In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation

Filing 66

MOTION for Attorney Fees Expenses and Costs filed by Paloma Gaos. Motion Hearing set for 8/29/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Edward J. Davila. Responses due by 8/8/2014. Replies due by 8/22/2014. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Aschenbrener, #2 Declaration Nassiri, #3 Declaration Chorowsky, #4 Declaration Class Admin, #5 Declaration Dore, #6 Declaration Gaos, #7 Declaration Italiano, #8 Declaration Priyev, #9 Proposed Order for Final Approval and Fees, #10 Proposed Order Final Judgment)(Aschenbrener, Michael) (Filed on 7/25/2014)

Exhibit 4
Class Administrator Declaration

1
2
3
4

KASSRA P. NASSIRI (215405)
[e-mail]
NASSIRI & JUNG LLP
47 Kearny Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, California 94108
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
6
7
8
9
10

MICHAEL J. ASCHENBRENER (SBN 277114)
[e-mail]
ASCHENBRENER LAW, P.C.
795 Folsom Street, First Floor
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
In re GOOGLE REFERRER HEADER
PRIVACY LITIGATION
_____________________________________

18
19
20

This Document Relates To: All Actions

Case No. 5:10-cv-04809-EJD
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W.
SIMMONS REGARDING
CLASS NOTICE
Date: August 29, 2014
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Place: Courtroom 4, 5th Floor
Judge: Hon. Edward J. Davila

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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

1

STATE OF MINNESOTA

) SS

2
3

)

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN

)

4
5

I, Richard W. Simmons, declare as follows:

6

1. I am the President of Analytics Consulting LLC (“Analytics”)1, a firm in Chanhasssen,

7

Minnesota, that provides consulting services relating to the design and administration of class action and

8

mass tort litigation settlements and notice programs.
2. I am responsible for designing the Notice Plan for the proposed settlement in this matter and

9
10

for overseeing Analytics’ execution of the Notice Plan. I am over 21 years of age, and I have personal

11

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

12
13

3. This declaration is based on my personal knowledge, information provided by Analytics
personnel, and information provided by Analytics’ media partners.

14

4. This declaration describes:

15

a. The methodology used to create the Notice Plan;

16

b. The Notice Plan;

17

c. The digital media (Internet) Notice;

18

d. The Notice design;

19

e. The calculation and verification of reach and frequency;

20

f. Earned media;

21

g. The toll-free helpline; and,

22

h. The Settlement website.
QUALIFICATIONS

23
24

5.

Since 1974, Analytics has consulted regarding the administration of class action

25

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

26

discrimination, and securities litigation. For nearly four decades, Analytics has pioneered developments

27
28

1

In October 2013, Analytics Consulting LLC acquired Analytics Incorporated (d/b/a BMC Group Class Action Services
(“BMC Group”)). I was formerly the President/Managing Director of BMC Group. References to Analytics herein include
the prior legal entities.

1
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

1

in landmark consumer, mass tort/personal injury, and securities litigation settlements. Analytics experts

2

led the development of analysis in antitrust litigation (In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation,

3

MDL 310) and helped develop statistical models that are still used today to determine the existence and

4

impact of discrimination (Rajender v. University of Minnesota, No. 4-73-435 (D.Minn)).

5

6. I joined Analytics in 1990, and have twenty-four 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 and

10

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

11

on claims rates. As has always been my practice, I personally performed or oversaw Analytics’

12

consulting services in each of the cases indicated on my CV, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

13

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

14

processing, and disbursement. In 2011, I was a panelist at the Federal Judicial Center’s

15

workshop/meeting regarding class action notice and settlement administration. In 2014, I was

16

interviewed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regarding notice and claims administration in

17

class action litigation as part of their study on arbitration and consumer class litigation waivers. I have

18

co-authored and presented CLE programs and whitepapers regarding class notice and class action claims

19

administration. My speaking engagements regarding notice include: Class Action Administration: Data

20

and Technology, presented by Richard Simmons, Harris Martin Target Data Breach Conference in San

21

Diego (2014); Developments in Legal Notice, accredited CLE Program, presented by Richard Simmons

22

and Christian Clapp at Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP in Kansas City (2013), presented by Richard

23

Simmons and Christian Clapp at Halunen & Associates in Minneapolis (2013), and presented by

24

Richard Simmons and Christian Clapp at Susman Godfrey in Dallas (2014) and, Class Actions 101: Best

25

Practices and Potential Pitfalls in Providing Class Notice, CLE Program, presented by Brian

26

Christensen, Gina Intrepido, and Richard Simmons, to the Kansas Bar Association (March 2009).

