellis, et al. v. Pioneer Life Insurance Company, et al.
CV 990759 (County of San Luis Obispo, Cal.)

Morris v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
CJ-03-714 (Pottawatomie County, OK)
Paul Curtis, et al v. Northern Life Insurance Company
Case No. 01-2-18578 (King County, Wash.)
Ralph Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Company and CNA Financial Corp
Case No. 06-cv-2253 (C.D. Cal.)
Raymond Arent, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company
Case No. 00-mc-16521 (D. Minn.)
Roy Whitworth, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, et al.
Case No. 00CVH-08-6980 (Franklin County, Ohio)
Sonia Gonzalez, et al. v. Rooms to Go, Inc., et al.
Case No. 97-cv-3146 (S.D. Fla.)
Tow Distributing, Inc., et al. v. BCBSM, Inc., d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue S
Case No. 02-cv-9317 (D. Minn.)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page34 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 18 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Medical/Drug

F.T.C. v. CHK Trading Corp.
Case No. 04-cv-8686 (S.D. N.Y.)
F.T.C. v. Christopher Enterprises, Inc.
Case No. 2:01-cv-0505 (D. Utah)
F.T.C. v. Conversion Marketing, Inc.
Case No. 04-cv-1264 (C.D. Cal.)
F.T.C. v. Enforma Natural Products, Inc.
Case No. 00-cv-04376 (C.D. Cal.)
F.T.C. v. Goen Technologies
FTC File No. 042 3127
F.T.C. v. Great American Products
Case No. 05-cv-00170 (N.D. Fla.)
F.T.C. v. Kevin Trudeau, et al.
Case No. 03-cv-3904 (N.D. Ill.)
F.T.C. v. Latin Hut, Inc.
Case No. 04-cv-0830 (S.D. Cal.)
F.T.C. v. QT, Inc.
Case No. 03-cv-3578 (N.D. Ill.)

F.T.C. v. Seasilver USA, Inc.
Case No. 03-cv-0676 (D. Nev.)
F.T.C. v. Smart Inventions, Inc.
Case No. 04-cv-4431 (C.D. Cal.)
F.T.C. v. Sunny Health Nutrition Technology & Products, Inc.
Case No. 06-cv-2193 (M.D. Fla.)
F.T.C. v. United Fitness of America, LLC
Case No. 02-cv-0648 (D. Nev.)
In Re: Guidant Corp Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litigati
Case No. 05-cv-1708 (D. Minn.)
Karen Wright, et al. v. Milan Jeckle
Case No. 98-2-07410-2 (Spokane County, Wash.)
Mary Plubell, et al. v. Merck and Co., Inc.
Case No. 04-cv-235817 (Jackson County, MO)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page35 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 19 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Patent

The Omegasource Corporation v. Richard L. Fogg and Land O'Lakes, In
Case No. 3:91-cv-136 (D. Minn.)

Privacy

Anderson, et al. v. United Retail Group, Inc., et al.
Case No. 37-cv-89685 (San Diego County, Cal.)
F.T.C. v. CEO Group, Inc.
Case No. 06-cv-60602 (S.D. Fla.)
F.T.C. v. Choicepoint
Case No. 06-cv-0198 (N.D. Ga.)
In Re: U.S. Bank National Association Litigation
Case No. 99-cv-891 (D. Minn.)
Michael Stoner, et al. v. CBA Information Services
Case No. 04-cv-519 (E.D. Pa.)
Sterling et al. v. Strategic Forecasting, Inc. et al.
No. 2:12-cv-00297-DRH-ARL (E.D. N.Y.)

Securities

Alan Freberg, et al. v. Merrill Corporation, et al.
Case No. 99-cv-010063 (D. Minn.)
Anderson v. Investors Diversified Services
Case No. 4:79-cv-266 (D. Minn.)

Charter Township Of Clinton v. OSI Restaurants
Case No. 06-CA-010348 (Hillsborough County, Fla.)
Christopher Carmona, et al. v. Henry I. Bryant, et al. (Albertson's Securi
Case No. 06-cv-01251 (Ada County, Idaho)
Daryl L. Cooper, et al. v. Miller Johnson Steichen Kinnard, Inc.
Case No. 02-cv-1236 (D. Minn.)
Dutton v. Harris Stratex Networks, Inc. et al
08-cv-00755-LPS (D. DE)
Edith Gottlieb v. Xcel Energy, Inc., et al.
Case No. 02-cv-2931 (D. Minn.)
Family Medicine Specialsts, et al. v. Abatix Corp., et al.
Case No. 3:04-cv-872B (N.D. Tex.)
Fisk, et al. v. H&R Block Inc., et al.
1216-CV20418 (Jackson County. MO)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page36 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 20 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Securities

Friedman, et al. v. Penson Worldwide, Inc.
11-cv-02098 (N.D. TX)
In Re Frontier Oil Corporation
Case No. 2011-11451 (Harris County, Tex.)
In Re National City Corp. Securities, Derivative and Erisa Litig.
MDL No. 2003 (N.D. Ohio)
In re New Century
No. 07-CV-0931 (C.D. Cal.)
In Re: American Adjustable Rate Term Trust Securities Litigation
Case No. 4:95-cv-666 and 4:95-cv-667 (D. Minn.)
In Re: Ancor Communications, Inc Securities Litigation
Case No. 97-cv-1696 (D. Minn.)
In Re: Asia Pulp & Paper Securities Litigation
Case No. 01-cv-7351 (S.D. N.Y.)
In Re: Bayer AG Secuirites
Case No. 03-cv-1546 (S.D. N.Y.)
In Re: Bio-One Securities Litigation
Case No. 05-cv-1859 (M.D. Fla.)

In Re: Bioplasty Securities Litigation
Case No. 4:91-cv-689 (D. Minn.)
In Re: Citi-Equity Group, Inc. Securities Litigation
Case No. 94-cv-012194 (D. Minn.)
In Re: Citi-Equity Group, Inc., Limited Partnerships Securities Litigation
MDL No. 1082 (C.D. Cal.)
In Re: Control Data Corporation Securities Litigation
Case No. 3:85-cv-1341 (D. Minn.)
In Re: Cray Research Securities Litigation
Case No. 3:89-cv-508 (D. Minn.)
In Re: E.W. Blanch Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation
Case No. 01-cv-258 (D. Minn.)
In Re: Encore Computer Corporation Shareholder Litigation
Case No. 16044 (New Castle County, Del.)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page37 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 21 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Securities

In Re: EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp Securities Litigation
Case No. 05-cv-10240 (S.D. N.Y.)
In Re: Flight Transportation
MDL No. 517 (D. Minn.)
In Re: Hennepin County 1986 Recycling Bond Litigation
Cas No. 92-cv-22272 (D. Minn.)
In Re: McCleodUSA Incorporated Securities Litigation
Case No. 02-cv-0001 (N.D. Iowa)
In Re: McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation
Case No. 99-cv-20743 (N.D. Cal.)
In Re: Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Securities Derivative and ERISA Litigatio
07-cv-9633 (S.D. NY)
In Re: Merrill Lynch Research Reports Securities Litigation
Case No. 02-md-1484 (S.D. N.Y.)
In Re: Micro Component Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation
Case No. 4:94-cv-346 (D. Minn.)
In Re: Novastar Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation
Case No. 04-cv-0330 (W.D. Mo.)

In Re: OCA, Inc. Securities and Derivative Litigation
Case No. 05-cv-2165 (E.D. La.)
In Re: Raytheon Company Securities Litigation
Case No. 99-cv-12142 (D. Mass.)
In Re: Reliance Group Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation
Case No. 00-cv-4653 (S.D. N.Y.)
In Re: Retek Inc Securities Litigation
Case No. 02-cv-4209 (D. Minn.)
In Re: Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litigation
Case No. 02-cv-7966 (S.D. N.Y.)
In Re: Scimed Life Systems, Inc. Shareholders Litigation
Case No. 94-mc-17640 (D. Minn.)
In Re: Sourcecorp Securities Litigation
Case No. 04-cv-02351 (N.D. Tex.)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page38 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 22 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Securities

In Re: SS&C Technologies, Inc. Shareholders Litigation
Case No. 05-cv-1525 (D. Del.)
In Re: Taxable Municipal Bond Securities Litigation
MDL 863 (E.D. La.)
In Re: Tellium Inc Securities Litigation
Case No. 02-cv-5878 (D. N.J.)
In  Re:  The  Sportsman’s  Guide,  Inc.  Litigation
Case No. 06-cv-7903 (D. Minn.)
In Re: Tonka Corporation Securities Litigation
Case No. 4:90-cv-002 (D. Minn.)
In Re: Tonka II Securities Litigation
Case No. 3:90-cv-318 (D. Minn.)
In Re: Tricord Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation
Case No. 3:94-cv-746 (D. Minn.)
In Re: VistaCare, Inc. Securities Litigation
Case No. 04-cv-1661 (D. Ariz.)
In Re: Williams Securities Litigation
Case No. 02-cv-72(N.D. Okla.)

In Re: Xcel Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation
Case No. 02-cv-2677 (D. Minn.)
In Re: Xcelera.Com Securities Litigation
Case No. 00-cv-11649 (D. Mass.)
In Re: Xybernaut Corp. Securities MDL Litigation
Case No. 05-mdl-1705 (E.D. Va.)
Ivy Shipp, et al. v. Nationsbank Corp.
19,002 (TX 12th Jud Dist)
Karl E. Brogen and Paul R. Havig, et al. v. Carl Pohlad, et al.
Case No. 3:93-cv-714 (D. Minn.)
Lewis H. Biben, et al. v. Harold E. Card, et al.
Case No. 84-cv-0884 (W.D. Mo.)
Lori Miller, et al. v. Titan Value Equities Group Inc., et al.
Case No. 94-mc-106432 (D. Minn.)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page39 of 98

bmcgroup

Page 23 of 23

Class Action Services
BMC Group Class Action Services
Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience

Securities

Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., et al. v. Tellabs, Inc., et al.
02-C-4356 (N.D. IL)
Montoya, et al. v. Mamma.com, Inc., et al.
Case No. 1:05-cv-02313 (S.D. N.Y.)
Resendes, et al.; Maher, et al.; Hawkins, et al.; Schooley, et al. v. Thorp
Case No. 84-cv-03457, 84-cv-11251, 85-cv-6074, 86-cv-1916L (D. Minn.)
Richard Donal Rink, et al. v. College Retirement Equities Fund
No. 07-CI-10761, (Jefferson County, KY)
Richard Donal Rink, et al. v. College Retirement Equities Fund
No. 07-CI-10761, (Jefferson County, KY)
Robert Trimble, et al. v. Holmes Harbor Sewer District, et al.
Case No. 01-2-00751-8 (Island County, Wash.)
Superior Partners, et al. v. Rajesh K. Soin, et al.
Case No. 08-cv-0872 (Montgomery County, Ohio)
Svenningsen, et al. v. Piper Jaffray & Hopwood, et al.
Case No. 3:85-cv-921 (D. Minn.)
Three Bridges Investment Group, et al. v. Honeywell, et al.
Case No. 88-cv-22302 (D. Minn.)