27

9. I have been recognized by courts for my opinion as to which method of notification is

28

appropriate for a given case and whether a certain method of notice represents the best notice practicable
2
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

1

under the circumstances. Our judicial recognition includes notice programs targeting consumers. For

2

example:

3

a. Judge Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr., In Re: CertainTeed Fiber Cement Siding Litigation

4

(March 20, 2014), MDL Docket No. 2270 (E.D. PA): “Settlement class members

5

were provided with notice of the settlement in the manner and form set forth in the

6

settlement agreement… Notice was also provided to pertinent state and federal

7

officials… The notice plan was reasonably calculated to give actual notice to

8

settlement class members of their right to receive benefits from the settlement or

9

to be excluded from the settlement or object to the settlement. The notice plan met

10
11

the requirements of Rule 23 and due process.”
b. Judge Robert G. Gettleman, In Re Aftermarket Filters Antitrust Litigation

12

(October 25, 2012), MDL Docket No. 1957 (N.D. IL): “Due and adequate notice

13

of the Settlement was provided to the Class… The manner of giving notice

14

provided in this case fully satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil

15

Procedure 23 and due process, constitutes the best notice practicable under the

16

circumstances, and constituted due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled

17

thereto. A full and fair opportunity was provided to the members of the Class to

18

be heard regarding the Settlements.”

19

c. Judge Marco Roldan, Mary Plubell v. Merck & Co (March 15, 2013),

20

04CV235817-01 (Jackson County, MO): “Under the circumstances, the notice

21

this Settlement provided to Class Members in accordance with the Notice Order

22

was the best notice practicable the proceedings and matters set forth therein,

23

including the proposed Settlement, to all Persons entitled to such notice, and said

24

notice fully satisfied the requirements due process and Missouri law.”

25

d. Judge James P. Kleinberg, Janet Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation, et al. (March

26

14, 2013) 05-CV-039231 (County of Santa Clara, CA): “The Court finds that

27

Plaintiff’s proposed Notice plan has a reasonable chance of reaching a

28

substantial percentage of class members.”
3
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

1

e. Judge J. Phil Gilbert, Greenville IL, et al. v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. et al.

2

(October 23, 2012), 10-00188 (S.D. IL): “The Notice provided to the Class fully

3

complied with Rule 23, was the best notice practicable, satisfied all constitutional

4

due process requirements, and provides the Court with jurisdiction over the Class

5

Members.”

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

unknown regarding the existence of a claims fund.

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

reviewed articles on the application of economic and statistical analysis to legal issues).

18

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

19

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

20

have pursued extensive graduate level statistics and consumer economics work at the University of

21

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

22
23

13.

Working with Analytics’ media partner, Mediasmith, Analytics designed a Notice Plan

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

methodologies that are relied upon by companies and advertising agencies world wide to target
4
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

1

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

2

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

3

14.

The standard method to measure the effectiveness of a media campaign is to calculate its

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

carrying the message within a given period of time.

9

15.

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

10

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

11

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

12

comScore maintains a proprietary database capturing more than 1.5 trillion transactions monthly, equal

13

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

14

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

15

those campaigns.
CLASS MEMBERS AND SEARCH ENGINE USAGE

16
17

16.

The Settlement Class includes “[a]ll persons in the United States who submitted a search

18

query to Google at any time between October 25, 2006 and the date of the notice to the class of

19

certification.” By definition, all of the interaction between Google and class members occurred on-line.

20
21

17.

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. 2

22

18.

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

23

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

24

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

25

the user.

26
27
28

19.

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

with a market share ranging from 70% to 80% of all Internet users3. According to Quantcast4, Google is
2

Pew Internet, Search Engine Use 2012, pp. 5-6.

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

1

the highest ranked (visited) website in the United States, and averages more than 23 daily page views

2

per visitor. This is confirmed by a second source, Alexa5, that indicates that the average Google.com

3

visitor has 23.56 daily page views and spends an average of 18.75 minutes on Google.com.

4

20.

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

5

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

6

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

7

to Class Members, because individuals have multiple email addresses, it is not currently possible to

8

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

9

NOTICE PLAN

10

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

11

Members in a manner that satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

12

To meet that objective, we designed the Notice Plan to satisfy the notice guidelines established by the

13

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

14

Center’s Judges’ Class Action Notice and Claims Process Checklist and Plain Language Guide (2010).

15

Target Audience

16

22. As noted above, the Settlement Class includes “[a]ll persons in the United States who

17

submitted a search query to Google at any time between October 25, 2006 and the date of the notice to

18

the class of certification.”

19

23. To develop a profile of potential class members, my staff and I relied upon data made

20

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

21

as nationally syndicated media research bureaus such as comScore6.