United States of America v. Zev Saltsman
Case No. 04-cv-641 (E.D. N.Y.)
United States v. Zev Saltsman
CR-07-0641 (E.D. NY)
William Steiner, et al. v. Honeywell, Inc. et al.
Case No. 4:88-cv-1102 (D. Minn.)
Test Score

David Andino, et al. v. The Psychological Corporation, et al.
Case No. A457725 (Clark County, Nev.)
Frankie Kurvers, et al. v. National Computer Systems
No. MC00-11010 (Hennepin County, Minn)

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page40 of 98

EXHIBIT 4-B

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page41 of 98

MARCH 9, 2012

Search Engine Use 2012
Even though online Americans are more satisfied than ever with
the performance of search engines, strong majorities have
negative views of personalized search results and targeted ads

Kristen Purcell
Associate Director for Research, Pew Internet
Project
Joanna Brenner
Web Coordinator, Pew Internet Project
Lee Rainie
Director, Pew Internet Project

Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project
1615 L St., NW – Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: [phone]

http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Search-Engine-Use-2012.aspx

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page42 of 98

Summary of findings
Search engines remain popular—and users are more satisfied than ever with the quality of search
results—but many are anxious about the collection of personal information by search engines and other
websites.

Most search users disapprove of personal information being collected for
search results or for targeted advertising
The Pew Internet & American Life survey in February 2012 included several questions probing how
respondents feel about search engines and other websites collecting information about them and using
it to either shape their search results or target advertising to them. Clear majorities of internet and
search users disapprove of these practices in all the contexts we probed.
Specifically, the survey posed the following choices to search engine users:

65% say…
29% say…

73% say they
would…
23% say they
would…

It’s a BAD thing if a search engine collected information about your searches and
then used it to rank your future search results, because it may limit the
information you get online and what search results you see
It’s a GOOD thing if a search engine collected information about your searches
and then used it to rank your future search results, because it gives you results
that are more relevant to you
NOT BE OKAY with a search engine keeping track of your searches and using that
information to personalize your future search results because you feel it is an
invasion of privacy
Be OKAY with a search engine keeping track of your searches and using that
information to personalize your future search results, even if it means they are
gathering information about you

All internet users were posed the following choice regarding targeted advertising:

68% say…
28% say…

2

I’m NOT OKAY with targeted advertising because I don’t like having my online
behavior tracked and analyzed
I’m OKAY with targeted advertising because it means I see advertisements and
get information about things I’m really interested in

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page43 of 98

Overall views of search engine performance are very positive
For more than a decade, Pew Internet data has consistently shown that search engine use is one of the
most popular online activities, rivaled only by email as an internet pursuit. In January 2002, 52% of all
Americans used search engines. In February 2012 that figure grew to 73% of all Americans. On any given
day in early 2012, more than half of adults using the internet use a search engine (59%). That is double
the 30% of internet users who were using search engines on a typical day in 2004. And people’s
frequency of using search engines has jumped dramatically.
Moreover, users report generally good outcomes and relatively high confidence in the capabilities of
search engines:






91% of search engine users say they always or most of the time find the information they are
seeking when they use search engines
73% of search engine users say that most or all the information they find as they use search
engines is accurate and trustworthy
66% of search engine users say search engines are a fair and unbiased source of information
55% of search engine users say that, in their experience, the quality of search results is getting
better over time, while just 4% say it has gotten worse
52% of search engine users say search engine results have gotten more relevant and useful over
time, while just 7% report that results have gotten less relevant

These findings are a backdrop for the ongoing policy debates about privacy, collection of personal
information online, and the enthusiasm for targeted search and targeted advertising among companies.
They also arise as Google implements a new privacy policy in which information about users’ online
behavior when they are signed into Google’s programs can be collected and combined into a cohesive
user profile. This includes material from Google’s search engine, the Google+ social networking site,
YouTube video-sharing site, and Gmail.

Most internet users say they do not know how to limit the information that is
collected about them by a website
Just 38% of internet users say they are generally aware of ways they themselves can limit how much
information about them is collected by a website. Among this group, one common strategy people use
to limit personal data collection is to delete their web history: 81% of those who know ways to manage
the capture of their data do this. Some 75% of this group uses the privacy settings of websites to control
what’s captured about them. And 65% change their browser settings to limit the information that is
collected.1

1

There are a range of other strategies that users can employ, including the deletion of cookies and the use of
anonymyzing software and proxies that were not part of this survey.

3

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page44 of 98

Overall, search users are confident in their abilities
Most search users say they are confident in their own search abilities, and find what they are looking for
most of the time. More than half of search users (56%) say they are very confident in their search
abilities, while only 6% say they are not too or not all confident. And the vast majority of search users
report being able to find what they are looking for always (29%) or most of the time (62%).

Positive search experiences are more common than negative experiences
Asked about different experiences they have had using search engines, more users report positive
experiences than negative. They said in their use of search engines they had:






learned something new or important that really helped them or increased their knowledge (86%
of search users have had this experience)
found a really obscure fact or piece of information they thought they would not be able to find
(50%)
gotten conflicting information in search results and not been able to figure out what is correct
(41%)
gotten so much information in a set of results that you feel overwhelmed (38%)
found that critical information is missing from search results (34%)

Google continues to be the most popular search engine, by a wide margin
Google continues to dominate the list of most used search engines. Asked which search engine they use
most often, 83% of search users say Google. The next most cited search engine is Yahoo, mentioned by
just 6% of search users. When we last asked this question in 2004, the gap between Google and Yahoo
was much narrower, with 47% of search users saying Google was their engine of choice and 26% citing
Yahoo.

About the survey
These are the findings from a survey conducted from January 20-February 19, 2012 among 2,253 adults
age 18 and over, including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish.
The margin of error for the full sample is plus or minus 2 percentage points.

4

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page45 of 98

Main findings
Search engine use over time
A February 2012 Pew Internet survey finds that 91% of online adults use search engines to find
information on the web, up from 84% in June 2004, the last time we did an extended battery of survey
questions about people’s search engine use. On any given day online, 59% of those using the Internet
use search engines. In 2004 that figure stood at just 30% of internet users.
As early as 2002, more than eight in ten online adults were using search engines, and as we noted in an
August 2011 report2, search is only rivaled by email both in the overall percent of internet users who
engage in the activity and the percent of internet users doing it on a given day. The table below shows
how search compares over time with some other popular online activities.

Over time, search has remained one of the most popular internet
activities
% of internet users who do each activity
100%
93%
80%

92%
91%

85%
76%
71%

71%

66%
60%

61%

Send or
read
email
Use a
search
engine
Get
news
online

40%

Buy a
product
online

20%

Social
network
sites

11%
0%
2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project tracking surveys, 2002-2012. Social network site
use not tracked prior to February, 2005. For more activity trends, go to pewinternet.org. “Get news online” and “buy
a product online” have not yet been asked in 2012 surveys.

2

See “Search and Email Still Top the List of Most Popular Online Activities,” available at
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Search-and-email.aspx

5

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page46 of 98

Search is most popular among young adult internet users, those who have been to college, and those
with the highest household incomes. These same groups—the young, college-educated, and affluent—
are also most likely to report using a search engine “yesterday.” And while white and black online adults
are more likely than Hispanics to report using search overall, white online adults stand out from all
others as more likely to use search on a given day.

Who uses search?
% of online adults in each group who use search engines

All online adults
Gender
Male
Female
Race/Ethnicity
White
African American
Hispanic
Age
18-29
30-49
50-64
65+
Education
Some high school
High school
Some college
College graduate
Household income
< $30,000
$30,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000+

% of each group
who ever use
search engines
91%

% of each group who
used a search engine
yesterday
59%

90
92

59
60

93*
89*
79

63*
44
44

96
91
92
80

66*
65*
52*
38

78
88*
94*
95*

34
45*
65*
74*

84
93*
97*
95*

45
54*
66*
76*

* Denotes statistically significant difference with other rows in that category
Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012 Tracking
Survey, January 20-February 19, 2012. N=2,253 adults age 18 and older, including 901 cell
phone interviews. Interviews conducted in English and Spanish. The margin of error is plus
or minus 3 percentage points for internet users.

Asked how often they use a search engine to find information online, just over half of all search engine
users (54%) say they do this at least once a day, a significant increase over 2004.

6

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page47 of 98

Search users are turning to search engines more frequently
% of adult search users who use a search engine to find information….
100%

80%

60%

54%*
2004

40%

35%

2012
18% 16%

20%

18%

15%

15%*

14%*
7%

9%
1%

0%
Once a day
or more

3-5 days a
week

1-2 days a
week

Once every
few weeks

Less
often/Never

DK/Ref

Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012 Tracking Survey, January 20-February 19,
2012. N=2,253 adults, age 18 and older, including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews conducted in English and Spanish. An
asterisk (*) indicates a significant difference across years at the .95 confidence level.

Frequency of search engine use varies by age, education and income, with adults under age 50 and
those with more education and higher household incomes using search more frequently than others.

7

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page48 of 98

Daily searching is most common among younger, more educated and more
affluent search engine users
Frequency of search engine use among each group of search users….
Total [n=1,614]

54%

30%

15%

1%

18-29 [n=314]

60%

26%

14%

30-49 [n=508]

60%

27%

13%

50+ [n=756]

41%

39%

College grad [n=667]

70%

Some college [n=423]

23%

57%

HS grad or less [n=515]

27%
26%

54%*

<30K [n=344]

20%

Weekly

6%

30%

41%
0%

11% 1%

36%
68%

30K to <75K [n=516]

16%

36%
40%

1%
7%

31%

36%

75K+ [n=507]

Daily

19%

60%

Less often

23%
80%

100%

DK/Ref

Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012 Tracking Survey, January 20-February 19,
2012. N=2,253 adults, age 18 and older, including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews conducted in English and Spanish.

8

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page49 of 98

Google is far and away the most popular search engine
Among search engine users, Google dominance continues and it is far and away the search engine they
report using most often. Fully 83% of searchers use Google more often than any other search engine.
Yahoo is a very distant second at just 6%. In 2004, the gap between these two search leaders was much
narrower. At that time, 47% said that Google was the search engine they used most often while 26%
named Yahoo.

Google is far and away the search engine of choice, preferred by 83% of
search users
% of search users who answered the question: Which search engine do you use MOST OFTEN?

None/DK
8%

Other
6%

None/
DK
5%

Yahoo
6%

Other
19%

Google
47%
Google
83%

Yahoo
26%

2004

2012

Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012 Tracking Survey, January 20-February 19,
2012. N=2,253 adults, age 18 and older, including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews conducted in English and Spanish.