22
23
3

24
25
26
27
28

See http://marketshare.hitslink.com/search-engine-market-share.aspx?qprid=5&qpcustomb=0 (last visited July 15, 2013).
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 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/google.com#keywords (last visited July 23, 2014).
6
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 1.5 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.
4

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

1
2

24. The Pew Internet and American Life Project provides a comprehensive view of Internet
Users and their usage of Search Engines (See Exhibit 2). In summary:

3

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

4

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

5

engines; and

6

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

7

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

8

while 95% of adults with at least a college degree utilize the Internet (of which

9

95% have used a search engine.

10

25. In order to directly target Class Members for the purpose of notice/digital media planning,

11

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

12

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

13

US Internet population.

14

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

15

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

16

distribution of information regarding the settlement.
Selection of Media

17
18

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

19

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

20

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

21

online-based spending:

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

significantly surpass print media advertising. The effect of this is shown, for example, by the

5

discontinuance by Newsweek Magazine of its print edition.

6

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

7

available information regarding Class Members (physical or email addresses); (c) the ability to

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

this matter.

12

Notice Plan

13
14

30. The 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:

15

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

16

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

17

distribution to more than 7,000 traditional media outlets (print, TV, and radio) and

18

5,700 online outlets;
c. A dedicated case website through which Class Members can obtain more detailed

19

information about the Settlements and access case documents; and,

20

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

21

information about the Settlements and request a Notice.

22
31.

23

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

24

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

25

Members, Analytics used a web-based notice campaign utilizing banner-style notices that link directly to

26

the to the Settlement website.

27
28

7

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

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

1

32.

Digital notice was provided though the use of targeted Internet advertising. Banner

2

advertisements were placed on a wide range of websites targeted to meet the demographics of the Class,

3

enabling maximum exposure opportunities to reach the Target Audience.

4

33.

The banner notices appeared in standard Internet (IAB) formats, and included

5

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

6

appeared on a subset group of websites known as the “comScore 2000,” which represents the top 2,000

7

highest trafficked websites on the Internet. The banner notices ran on a website when the website’s

8

demographics matched our target audience. Spanish language banner ads were displayed on Spanish

9

language websites.

10

34.

To further target the appropriate demographic, we placed targeting filters on the Internet

11

advertising based upon the comScore demographic profile of class members. Once this was completed

12

the next step was choosing which websites and in which ad locations to display the Notice. In part, this

13

choice was based upon the relative cost and effectiveness of the individual websites. Cost and

14

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

15

digital space. All advertisements purchased were priced on a “cost-per-thousand impressions” (“CPM”)

16

basis and varied based on available inventory and real time market pricing.

17

35.

In this case, we reached potential Class Members on popular, highly trafficked websites

18

and focused on banner advertisements that were “above the fold” – i.e., on the top half of the webpage

19

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

20

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

21

36.

All banner advertisements were linked directly to the Case Website. This provided the

22

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

23

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

24

users who “clicked” on our banner advertisements were routed directly to the website, where they found

25

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

26

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

27

to inform Class Members of the Settlement.

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

1

37.

The Notice Plan outlined in Exhibit 3 was designed to reach 70.8% of class members

2

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

3

exposure was further increased by the earned media campaign, the website, and the toll-free helpline.

4

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

5

increasing digital impressions, if necessary.

6

38.

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

7

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

8

comScore data and definitions, included individuals who: a) use Google Search, and (b) have high on-

9

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

10

influential and frequently advise others on Internet content/services. This supplemental plan was

11

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

12

through an additional 12.8 million targeted digital impressions.

13
14

39.

Combined, the notice plan was designed to reach 73.1% of likely Class Members, and

provide these individuals with, on average, 2.2 exposure opportunities to the Notice.

15

40.

The number of times that a Class Member saw a notice was limited (so we do not have

16

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

17

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

18

number of times a given ad is served to a unique user. In this program, we used a frequency cap of 2.0,

19

meaning we only showed our ads to unique web browsers two times.

20

41.

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

21

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

22

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

23

number of times a unique web browser is shown a notice banner.
42.

24
25

The measurement of the delivery of the Internet-based Notice was accurate because

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

26
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.

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

1

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

2

delivered and displayed.

3
4

NOTICE DESIGN
43.

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

5

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

6

comprehensive “Long Form Notice” – were designed to be noticed, read and understood by potential

7

Class Members. Both the Summary Notice and the Long Form Notice, which were available to those

8

who called the toll-free helpline or visited the website, contained substantial, easy-to-understand

9

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

10

options. The Long Form Notice was also made available in Spanish. A copy of the Long Form Notice is

11

attached as Exhibit 4. Copies of the Banner Advertisements, substantially similar to the ads that were

12

published, are attached as Exhibit 5.

13
14

EARNED MEDIA
44.