9

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page50 of 98

Quality of information
Fairly large majorities of search engine users express confidence in these tools and the results they
generate. Not only does a majority believe that search engines are fair and unbiased, they also believe
that most results are accurate and trustworthy. And most say that the quality and relevance of search
results has been improving over time or has not changed, while very few see the quality and relevance
of results declining.

Bias and accuracy
There continues to be widespread faith in search results, and perceptions of fairness and bias have not
changed at all over the past eight years. Roughly two-thirds of searchers (66%) say search engines are a
fair and unbiased source of information. In 2004, 68% of search users said that search engines were a
fair and unbiased source of information.
Asked how much of the information they get in search results is accurate or trustworthy, 28% say all or
almost all and another 45% say most.

Most adult search engine users have faith in the fairness and accuracy of
their results
In general, do you think Internet search engines are a fair and unbiased source of information, or do you think
search engines are NOT a fair and unbiased source?
Based on
search
users
[n=812]

66%

0%

20%

20%

40%

Yes, fair and unbiased

60%

No, not fair and unbiased

3%

10%

80%
Depends (VOL)

100%
DK/Ref

In general, how much of the information you find using search engines do you think is accurate or
trustworthy?
Based on
search
users
[n=802]

28%

0%

20%
All or almost all

45%

Most

40%
Some

60%
Very little/None

22%

80%
DK/Ref

3% 1%

100%

Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012 Tracking Survey, January 20-February
19, 2012. N=2,253 adults, age 18 and older, including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews conducted in English and
Spanish.

10

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page51 of 98

Younger search engine users have more faith in the results they get. 72% of 18-29 year-olds say that
search engines are a fair and unbiased source, compared with 65% of 30-49 year-olds, 67% of 50-64
year-olds, and just 54% of search users age 65 and older.
Where accuracy and trustworthiness are concerned, women are slightly more likely than men (76% v.
69%) to feel that all or most of the results they get are accurate and trustworthy. Search users living in
the highest income households are also slightly more likely than others to believe that all or most of
their results can be trusted.

Relevance and quality over time
Half of adult search users (52%) say search results have gotten more relevant and useful over time, while
just 7% see them as getting less relevant or useful. The remaining 40% see no change over time. A
similar question about changes in the quality of information over time yields similar results. Just over
half of adult search users (55%) say that in their experience the quality of search results has gotten
better over time, while 4% say the quality has gotten worse.

Most adult search engine users say the relevance and quality of results
are improving over time
Overall, in your experience, are search engine results getting MORE relevant and useful over time, LESS
relevant and useful, or have you not seen any real difference over time?
Based on
search
users
[n=812]

52%

0%

20%

7%

40%

More relevant

40%

60%

Less relevant

1%

80%

No difference

100%
DK/Ref

Overall, in your experience, is the QUALITY of the information you get using search engines getting BETTER
over time, WORSE over time, or have you not seen any real difference?
Based on
search
users
[n=802]

55%

0%

20%
Better

4%

40%
Worse

60%
No difference

39%

2%

80%

100%

DK/Ref

Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012 Tracking Survey, January
20-February 19, 2012. N=2,253 adults, age 18 and older, including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews
conducted in English and Spanish.

11

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page52 of 98

Adult search users under age 50 are slightly more likely than older search users to feel the quality of
search results is improving over time. Older adult search users, in contrast, are more likely to see no
difference in quality. There are no notable demographic differences where perceptions of relevance are
concerned.

Search users under age 50 are slightly more likely to say the quality of
results is improving over time
Overall, in your experience, is the QUALITY of the information you get using search engines getting BETTER
over time, WORSE over time, or have you not seen any real difference?
Search users
50+ [n=367]

50%

Search users
18-49 [n=419]

3%

58%*
0%

20%
Better

5%
40%

Worse

45%*

60%
No difference

36%
80%

3%

1%
100%

DK/Ref

Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012 Tracking Survey, January 20-February
19, 2012. N=2,253 adults, age 18 and older, including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews conducted in English and
Spanish. An asterisk (*) indicates a significant difference across age groups at the 95% confidence level.

Searchers’ experiences and perceptions of their own abilities
Search engine users not only have confidence in the information they get using these tools, they also
have confidence in their own search abilities and report finding what they are looking for most or all of
the time.
In 2012, just over half of search users (56%) say they are very confident in their search abilities, which is
a small but significant increase over 2004 when 48% felt this confident. Another 37% of search users
today describe themselves as somewhat confident, with fewer than one in ten saying they are not too or
not at all confident in their ability to use search engines to find information online.

12

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page53 of 98

Search users are only slightly more confident in their search abilities than
they were in 2004
How CONFIDENT do you feel about your own searching abilities when using a search engine to find
information online?
2012 search
users [n=802]

56%*

2004 search
users [n=1,165]

37%

48%
0%
Very

6% 2%

44%*

20%
Somewhat

5% 1%

40%
Not too

Not at all

60%

80%

100%

DK/Ref

Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012 Tracking Survey, January 20-February
19, 2012. N=2,253 adults, age 18 and older, including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews conducted in English and
Spanish. An asterisk (*) indicates a significant difference across years at the 95% confidence level.

Search users under age 50 are more likely to say they are very confident in their search abilities when
compared with those age 50 and older (64% v. 40%), as are search users who have some college
education when compared with those who do not (64% v. 45%). And while 68% of adults living in
households with incomes of $75,000 or greater say they are very confident in their ability to find
information online using search engines, the same is true of only about half of adults in all other income
ranges.
In addition to expressing more confidence, search users in 2012 are also slightly more likely than they
were in 2004 to say that they always find the information they are looking for. While 29% of search
engine users today say this is the case, just 17% reported the same in 2004. Still, in both 2012 and 2004,
the majority of search users say they find what they are looking for most of the time, but not always.
While there are few notable demographic effects in terms of one’s perception of their ability to find
what they are looking for, the one group that stands out in this regard is adults living in the lowest
income households. This group is more likely than any other to say they always find what they are
looking for, with 37% reporting this.

13

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page54 of 98

Search users in 2012 are more likely to report always finding the
information they are searching for
When you use a search engine to look for information online, how often do you actually FIND the
information you’re looking for?
2012 search
users [n=812]

29%*

2004 search
users [n=1,165]

62%

17%

0%

70%*

20%
Always

7% 2%

Most of the time

40%

11%

60%

80%

Only sometimes

Hardly ever

1%

100%
DK/Ref

Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012 Tracking Survey, January 20-February
19, 2012. N=2,253 adults, age 18 and older, including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews conducted in English and
Spanish. An asterisk (*) indicates a significant difference across years at the 95% confidence level.

More search users report more positive experiences than negative
experiences
Given the largely positive view of the quality of information search engines yield, and their own search
abilities, it is not surprising that many search users report positive experiences using these tools. More
than eight in ten searchers say they have learned something new or important using a search engine
that really helped them or increased their knowledge. And half say they were able to find a really
obscure fact or piece of information using a search engine.
Yet despite these positive occurrences, many respondents also report having experienced the downside
of search. Four in ten searchers say they have gotten conflicting or contradictory search results and
could not figure out what information was correct. About four in ten also say they have gotten so much
information in a set of search results that they felt overwhelmed. About one in three have had the
experience of discovering that really critical or important information was missing from search results
they got.

14

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page55 of 98

More adult search users report positive experiences than negative
experiences
% of adult search engine users who have experienced each of the following…
Learned something new or important using a
search engine that really helped you or increased
your knowledge

86%

Found a really obscure fact or piece of
information you didn't think you'd be able to find

50%

Got conflicting or contradictory information in
results and could not figure out what was correct

41%

Got so much information in a set of search
results that you felt overwhelmed

38%

Discovered really critical information was missing
from search results

34%
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012 Tracking Survey, January 20-February 19,
2012. N=2,253 adults, age 18 and older, including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews conducted in English and Spanish. The
margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for total adult search users.

The experiences search engine users report vary slightly by education level, sex, and age. For example,
college educated search engine users are more likely than those with less education to report having all
five of the experiences asked about in the survey. And men are more likely than women to report
finding obscure facts via search engines, getting conflicting information, and discovering that critical
information is missing from their results.

15

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page56 of 98

College educated search users are more likely to report having both positive
and negative experiences
% of each group who have experienced each of the following…
100%
80%

92%*
77%
56%*

60%

39%

40%

45%*

42%*

36%

39%*
31%

24%

20%
0%
Learned something
new using a search
engine that really
helped you or
increased your
knowledge

Found a really
obscure fact or
piece of information
you didn't think
you'd be able to find

Have been to college [n=1,090]

Got conflicting or
contradictory
information in
results and could
not figure out what
was correct

Got so much
information in a set
of search results
that you felt
overwhelmed

Discovered really
critical information
was missing from
search results

Have not been to college [n=515]

Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012 Tracking Survey, January 20-February 19,
2012. N=2,253 adults, age 18 and older, including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews conducted in English and Spanish. An
asterisk (*) indicates a significant difference at the 95% confidence level.

Among adult search users, one’s experiences using search engines also vary by age. Adults age 30-49,
for example, are more likely than both their older and younger counterparts to report finding obscure
information using search engines. Young adults, in contrast, are most likely to report getting conflicting
or contradictory information in a set of results. The oldest adults, those age 50 and older, are most
likely to report feeling overwhelmed by the amount of information in search results and least likely to
report finding that critical information was missing from their search results.

16

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page57 of 98

Male search users are more likely to report missing or conflicting information,
but also finding obscure information
% of each group who have experienced each of the following…
100%
80%
60%

55%*

45%

45%*

40%

40%*

38%

28%

20%
0%
Found a really obscure fact or
piece of information you didn't
think you'd be able to find

Got conflicting or contradictory
information in results and could
not figure out what was correct

Male search users [n=757]

Discovered really critical
information was missing from
search results

Female search users [n=857]

Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012 Tracking Survey, January 20-February 19,
2012. N=2,253 adults, age 18 and older, including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews conducted in English and Spanish. An
asterisk (*) indicates a significant difference at the 95% confidence level.

Some search users’ experiences vary by age
% of each group who have experienced each of the following…
100%
80%
60%

55%*
48%

51%*

46%

41%
34%

40%

35% 37%

42%*

37%* 35%*

29%

20%
0%
Found a really obscure fact or
piece of information you
didn't think you'd be able to
find

Got conflicting or
contradictory information in
results and could not figure
out what was correct

18-29 [n=314]

Got so much information in a
set of search results that you
felt overwhelmed

30-49 [n=508]

Discovered really critical
information was missing from
search results

50+ [n=756]

Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012 Tracking Survey, January 20-February 19,
2012. N=2,253 adults, age 18 and older, including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews conducted in English and Spanish. An
asterisk (*) indicates a significant difference at the 95% confidence level.

17

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page58 of 98

Most have negative views of search engines and other sites collecting
information about them
The survey asked respondents their views of search engines and other websites collecting information
about them and using it to either shape their search results or target advertising to them. Overall,
attitudes toward these practices are mixed, but the majority of internet and search users express
disapproval.
This is especially relevant as Google implements a new privacy policy in which information about an
individual’s online behavior when they are signed in on any of Google’s sites (including its search engine,
Google+ social networking site, YouTube video-sharing site, and Gmail) can be collected and combined
into a cohesive user profile. As the firm put it in a blog post:
"If you’re signed in to Google, you expect our products to work really beautifully together.
For example, if you’re working on Google Docs and you want to share it with someone on
Gmail, you want their email right there ready to use. Our privacy policies have always
allowed us to combine information from different products with your account—effectively
using your data to provide you with a better service. However, we’ve been restricted in
our ability to combine your YouTube and Search histories with other information in your
account. Our new Privacy Policy gets rid of those inconsistencies so we can make more of
your information available to you when using Google."3
The company argues that the value of these user profiles is their ability to signal to marketers which
products are likely to appeal to different individuals, thereby allowing them to target online advertising
to those most likely to find it relevant and purchase products. Some privacy and consumer advocates
argue that many consumers do not want to have personal information about them collected and that
profiling process is often confusing to consumers, who don’t know how they are being tracked and what
profiling procedures determine what ads they see.
Our questions were designed to test these arguments. Two different questions probed searchers about
whether they think it is okay for search engines to use information about them to rank their future
search results. In the first version of the question, two-thirds of searchers feel it is a bad thing if a
search engine collected information about their searches and then used it to rank their future search
results, because it may limit the information you get online and what search results you see. Some 29%
view the practice of tailoring search results favorably.

3

See: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/googles-new-privacy-policy.html

18

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page59 of 98

Two-thirds of search users view personalized search results as a bad thing
If a search engine kept track of what you search for, and then used that information to personalize your future
search results, how would you feel about that?
based on search users [n=812]
65%

0%

20%

29%

40%

60%

80%

2% 4%

100%

It's a BAD thing because it may limit the information you get online and what search results you see
It's a GOOD thing because it gives you results that are more relevant to you
Neither (VOL)
DK/Ref
Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012 Tracking Survey, January 20-February 19,
2012. N=2,253 adults, age 18 and older, including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews conducted in English and Spanish.

Search users’ views of search engines collecting information about them vary slightly by age,
race/ethnicity, and income. Younger search users (age 18-29) tend to view the practice more favorably,
as do African-American/Hispanic adults when compared with white search users. Search users in the
lowest income category (household income less than $30,000 annually) are also more likely than higher
income search users to say the practice of personalizing search results based on collected information
about users is a good thing.

19

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page60 of 98

Perceptions of personalized search results vary by age, race/ethnicity, and
income
If a search engine kept track of what you search for, and then used that information to personalize your future
search results, how would you feel about that?
18-29 [n=150]

56%

30-49 [n=253]

38%
67%

50+ [n=389]

27%

70%

Black/Hisp [n=149]

24%

50%

White [n=595]

41%
70%

<30K [n=167]

49%
68%

75K+ [n=263]
0%

20%

40%

19%
60%

2% 4%

2% 4%

1% 5%
27%

75%

2% 5%

3% 5%
25%

45%

30K to <75K [n=251]

2% 3%

80%

2% 3%
3% 3%
100%

It's a BAD thing because it may limit the information you get online and what search results you see
It's a GOOD thing because it gives you results that are more relevant to you
Neither (VOL)
DK/Ref
Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012 Tracking Survey, January 20-February 19,
2012. N=2,253 adults, age 18 and older, including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews conducted in English and Spanish.

A different version of the question asking about personalized search results yields even more negative
views. Almost three-quarters of searchers say they would NOT BE OKAY with a search engine keeping
track of their searches and using that information to personalize their future search results because they
see it as an invasion of privacy. This view holds constant across most demographic groups, with the
exception of those age 50 and older, who are especially likely to view the practice negatively.

20

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page61 of 98

Three-quarters of search users say collecting user information to personalize
search results is not okay
If a search engine kept track of what you search for, and then used that information to personalize your future
search results, how would you feel about that?
Based on search users [n=802]
Total [n=802]

73%

18-29 [n=164]

69%

30-49 [n=255]

23%

68%

50+ [n=367]

28%

20%

1% 1%

27%
83%

0%

1% 3%

40%

1% 3%
15%

60%

80%

1% 1%
100%

Would NOT be okay with it because you feel it is an invasion of your privacy
Would be OKAY with it, even if it means they are gathering information about you
Neither (VOL)
DK/Ref
Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012 Tracking Survey, January 20-February 19,
2012. N=2,253 adults, age 18 and older, including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews conducted in English and Spanish.

21

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page62 of 98

Targeted advertising: 59% of internet users have noticed it, but most don’t
like it
In addition to asking search users about personalized search results, all internet users were asked
whether they had noticed ads being targeted to them online and more broadly, their opinion of targeted
advertising. A majority (59%) say they themselves have noticed targeted advertising online –
specifically, they have noticed advertisements online that are directly related to things they had recently
searched for or sites they had recently visited.

Who experiences targeted advertising online?
Have you, personally, ever noticed advertisements online that are directly
related to things you have recently searched for or sites you have recently
visited, or has this never happened to you?

% of each group
answering “yes”
All online adults [n=1,729]
Gender
Male [n=804]
Female [n=925]
Race/Ethnicity
White [n=1,229]
African American [n=172]
Hispanic [n=184]
Age
18-29 [n=316]
30-49 [n=532]
50-64 [n=521]
65+ [n=320]
Education
Some high school [n=108]
High school [n=465]
Some college [n=447]
College graduate [n=698]
Household income
<$30,000 [n=390]
$30,000-$49,999 [n=290]
$50,000-$74,999 [n=250]
$75,000+ [n=523]

59%
62*
56
62*
51
46
62*
62*
56*
47
38
44
64*
73*
48
57
67*
69*

Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012
Tracking Survey, January 20-February 19, 2012. N=2,253 adults, age 18 and older,
including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews conducted in English and Spanish.
The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for total internet users.
An asterisk (*) indicates a significant difference across groups at the .95
confidence level.

22

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page63 of 98

The demographic groups most likely to report noticing targeted advertising online are men, white
internet users, those under age 65, those who have been to college, and those living in higher income
households. Three-quarters (73%) of college graduates have noticed online ads related to things they
recently searched for or sites they recently visited, significantly higher than online adults with lower
educational attainment. Likewise, online adults living in households with annual incomes of $75,000 or
greater are also especially likely to notice such ads, with 69% reporting having this experience.
Internet users were then asked how they feel about the practice of online targeted advertising. Roughly
two-thirds of internet users (68%) have an unfavorable view of the practice, saying they are not okay
with targeted advertising because they do not like having their online behavior tracked and analyzed.
Some 28% said they are okay with targeted advertising because it means they see advertisements and
get information about things they are really interested in.

Two-thirds of internet users view online targeted advertising negatively
Which of the following statements comes closest to how you, personally, feel about TARGETED ADVERTISING
being used online – even if neither is exactly right?
Asked of adult internet users [n=1,729]

68%

0%

20%

28%

40%

60%

80%

2%2%

100%

I'm NOT okay with it because I don't like having my online behavior tracked and analyzed
I'm OKAY with it because it means I see ads and get information about things I'm really interested in
Neither (VOL)
DK/Ref
Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012 Tracking Survey, January 20February 19, 2012. N=2,253 adults, age 18 and older, including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews conducted
in English and Spanish. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for internet users.

While a majority of every demographic group says they are not okay with online targeted advertising,
younger internet users and those in the lowest income households are more likely than others to view
the practice favorably. Yet, even among those groups, almost six in ten say they are not okay with
targeted ads because they do not like having their online behavior tracked and analyzed.

23

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page64 of 98

Views of targeted advertising vary by age and income
Which of the following statements comes closest to how you, personally, feel about TARGETED ADVERTISING being
used online – even if neither is exactly right?
Asked of adult internet users [n=1,729]
18-29 [n=316]

59%

30-49 [n=532]

36%

65%

50-64 [n=521]

2% 3%

32%
78%

65+ [n=320]

19%

72%

<30K [n=390]

21%

58%

30K to <50K [n=290]

39%
68%

50K to <75K [n=250]

29%

20%

29%
40%

4% 3%

2%

23%

68%
0%

1% 2%

1% 2%

74%

75K+ [n=523]

2%

60%

3%
2%

80%

100%

I’m NOT OKAY with targeted advertising because I don’t like having my online behavior tracked and analyzed
I’m OKAY with it because it means I see ads and get information about things I’m really interested in
Neither (VOL)
DK/Ref
Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012 Tracking Survey, January 20-February 19,
2012. N=2,253 adults, age 18 and older, including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews conducted in English and Spanish.

24

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page65 of 98

Most internet users say they do not know how to limit the information that is
collected about them by a website
Just 38% of internet users say they are generally aware of ways they themselves can limit how much
information about them is collected by a website. Among this group, one common strategy people use
to limit personal data collection is to delete their web history: 81% of those who know ways to manage
the capture of their data do this. Some 75% of this group uses the privacy settings of websites to control
what’s captured about them. And 65% change their browser settings to limit the information that is
collected.4

Just 38% of online adults say they are aware of ways to limit how much
personal information websites can collect about them
The percent of those who are aware of ways to limit information who have done each of the following…

Deleted their web history

81%

Used the privacy settings of websites

75%

Changed their browser settings

65%
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012 Tracking Survey, January 20-February 19,
2012. N=2,253 adults, age 18 and older, including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews conducted in English and Spanish.

Online men are significantly more likely than women to report knowing ways to limit how much
personal information websites can collect about them, as are white online adults when compared with
African-Americans and Hispanics. Moreover, online adults who have been to college and those under
age 50 are more likely than other online adults to report knowing how to do this.

4

There are a range of other strategies that users can employ, including the deletion of cookies and the use of
anonymyzing software and proxies that were not part of this survey.

25

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page66 of 98

Who knows how to limit websites’ access to their
personal information online?
Are you aware of any ways internet users like yourself can limit how much
personal information websites collect about you, or are you not aware of
any ways to do this?

% of each group
answering “yes”
All online adults [n=1,729]
Gender
Male [n=804]
Female [n=925]
Race/Ethnicity
White [n=1,229]
African American [n=172]
Hispanic [n=184]
Age
18-29 [n=316]
30-49 [n=532]
50-64 [n=521]
65+ [n=320]
Education
Some high school [n=108]
High school [n=465]
Some college [n=447]
College graduate [n=698]
Household income
<$30,000 [n=390]
$30,000-$49,999 [n=290]
$50,000-$74,999 [n=250]
$75,000+ [n=523]

38%
42*
35
41*
34
27
41*
42*
34*
27
28
31
43*
44*
34
41
32
44*

Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project Winter 2012
Tracking Survey, January 20-February 19, 2012. N=2,253 adults, age 18 and older,
including 901 cell phone interviews. Interviews conducted in English and Spanish.
The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for total internet users.
An asterisk (*) indicates a significant difference across groups at the .95
confidence level.

26

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page67 of 98

Methodology
This report is based on the findings of a survey on Americans' use of the Internet. The results in this
report are based on data from telephone interviews conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates
International from January 20 to February 19, 2012, among a sample of 2,253 adults, age 18 and older.
Telephone interviews were conducted in English and Spanish by landline (1,352) and cell phone (901,
including 440 without a landline phone). For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95%
confidence that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. For results
based Internet users (n=1,729), the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2.7 percentage points. In
addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting telephone surveys
may introduce some error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.
A combination of landline and cellular random digit dial (RDD) samples was used to represent all adults
in the continental United States who have access to either a landline or cellular telephone. Both samples
were provided by Survey Sampling International, LLC (SSI) according to PSRAI specifications. Numbers
for the landline sample were selected with probabilities in proportion to their share of listed telephone
households from active blocks (area code + exchange + two-digit block number) that contained three or
more residential directory listings. The cellular sample was not list-assisted, but was drawn through a
systematic sampling from dedicated wireless 100-blocks and shared service 100-blocks with no
directory-listed landline numbers.
New sample was released daily and was kept in the field for at least five days. The sample was released
in replicates, which are representative subsamples of the larger population. This ensures that complete
call procedures were followed for the entire sample. At least 7 attempts were made to complete an
interview at a sampled telephone number. The calls were staggered over times of day and days of the
week to maximize the chances of making contact with a potential respondent. Each number received at
least one daytime call in an attempt to find someone available. For the landline sample, interviewers
asked to speak with the youngest adult male or female currently at home based on a random rotation. If
no male/female was available, interviewers asked to speak with the youngest adult of the other gender.
For the cellular sample, interviews were conducted with the person who answered the phone.
Interviewers verified that the person was an adult and in a safe place before administering the survey.
Cellular sample respondents were offered a post-paid cash incentive for their participation. All
interviews completed on any given day were considered to be the final sample for that day.
Weighting is generally used in survey analysis to compensate for sample designs and patterns of nonresponse that might bias results. A two-stage weighting procedure was used to weight this dual-frame
sample. The first-stage corrected for different probabilities of selection associated with the number of
adults in each household and each respondent’s telephone usage patterns.5 This weighting also adjusts
for the overlapping landline and cell sample frames and the relative sizes of each frame and each
sample.

5

i.e., whether respondents have only a landline telephone, only a cell phone, or both kinds of telephone.

27

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page68 of 98

The second stage of weighting balances sample demographics to population parameters. The sample is
balanced to match national population parameters for sex, age, education, race, Hispanic origin, region
(U.S. Census definitions), population density, and telephone usage. The Hispanic origin was split out
based on nativity; U.S born and non-U.S. born. The White, non-Hispanic subgroup is also balanced on
age, education and region. The basic weighting parameters came from a special analysis of the Census
Bureau’s 2011 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) that included all households in the
United States. The population density parameter was derived from Census 2000 data. The cell phone
usage parameter came from an analysis of the July-December 2010 National Health Interview Survey.6
Following is the full disposition of all sampled telephone numbers:
Sample Disposition
Landline
Cell
33,732
22,499

Total Numbers Dialed

1,396
1,483
8
14,936
3,094
12,815
38.0%

274
47
---8,237
467
13,474
59.9%

Non-residential
Computer/Fax
Cell phone
Other not working
Additional projected not working
Working numbers
Working Rate

1,031
4,290
40
7,454
58.2%

156
5,288
16
8,014
59.5%

No Answer / Busy
Voice Mail
Other Non-Contact
Contacted numbers
Contact Rate

513
5,491
1,450
19.5%

1,256
5,273
1,485
18.5%

Callback
Refusal
Cooperating numbers
Cooperation Rate

67
---1,383
95.4%

41
524
920
62.0%

Language Barrier
Child's cell phone
Eligible numbers
Eligibility Rate

31
1,352
97.8%

19
901
97.9%

Break-off
Completes
Completion Rate

11.1%

10.8%

Response Rate

6

Blumberg SJ, Luke JV. Wireless substitution: Early release of estimates from the National Health Interview Survey,
July-December, 2010. National Center for Health Statistics. June 2011.

28

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page69 of 98

The disposition reports all of the sampled telephone numbers ever dialed from the original telephone
number samples. The response rate estimates the fraction of all eligible respondents in the sample that
were ultimately interviewed. At PSRAI it is calculated by taking the product of three component rates:




Contact rate – the proportion of working numbers where a request for interview was made
Cooperation rate – the proportion of contacted numbers where a consent for interview was
at least initially obtained, versus those refused
Completion rate – the proportion of initially cooperating and eligible interviews that were
completed

Thus the response rate for the landline sample was 11 percent. The response rate for the cellular sample
was 11 percent.

29

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page70 of 98

Survey questions
Final Topline

Winter Tracking Survey 2012

02/22/2012

Data for January 20–February 19, 2012
Princeton Survey Research Associates International for
the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project
Sample: n=2,253 national adults, age 18 and older, including 901 cell phone interviews
Interviewing dates: 01.20.2012 – 02.19.2012
Margin of error is plus or minus 2 percentage points for results based on Total [n=2,253]
Margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for results based on internet users [n=1,729]
Margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for results based on cell phone owners [n=1,961]
Margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for results based on SNS users [n=1,047]
Margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for results based on SNS or Twitter users [n=1,062]
Margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for results based on Total who use search engines [n=1,614]
Margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points for results based on Form A who use search engines [n=812]
Margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points for results based on Form B who use search engines [n=802]

Do you use the internet, at least occasionally?
7
EMLOCC Do you send or receive email, at least occasionally?
INTUSE

USES INTERNET

Current
December 2011
August 2011
May 2011
January 2011i
December 2010ii
November 2010iii
September 2010
May 2010
January 2010iv
December 2009v
September 2009
April 2009
December 2008
November 2008vi
vii
August 2008
viii
July 2008
May 2008ix

DOES NOT USE
INTERNET

80
82
78
78
79
77
74
74
79
75
74
77
79
74
74
75
77
73

20
18
22
22
21
23
26
26
21
25
26
23
21
26
26
25
23
27

7

Prior to January 2005, question wording was “Do you ever go online to access the Internet or World Wide Web or to send
and receive email?”

30

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page71 of 98

April 2008x
January 2008xi
December 2007xii
September 2007xiii
February 2007xiv
December 2006xv
November 2006xvi
August 2006xvii
April 2006xviii
February 2006xix
December 2005xx
September 2005xxi
June 2005xxii
February 2005xxiii
January 2005xxiv

73
70
75
73
71
70
68
70
73
73
66
72
68
67
66

27
30
25
27
29
30
32
30
27
27
34
28
32
33
34
INTUSE/EMLOCC continued...

INTUSE/EMLOCC continued...
USES INTERNET

Nov 23-30, 2004xxv
November 2004xxvi
June 2004xxvii
February 2004xxviii
November 2003xxix
August 2003xxx
June 2003xxxi
May 2003xxxii
March 3-11, 2003xxxiii
February 2003xxxiv
December 2002xxxv
November 2002xxxvi
October 2002xxxvii
September 2002xxxviii
July 2002xxxix
March/May 2002xl
January 2002xli
December 2001xlii
November 2001xliii
October 2001xliv
September 2001xlv
August 2001xlvi
February 2001xlvii
December 2000xlviii
November 2000xlix
October 2000l
September 2000li
August 2000lii
June 2000liii
May 2000liv

31

DOES NOT USE
INTERNET

59
61
63
63
64
63
62
63
62
64
57
61
59
61
59
58
61
58
58
56
55
59
53
59
53
52
50
49
47
48

41
39
37
37
36
37
38
37
38
36
43
39
41
39
41
42
39
42
42
44
45
41
47
41
47
48
50
51
53
52

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page72 of 98

32

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page73 of 98

YEST1NW

Did you happen to use the internet YESTERDAY?8

Based on all internet users [N=1,729]
YES, USED
INTERNET
YESTERDAY

Current
August 2011
May 2011
November 2010
September 2010
May 2010
January 2010
December 2009
September 2009
April 2009
December 2008
November 2008
August 2008
July 2008
May 2008
April 2008
December 2007
September 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
August 2006
April 2006
December 2005
September 2005
February 2005
January 2005
November 2004
June 2004
February 2004
November 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
March 3-11, 2003
February 2003

NO, DID NOT USE
INTERNET
YEST ERDAY

82
76
77
76
76
78
72
71
73
73
72
72
72
71
70
72
72
68
69
65
64
66
66
63
65
60
58
61
53
55
54
52
55
58
60
60

18
23
22
24
24
22
27
28
27
26
28
27
27
28
30
28
27
32
31
34
36
34
33
36
34
40
42
39
46
44
45
47
44
42
40
40

DON’T KNOW

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1
*
1
*
*
1
1
1
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1
*
*
1
*
*
0
*

9

REFUSED

0
0
0
*
0
0
0
*
*
*
--------------------------YEST1NW continued...

8

Prior to January 2005, question wording was “Did you happen to go online or check your email yesterday?”
For this question and many others throughout the topline, results for “Don’t know” often reflect combined “Don’t know”
and “Refused” percentages. DK and REF are reported separately where available.
9

33

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page74 of 98

YEST1NW continued...
YES, USED
INTERNET
YESTERDAY

December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
July 2002
March/May 2002
January 200210
Dec. 17-23, 2001
Nov. 19-Dec. 16 2001
Oct. 19-Nov. 18 2001
Oct. 8-18 2001
October 2-7 2001
Sept 20-Oct 1 2001
Sept 12-19 2001
August 2001
February 200111
Fall 2000lv
August 2000
June 2000
May 2000
March 2000lvi

WEB1

NO, DID NOT USE
INTERNET
YEST ERDAY

DON’T KNOW

REFUSED

56
57
57
58
53
57
59
58
60
61
51
56
57
51
56
59
56
50
52
55
60

44
43
43
42
47
43
41
42
40
39
49
43
42
49
44
41
44
50
48
45
40

*
*
0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1
1
1
*
*
*
*
*
*
0
*

----------------------

Next... Please tell me if you ever use the internet to do any of the following things. Do
you ever use the internet to...[INSERT; RANDOMIZE]? / Did you happen to do this
yesterday, or not?12
Based on all internet users [N=1,729]
TOTAL HAVE
EVER DONE
THIS

---------DID
YEST ERDAY

HAVE NOT
DONE T HIS

DON’T KNOW

REFUSED

91
92
87
88

59
59
49
50

8
8
12
12

1
*
*
*

0
0
*
0

89
91
88
91

49
41
42
38

10
9
11
9

*
1
*
1

-----

Use an online search engine to help
you find information on the Web
Current
May 2011
May 2010
13

April 2009
May 2008

December 2006
August 2006
Dec 2005

10

Internet user defined as Q5=1 and Q6=1 from Aug. 2001 until Jan 2002.
Internet user for Feb. 2001 defined as Q5=1 and (Q6=1 or Q6A=1-7).
12
Prior to January 2005, question wording was “Please tell me if you ever do any of the following when you go online. Do
you ever…?/Did you happen to do this yesterday, or not?” Unless otherwise noted, trends are based on all internet users for
that survey.
13
In April 2009, item was asked only of Form B internet users [N=879].
11

34

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page75 of 98

September 2005

90
84
89
85

June 2004
June 2003
Jan 2002

41
30
31
29

9
16
10
14

*
*
1
1

-----

Next, I have a few questions about how you use online search engines... First, how
often do you use search engines to find information online? Several times a day, about
once a day, 3-5 days a week, 1-2 days a week, once every few weeks, or less often?

Q32

Based on those who use search engines
JUNE 2004

CURRENT

%

37
17
16
15
7
8
1
*
*
[n=1,614]

Several times a day
About once a day
3 to 5 days a week
1 to 2 days a week
Once every few weeks
Less often
Never (VOL.)
Don’t know
Refused

14

23
12
18
18
15
14
n/a
*
-[n=1,165]

Which search engine do you use MOST OFTEN? [PRECODED OPEN-END]

Q33

Based on those who use search engines
JUNE 2004

CURRENT

%

14
15

83
6
3
*
*
*
*
0
0
2
1
3
*
[n=1,614]

Google
Yahoo Search
Bing
AOL
Ask
Lycos
MyWebSearch
Dogpile
WebCrawler
Other (SPECIFY)
None/Don’t use any regularly (VOL.)
Don’t know
Refused

15

47
26
n/a
5
2
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
12
1
7
-[n=1,165]

In June 2004, question was asked of internet users who use search engines.
In June 2004, question was asked of internet users who use search engines.

35

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page76 of 98

Q34a

In general, do you think Internet search engines are a fair and unbiased source of
information, or do you think search engines are NOT a fair and unbiased source?
Based on Form A respondents who use search engines
JUNE 2004

CURRENT

%

Q34b

66
20
3
9
1
[n=812]

Yes, they are a fair and unbiased source of information
No, they are NOT a fair and unbiased source of information
Depends (VOL.)
Don’t know
Refused

16

68
19
5
8
-[n=1,165]

In general, how much of the information you find using search engines do you think is
accurate or trustworthy? Would you say... [READ 1-5]
Based on Form B respondents who use search engines [N=802]
CURRENT

%

Q35a

28
45
22
2
1
1
*

All or almost all
Most
Some
Very little
None at all
(DO NOT READ) Don’t know
(DO NOT READ) Refused

When you use a search engine to look for information online, how often do you actually
FIND the information you’re looking for? [READ 1-4]
Based on Form A respondents who use search engines
JUNE 2004

CURRENT

%

Q35b

29
62
7
2
1
0
[n=812]

Always
Most of the time
Only some of the time
Hardly ever
(DO NOT READ) Don’t know
(DO NOT READ) Refused

17

17
70
11
1
1
-[n=1,165]

How CONFIDENT do you feel about your own searching abilities when using a search
engine to find information online? [READ 1-4]
Based on Form B respondents who use search engines
CURRENT

16
17
18

JUNE 2004

18

In June 2004, question was asked of internet users who use search engines.
In June 2004, question was asked of internet users who use search engines.
In June 2004, question was asked of internet users who use search engines.

36

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page77 of 98

%

56
37
5
1
*
*
[n=802]

Very confident
Somewhat confident
Not too confident
Not confident at all
(DO NOT READ) Don’t know
(DO NOT READ) Refused

48
44
6
2
*
-[n=1,165]

Thinking about recent searches you have done online using a search engine... Have you
ever... [INSERT ITEM; RANDOMIZE], or has this never happened?

Q36

Based on those who use search engines [N=1,614]
YES, HAS
HAPPENED

NO, HAS NOT
HAPPENED

DON’T KNOW

REFUSED

34

64

2

*

a.

b.

Learned something new or important
using a search engine that really helped
you or increased your knowledge

86

13

1

0

c.

Gotten so much information in a set of
search results that you felt overwhelmed

38

61

*

*

d.

Gotten conflicting or contradictory search
results and could not figure out what
information was correct

41

57

1

*

e.

Q37a

Discovered that really critical or important
information was missing from the search
results you got

Found a really obscure fact or piece of
information using a search engine that
you didn’t think you’d be able to find

50

49

1

*

Overall, in your experience, are search engine results getting MORE relevant and useful
over time, LESS relevant and useful, or have you not seen any real difference over time?
Based on Form A respondents who use search engines [N=812]
CURRENT

%

Q37b

52
7
40
1
*

MORE relevant and useful
LESS relevant and useful
No difference over time
Don’t know
Refused

Overall, in your experience, is the QUALITY of the information you get using search
engines getting BETTER over time, WORSE over time, or have you not seen any real
difference?
Based on Form B respondents who use search engines [N=802]
CURRENT

%

37

55

Quality getting better

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page78 of 98

4
39
2
*

Q38a

Quality getting worse
No difference in quality over time
Don’t know
Refused

If a search engine kept track of what you search for, and then used that information to
personalize your future search results, how would you feel about that? Would you say...
[READ AND ROTATE 1-2]?
Based on Form A respondents who use search engines [N=812]
CURRENT

%

It’s a BAD thing if a search engine collected information about your searches
and then used it to rank your future search results, because it may limit the
information you get online and what search results you see (OR)

29

It’s a GOOD thing if a search engine collected information about your
searches and then used it to rank your future search results, because it gives
you results that are more relevant to you (OR)

2

(DO NOT READ) Neither of these

3

(DO NOT READ) Don’t know

1

Q38b

65

(DO NOT READ) Refused

If a search engine kept track of what you search for, and then used that information to
personalize your future search results, how would you feel about that? Would
you...[READ AND ROTATE 1-2]?
Based on Form B respondents who use search engines [N=802]
CURRENT

%

NOT BE OKAY with a search engine keeping track of your searches and using
that information to personalize your future search results because you feel it
is an invasion of privacy (OR)

23

Be OKAY with a search engine keeping track of your searches and using that
information to personalize your future search results, even if it means they
are gathering information about you (OR)

1

(DO NOT READ) Neither of these

2

(DO NOT READ) Don’t know

1

38

73

(DO NOT READ) Refused

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page79 of 98

As you may know, businesses sometimes use TARGETED ADVERTISING to reach online
consumers. Targeted advertising uses information about a person’s online behavior
collected by websites and search engines to determine what advertisements that person
will see online.

Q39

Have you, personally, ever noticed advertisements online that are directly related to
things you have recently searched for or sites you have recently visited, or has this
never happened to you?
Based on all internet users [N=1,729]
CURRENT

%

59
39
2
*

Yes, I’ve noticed this
No, this hasn’t happened to me
Don’t know
Refused

Which of the following statements comes closest to how you, personally, feel about
TARGETED ADVERTISING being used online – even if neither is exactly right? [READ
AND ROTATE 1-2]

Q40

Based on all internet users [N=1,729]
CURRENT

%

68

I’m NOT OKAY with targeted advertising because I don’t like having my
online behavior tracked and analyzed (OR)

28

I’m OKAY with targeted advertising because it means I see advertisements
and get information about things I’m really interested in (OR)

2

(DO NOT READ) Neither of these

1

(DO NOT READ) Don’t know

1

(DO NOT READ) Refused

Are you aware of any ways internet users like yourself can limit how much personal
information websites collect about you, or are you not aware of any ways to do this?

Q41

Based on all internet users [N=1,729]
CURRENT

%

39

38
60
1
*

Yes, aware of ways to do this
No, not aware of any ways to do this
Don’t know
Refused

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page80 of 98

Have you, personally, done any of the following to limit the information websites gather
about you? (First,/Next,) How about...[INSERT ITEM; RANDOMIZE]? Have you done
this, or not?

Q42

Based on those who are aware of ways to limit personal information collected by websites [N=633]
YES, HAVE DONE
THIS

a.

Changed your browser settings

b.

Deleted your web history

c.

Used the privacy settings of websites

NO, HAVE NOT
DONE T HIS

DON’T KNOW

REFUSED

65
81
75

33
18
24

2
*
1

*
*
*

i

January 2011 trends based on the Pew Internet Project/Project for Excellence in Journalism/Knight Foundation
“Local News survey,” conducted January 12-25, 2011 [N=2,251, including 750 cell phone interviews].
ii

December 2010 trends based on the Social Side of the Internet survey, conducted November 23–December 21,
2010 [N=2,303, including 748 cell phone interviews].
iii

November 2010 trends based on the Post-Election Tracking Survey 2010, conducted November 3-24, 2010
[N=2,257, including 755 cell phone interviews].
iv

January 2010 trends based on the Online News survey, conducted December 28, 2009 – January 19, 2010
[N=2,259, including 562 cell phone interviews].
v

December 2009 trends based on the Fall Tracking “E-Government” survey, conducted November 30 – December 27,
2009 [N=2,258, including 565 cell phone interviews].
vi

November 2008 trends based on the Post-Election 2008 Tracking survey, conducted November 20-December 4,
2008 [N=2,254].
vii

August 2008 trends based on the August Tracking 2008 survey, conducted August 12-31, 2008 [N=2,251].

viii

July 2008 trends based on the Personal Networks and Community survey, conducted July 9-August 10, 2008
[N=2,512, including 505 cell phone interviews]
ix

May 2008 trends based on the Spring Tracking 2008 survey, conducted April 8-May 11, 2008 [N=2,251].

x

April 2008 trends based on the Networked Workers survey, conducted March 27-April 14, 2008. Most questions
were asked only of full- or part-time workers [N=1,000], but trend results shown here reflect the total sample
[N=2,134].
xi

January 2008 trends based on the Networked Families survey, conducted December 13, 2007-January 13, 2008
[N=2,252].
xii

December 2007 trends based on the Annual Gadgets survey, conducted October 24-December 2, 2007 [N=2,054,
including 500 cell phone interviews].
xiii

September 2007 trends based on the Consumer Choice survey, conducted August 3-September 5, 2007 [N=2,400,
oversample of 129 cell phone interviews].
xiv

February 2007 trends based on daily tracking survey conducted February 15-March 7, 2007 [N=2,200].

xv

December 2006 trends based on daily tracking survey, conducted November 30 - December 30, 2006 [N=2,373].

xvi

November 2006 trends based on Post-Election tracking survey, conducted Nov. 8-Dec. 4, 2006 [N=2,562]. This
includes an RDD sample [N=2,362] and a cell phone only sample [N=200]. Results reflect combined samples, where
applicable.
xvii

August 2006 trends based on daily tracking survey, conducted August 1-31, 2006 [N=2,928].

xviii

April 2006 trends based on the Annual Gadgets survey, conducted Feb. 15-Apr. 6, 2006 [N=4,001].

xix

February 2006 trends based on the Exploratorium Survey, conducted Jan. 9-Feb. 6, 2006 [N=2,000].

xx

December 2005 trends based on daily tracking survey conducted Nov. 29-Dec. 31, 2005 [N=3,011].

xxi

September 2005 trends based on daily tracking survey conducted Sept. 14-Oct.13, 2005 [N=2,251].

40

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page81 of 98

xxii

June 2005 trends based on the Spyware Survey, conducted May 4-June 7, 2005 [N=2,001].

xxiii

February 2005 trends based on daily tracking survey conducted Feb. 21-March 21, 2005 [N=2,201].

xxiv

January 2005 trends based on daily tracking survey conducted Jan. 13-Feb.9, 2005 [N=2,201].

xxv

November 23-30, 2004 trends based on the November 2004 Activity Tracking Survey, conducted November 23-30,
2004 [N=914].
xxvi

November 2004 trends based on the November Post-Election Tracking Survey, conducted Nov 4-Nov 22, 2004
[N=2,200].
xxvii

June 2004 trends based on daily tracking survey conducted May 14-June 17, 2004 [N=2,200].

xxviii

February 2004 trends based on daily tracking survey conducted February 3-March 1, 2004 [N=2,204].

xxix

November 2003 trends based on daily tracking survey conducted November 18-December 14, 2003 [N=2,013].

xxx

August 2003 trends based on ‘E-Government’ survey conducted June 25-August 3, 2003 [N=2,925].

xxxi

June 2003 trends based on ‘Internet Spam’ survey conducted June 10-24, 2003 [N=2,200].

xxxii

May 2003 trends based on daily tracking survey conducted April 29-May 20, 2003 [N=1,632].

xxxiii

March 3-11, 2003 trends based on daily tracking survey conducted March 3-11, 2003 [N=743].

xxxiv

February 2003 trends based on daily tracking survey conducted February 12-March 2, 2003 [N=1,611].

xxxv

December 2002 trends based on daily tracking survey conducted Nov. 25–Dec. 22, 2002 [N=2,038].

xxxvi

November 2002 trends based on daily tracking survey conducted October 30-November 24, 2002 [N=2,745].

xxxvii

October 2002 trends based on daily tracking survey conducted October 7-27, 2002 [N=1,677].

xxxviii

September 2002 trends based on daily tracking survey conducted September 9-October 6, 2002 [N=2,092].

xxxix

July 2002 trends based on ‘Sept. 11th-The Impact Online’ survey conducted June 26-July 26, 2002 [N=2,501].

xl

March/May 2002 trends based on daily tracking surveys conducted March 1-31, 2002 and May 2-19, 2002.

xli

January 2002 trends based on a daily tracking survey conducted January 3-31, 2002 [N=2,391].

xlii

December 2001 trends represent a total tracking period of December 1-23, 2001 [N=3,214]. This tracking period
based on daily tracking surveys conducted December 17-23, 2001 and November 19-December 16, 2001.
xliii

November 2001 trends represent a total tracking period of November 1-30, 2001 [N=2,119]. This tracking period
based on daily tracking surveys conducted October 19 – November 18, 2001 and November 19 – December 16,
2001.
xliv

October 2001 trends represent a total tracking period of October 1-31, 2001 [N=1,924]. This tracking period
based on daily tracking surveys conducted September 20 – October 1, 2001, October 2-7, 2001, October 8-18, 2001,
and October 19 – November 18, 2001.
xlv

September 2001 trends represent a total tracking period of September 1-30, 2001 [N=742]. This tracking period
based on daily tracking surveys conducted August 13-September 10, 2001, September 12-19, 2001 and September
20 – October 1, 2001.
xlvi August 2001 trends

represent a total tracking period of August 12-31, 2001
.

tracking survey conducted August 13-September 10, 2001

[N=

1,505]. This tracking period

based on a daily

xlvii

February 2001 trends based on a daily tracking survey conducted February 1, 2001-March 1, 2001 [N=2,096].

xlviii

December 2000 trends based on a daily tracking survey conducted December 2-22, 2000 [N=2,383].

xlix

November 2000 trends based on a daily tracking survey conducted November 2, 2000 – December 1 [N=6,322].

l

October 2000 trends based on a daily tracking survey conducted October 2 – November 1, 2000 [N=3,336].

li

September 2000 trends based on a daily tracking survey conducted September 15 – October 1, 2000 [N=1,302].

lii

August 2000 trends based on a daily tracking survey conducted July 24 – August 20, 2000 [N=2,109].

liii

June 2000 trends based on a daily tracking survey conducted May 2 – June 30, 2000 [N=4,606].

liv

May 2000 trends based on a daily tracking survey conducted April 1 – May 1, 2000 [N=2,503].

41

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page82 of 98

lv

Fall 2000 figures based on a daily tracking survey conducted September 15 – December 22, 2000 [N=13,342].

lvi

March 2000 figures based on a daily tracking survey conducted March 1 – March 31, 2000 [N=3,533].

42

pewinternet.org

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page83 of 98

EXHIBIT 4-C

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page84 of 98
Confidential

Schedule
 3
Internet
 Based
 Class
 Notice
Includes
 Emphasis
 on
 Security
 Conscious
 Google
 Users
Size
 of
 Target
 Audience

129,979,000

Estimated
 Reach
 of
 Notice
 Plan
Estimated
 Frequency

71.5%
2.2

Target
 Audience
Adults
 18+
 who
 had
 visited
 Google
 Search
 (72.6%)
 of
 US
 Internet
 Population.
Outlet
MediaMath
Facebook
 Exchange

Unit
 Size
Standard
 IAB
 Sizes:

Static
 jpeg
 -­‐
 100x72

Total
 Digital
 Impressions
Estimated
 Reach
Estimated
 Frequency
Target
 Rating
 Points

Total
 Impressions
131,350,000
71,000,000

Estimated
 Cost

202,350,000
70.8
2.2
156

$720,921

Security
 Concious
 Audience
Adults
 18+
 who
 had
 visited
 Google
 Search
 (72.6%)
 of
 US
 Internet
 Population
 AND

have
 high
 on-­‐line
 security
 consciousness
 OR
 highly
 worries
 about
 online
 financial

transaction
 security
 AND
 is
 influential
 AND
 frequently
 advises
 others
 on
 internet

content/services
Outlet
MediaMath
AdExchanger.com
Arstechnica.com
Zdnet.com
Ziff
 Davis

Unit
 Size
Standard
 IAB
 Sizes:

Leaderboard
 (728
 x
 90)

or
 Medium
 Rectangle

(300
 x
 250)

Estimated
 Reach
Estimated
 Frequency
Target
 Rating
 Points
Total
 Estimated
 Cost

Total
 Impressions
7,040,000
1,928,100
1,005,000
1,000,000
1,800,000
91.8
3.4
314

Estimated
 Cost

$134,617
$855,539

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page85 of 98

EXHIBIT 4-D

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page86 of 98

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.
This Notice relates to a proposed Settlement of consolidated class action lawsuits (the
“Lawsuit”) filed against Google Inc. relating to the inclusion of Google search queries in referrer
headers (also called “referer headers”) or during the provision of certain Google services. If you
used Google Search at any time after October 26, 2006, you may be a “Class Member” in
this Lawsuit.
The Settlement would resolve the legal claims against Google. Under the Settlement, Google
will pay $8.5 million to fund organizations and particular initiatives focused on Internet privacy,
as well as to cover lawyers’ fees and costs and other expenses related to the Settlement. Google
will also revise its “FAQs” and “Key Terms” webpages to include conspicuous, clear and
concise explanations of how and when search queries may be disclosed to third parties via
referrer headers.
This Notice explains important legal rights you may have. Your legal rights will be affected
regardless of whether you do or do not act. The following rights and options—and the
deadlines to exercise them—are explained in this Notice.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT

OBJECT

Accept the terms of this Settlement and
thereby give up your rights to sue Google
about the same legal claims as are made in
this case.
This is the only option that allows you to
bring your own, or be part of any other,
lawsuit against Google about the legal claims
resolved in this Settlement.
Write to the Court about why you think the
Settlement should not be approved.

GO TO A HEARING

Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the
Settlement.

DO NOTHING

EXCLUDE YOURSELF

The Court in charge of this Lawsuit has preliminarily approved the Settlement and will hold a
hearing to make a final decision to approve it. The relief provided to Class Members will be
provided only if the Court gives final approval to the Settlement and, if there are any appeals,
after the appeals are resolved in favor of the Settlement.
1

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page87 of 98

WHAT THIS NOTICE CONTAINS
BASIC INFORMATION
1.
2.
3.
4.

Why did I get this Notice?
What is this case about?
Why is there a Settlement?
Why is this a class action, and how do I know if I am part of the Settlement?

THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS
5. What does this Settlement provide?
6. What am I giving up as part of the Settlement?
7. Will the Class Representatives receive any compensation for their efforts in bringing this
Lawsuit?

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT
8. How do I exclude myself from the Settlement?
9. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue later?
10. What happens if I do nothing at all?

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
11. Do I have a lawyer in the case?
12. How will the lawyers be paid?

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
13. How do I tell the Court that I do not like the Settlement?
14. What is the difference between objecting and asking to be excluded?

THE COURT’S FAIRNESS HEARING
15. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlement?
16. Do I have to come to the hearing?
17. May I speak at the hearing?

GETTING MORE INFORMATION
18. How do I get more information about the Settlement?
2

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page88 of 98

BASIC INFORMATION
1. Why did I get this Notice?
A Court authorized this Notice to inform people that may be Class Members about a proposed
Settlement of this class action regarding the alleged inclusion of Google search queries in
referrer headers or during the provision of certain Google services. This Notice explains the
nature of the lawsuits and claims being settled, your legal rights, and the benefits to the Class.
Judge Edward Davila of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is
overseeing this class action. The case is known as In re Google Referrer Header Privacy
Litigation. The people who sued are called the “Plaintiffs,” and the company they sued, Google,
Inc., is called the “Defendant.”
2. What is this case about?
Google Search allows users to find certain information on the Internet by using words, numbers
and phrases (the “search query”) in the search box at www.google.com.
The Plaintiffs who filed this case allege that Google broke privacy promises to Google users by
intentionally and systematically embedding individual search queries, and search query
components of user Web Histories, in referrer headers sent to third parties without user consent
or through its Analytics service.
“Referrer headers” are a standard Internet feature that web servers, web browsers, and other webenabled tools use to communicate with each other. A referrer header is often generated when an
Internet user requests a web page from a web server. The referrer header, under most
circumstances, identifies the page containing the link the user clicked on to request the web page
— that is, the page that “referred” the user to that web page. “Web History” is a Google service
that stores a particular user’s Google search query information.
The Plaintiffs presently bring claims against Google for (i) violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq.; (ii) breach of contract, (iii) breach of
contract implied in law, (iv) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (v) unjust
enrichment; and (vi) declaratory judgment and corresponding injunctive relief.
Google denies the accuracy of the Plaintiffs’ allegations, denies that it broke any privacy
promises, and denies that it violated any law or caused any harm as alleged in the Lawsuit.
To obtain more information about this case and Settlement, please see Section 18.
For more information about referrer headers and/or how Google handles your search queries visit
Google’s FAQ and Key Terms webpages, currently available at
3

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page89 of 98

https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/key-terms/ and
https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/faq, respectively.
3. Why is there a Settlement?
The Court did not decide in favor of the Plaintiffs or Google. Instead, both sides agreed to settle
this case. That way, they avoid the costs and risk of a trial, and the Class will receive relief when
the Settlement is final, rather than years from now, if at all.
4. Why is this a class action, and how do I know if I am part of the Settlement?
In a class action, one or more people called “class representatives” (in this case, Paloma Gaos,
Anthony Italiano and Gabriel Priyev) sue on behalf of people who have similar claims. All of
these people who may have similar claims form a “Class” and are “Class Members.” The
Settlement resolves the issues for all Class Members, except those who exclude themselves from
the Class, as explained in Section 8.
To know if you will be affected by this Settlement, you first have to determine if you are a Class
Member. The Court decided that the Class includes all users of Google Search in the United
States from October 26, 2006 through [DATE]. The Class also includes anyone who could bring
any of the claims in the Lawsuit on behalf of these users of Google Search, such as
representatives, heirs, administrators, and assigns. If you are not sure whether you are in the
Class, or have any other questions about the Settlement, visit www.googlesearchsettlement.com,
or write with questions to CLASS ADMIN EMAIL AND US MAIL ADDRESSES.

THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS
5. What does this Settlement provide?
If the proposed Settlement is finally approved by the Court, and after any appeals are resolved,
Google has agreed to:
•

Pay a total of $8,500,000 into an interest-bearing account. This $8,500,000, plus interest,
will constitute the “Settlement Amount.” Because there are so many Class Members, a
distribution of the Settlement Amount to the Class would not be feasible. Therefore, the
Settlement Amount, net of any attorney fees and costs, expenses in administering the
settlement, and service awards to the Class Representatives (i.e., the Net Settlement
Amount), will be distributed to organizations to advance the privacy interests of Internet
users such as the Class Members. Subject to Court approval and agreement by the
organizations to use the funds they receive from this settlement to promote public
awareness and education, and/or to support research, development, and initiatives, related
to protecting privacy on the Internet, the organizations that might receive payment under
the Settlement are: World Privacy Forum, Carnegie-Mellon, Chicago-Kent College of
4

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page90 of 98

•

Law Center for Information, Society, and Policy, Berkman Center for Internet and
Society at Harvard University, Stanford Center for Internet and Society, MacArthur
Foundation, and AARP, Inc. Please check www.googlesearchsettlement.com
periodically for any updates regarding which potential recipients will be presented to the
Court for final approval, how much each potential recipient will receive, and how each
potential recipient proposes to use any funds it receives. The final recipient list and
percentage of the Net Settlement Amount to go to each recipient will be posted on the
website not later than DATE.
Make lasting changes to Google’s FAQs and Key Terms to more fully explain how
search queries are handled and actually or potentially made available to third parties.

6. What am I giving up as part of the Settlement?
If the Settlement becomes final, Class Members will be releasing Google (and certain others
related to Google, such as Google directors, officers and employees) from all of the settled
claims. This means that you will no longer be able to sue Google (or the other released parties)
regarding any of the settled claims if you are a Class Member and do not timely and properly
exclude yourself from the Class.
The settled claims are any known or unknown claims that any Class Member may at any time
have up to [INSERT DATE OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL], arising out of the subject matter
giving rise to the claims in the lawsuits that were consolidated into this Lawsuit. For a summary
of the subject matter in the lawsuits, see Section 2, Section 18, and the Consolidated Complaint.

In addition, Class Members expressly waive and relinquish the provisions of California Civil
Code § 1542 (and all other similar provisions of law) to the full extent that these provisions may
be applicable to this release. California Civil Code § 1542 provides:

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS
WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR
SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE
TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF
KNOWN TO HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY
AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE
DEBTOR.
The full text of the Settlement Agreement, which includes all the provisions about settled claims
and releases, is available at www.googlesearchsettlement.com.
7. Will the Class Representatives receive any compensation for their efforts in bringing
this Lawsuit?
Paloma Gaos, Anthony Italiano, and Gabriel Priyev will request a service award of up to
$5,000.00 each for their services as class representatives and their efforts in bringing the
5

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page91 of 98

Lawsuit. The Court will make the final decision as to the amount, if any, to be paid to the Class
Representatives.

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT
8. How do I exclude myself from the Settlement?
Class Members who do not want to be part of the Settlement must complete a form requesting to
be excluded. The form and instructions for its submission are available at
www.googlesearchsettlement.com, or from the Class Administrator (see Section 18 for contact
information). Requests for exclusion must be made on an individual basis and submitted no later
than DATE.
9. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue later?
No, if you are a Class Member. If you do not exclude yourself, you forever give up the right to
sue Google for all of the claims that this Settlement resolves.
If you submit a valid and timely request to be excluded, you cannot object to the proposed
Settlement. However, if you ask to be excluded, you may sue or continue to sue Google about
the same claims resolved by this Settlement in the future. You will not be bound by anything
that happens in this Lawsuit.
10. What happens if I do nothing at all?
If you are a Class Member and do nothing, and you do not exclude yourself, you will not be able
to start or proceed with a lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit against Google and the other
released parties about the settled claims in this case at any time.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
11. Do I have a lawyer in the case?
The Court has ordered that Kassra Nassiri of Nassiri & Jung LLP, Michael Aschenbrener of
Aschenbrener Law, P.C., and Ilan Chorowsky of Progressive Law Group, LLC (together, “Class
Counsel”) will represent the interests of all Class Members. Class Members will not be
separately charged for these lawyers. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you
may hire one at your own expense.
12. How will the lawyers be paid?
Class Counsel will request up to XXX for their attorneys’ fees and up to XXX to cover their out6

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page92 of 98

of-pocket costs. To see a copy of Class Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees and costs,
which will be available prior to the Fairness Hearing, please visit
www.googlesearchsettlement.com. The Court will make the final decisions as to the amounts to
be paid to Class Counsel, and may award less than the amounts requested by Class Counsel.

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
13. How do I tell the Court that I do not like the Settlement?
You can object to the Settlement if you do not like any part of it. You must give the reasons why
you think the Court should not approve the Settlement. To object, you must deliver to the Class
Administrator, Class Counsel and Google’s counsel, and file with the Court, a written statement
of your objection(s). The written statement must include (i) your full name, address, telephone
number and signature; (ii) the name of the Lawsuit; (iii) the specific reasons why you object to
the Settlement; (iv) copies of any evidence and legal authority you would like the Court to
consider; (v) information demonstrating that you are a Class Member; and (vi) whether you or
your attorney will appear at the fairness hearing (see Section 14). You must send a copy of your
objection by First-Class mail to the four different places listed below, postmarked no later than
DATE.
COURT

CLASS COUNSEL

DEFENSE COUNSEL

CLASS ADMINISTRATOR

If you or your attorney intends to make an appearance at the Fairness Hearing and you have not
so indicated in your objection, you must also deliver, according to the above procedures, no later
7

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page93 of 98

than DATE, a Notice of Intention to Appear. Any attorney hired by a Class Member to represent
him or her and appear at the Fairness Hearing must also file a notice of appearance with the
Court no later than DATE.
If you fail to comply with these requirements, or fail to submit your objection before the
deadline, you will be deemed to have waived all objections and will not be entitled to speak
at the fairness hearing.
14. What is the difference between objecting and asking to be excluded?
Objecting is simply telling the Court that you don’t like something about the Settlement. You
can object only if you stay in the Class. Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you don’t
want to be part of the Class. If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the
Settlement no longer affects you.

THE COURT’S FAIRNESS HEARING
15. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlement?
A Court has preliminarily approved the Settlement and will hold a hearing to determine whether
to give final approval to the Settlement. The purpose of the Fairness Hearing is for the Court to
determine wither the Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
interests of the Class to consider the award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to Class Counsel and
to consider the request for a service awards to the Class Representatives.
The Court will hold the Fairness Hearing on DATE, at PLACE. The hearing may be postponed
to a different time or location without additional notice, so it is recommended that you
periodically check www.googlesearchsettlement.com for updated information.
16. Do I have to come to the hearing?
No, you are not required to come to the Fairness Hearing. However, you are welcome to attend
the hearing at your own expense. If you send a written objection, you do not have to come to the
hearing to talk about it. As long as you submitted the written objection and it was received on
time, the Court will consider it. You also may pay your own lawyer to attend the Fairness
Hearing, but that is not necessary.
17. May I speak at the hearing?
As described in Section 13, you may speak at the Fairness Hearing only if (a) you have timely
served and filed an objection, and (b) followed the procedures set forth in Section 13 for
notifying the Court and the parties that you intend to speak at the Fairness Hearing. You cannot
speak at the hearing if you exclude yourself from the Settlement.
8

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page94 of 98

GETTING MORE INFORMATION
18. How do I get more information about the Settlement?
This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement.
To see a copy of the actual Settlement Agreement, the complaints filed in this Lawsuit, the
Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, Class Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees and costs,
other pertinent information, and to check the status of the Settlement or if the Settlement has
been approved by the Court, please visit www.googlesearchsettlement.com.
You may also contact the Class Administrator at CONTACT INFO. To see papers filed with the
Court and a history of this Lawsuit, you may visit the website for the Administrative Office of
the U.S. Courts, PACER Service Center, located at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/ and reference
CASE NAME, CASE NUMBER, and COURT VENUE. Alternatively, to see Court papers and
history in the lawsuits that were consolidated into this Lawsuit, reference the above case
information, as well as Priyev v. Google Inc., Case No. 1:2012-cv-01467, Northern District of
Illinois Court, and Priyev v. Google Inc., Case No. 5:2013-cv-00093, Northern District of
California Court. You may also visit or call the Clerk’s office at the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, ADDRESS. The Clerk will tell you how to obtain the
complete file for inspection and copying at your own expense.
You may also contact Class Counsel, Kassra Nassiri of Nassiri & Jung LLP, by CONTACT
INFO.
PLEASE DO NOT ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT OR
LITIGATION TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT OR THE JUDGE.

9

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page95 of 98

EXHIBIT 4-E

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page96 of 98

EXHIBIT
 E:
 BANNER
 ADVERTISEMENTS

Display
 size
 is
 a
 function
 of
 screen
 resolution

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page97 of 98

Case5:10-cv-04809-EJD Document52-4 Filed07/19/13 Page98 of 98