The Notice Plan also included earned media to supplement the paid media portion of the

15

plan. “Earned media” refers to promotional efforts outside of direct, paid media placement. The earned

16

media efforts provide additional awareness of the Settlement to Class Members, though the effect is not

17

measurable as is it with the paid media portion of the Notice campaign.
WEBSITE

18
19

45.

The Notice Plan proposed supporting the digital advertisements with a neutral Website

20

that provided Class Members the opportunity to obtain additional information and documents about the

21

litigation. The website address was to have been cited in all notice materials and be registered with

22

search engines to make it easier to locate the website when searching for various related keyword

23

combinations.
PHONE SUPPORT

24
25

46.

Notice Plan proposed supporting the notice campaign with a toll free number to allow

26

Class Members to call and listen to answers to frequently asked questions and request to have a Detailed

27

Notice mailed to them. The toll free number was prominently displayed in all notice documents. The

28

toll free number was proposed to be accessible 24-hours a day, 7-days a week.
11
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

1
2
3

MAIL SUPPORT
47.

Finally, a post office box was also established to allow Class Members the opportunity to

request additional information or ask questions by mail.

4

NOTICE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS

5

CAFA Notification

6
7

48.

I complied with all CAFA requirements, and I sent appropriate notice on August 8, 2013.

A copy of the CAFA notice substantially similar to the notice sent is attached here as Exhibit 6.

8

Reach And Frequency of Notice Campaign

9

49.

10

Settlement.

11

week. This notice campaign ended on May 25, 2014, but because the website is still accessible through

12

search engines, ongoing notice is provided to class members who currently average more than 100 visits

13

per week. The results of this notice campaign are summarized in Exhibit 7.

14

50.

On April 25, Analytics began the digital media campaign that was proposed in this
These notices were displayed nationwide, and appeared 24 hours a day, seven days a

The core Notice Plan was designed to reach 70.8% of class members with a frequency of

15

2.2 times each through 202 million targeted digital impressions. As implemented, Analytics delivered

16

205,433,888 advertisements, thus slightly exceeding the initial planned impressions by 2%. The

17

additional advertisements slightly added frequency, resulting in a reach and frequency as planned.

18

51.

The supplemental Notice Plan targeting security conscious class members was designed

19

to increase the reach among these individuals to 91.8% and the frequency to 3.4 times each through an

20

additional 12.8 million targeted digital impressions. As implemented, Analytics delivered 16,234,283

21

advertisements, thus exceeding expectations by 8%. The additional advertisements added frequency,

22

resulting in a reach of 91.8% of class members with a frequency of 3.7 times each.

23

52.

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

24

reach of 71.4%% of likely Class Members who viewed the display advertisements an average of 2.3

25

times each. Reach was further enhanced by the press release and case website.

26

Average Frequency of Exposure

27
28
12
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

1

53.

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

2

Notice and their rights, including their right to exclude themselves from the litigation an average of 2.3

3

times each.

4
5

Earned Media
54.

Concurrent with the launch of the print and online Notices, Analytics released a national

6

press release via PR Newswire. The press release was distributed by PR Newswire to 5,815 newspapers,

7

television stations, radio stations and magazines. In addition, PR Newswire sent the press release to

8

approximately 5,400 websites and online databases, including all major search engines.

9
10

Case Website
55.

Prior to the launch of the notice campaigns, Analytics launched a Settlement website at

11

www.googlesearchsettlement.com. The website address was cited in all notice materials and was

12

registered with search engines to make it easier to locate the website when searching for various related

13

keyword combinations. The website provided Class Members the opportunity to obtain additional

14

information and documents about the litigation. The website established and maintained by Analytics

15

has been accessible 24-hours a day, 7-days a week.

16

56.

Analytics worked with counsel to develop the content for the Settlement website. The

17

website was published in both English and Spanish and provided Class Members with general

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

the Settlement Administrator via email.

22

57.

A copy of the home page from the website as it exists on July 25, 2014 is attached as

23

Exhibit 8. Prominent links were provided for individuals to as questions (a red box labeled “CLICK

24

HERE TO ASK A QUESTION”), to view answers to questions regarding the settlement (a blue box

25

labeled “CLICK HERE TO VIEW A LIST OF FAQs”), and, to view case documents (“a green box

26

labeled “CLICK HERE TO VIEW CASE DOCUMENTS”).

27

58.

28

proposals.

On May 23, 2014, the Settlement website was updated to include the Cy Pres distribution
This update included prominent placement of a link for visitors to view the proposed Cy
13
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

1

Pres recipients and allocations (a purple box labeled “CLICK HERE TO VIEW PROPOSED CY PRES

2

RECIPIENTS AND ALLOCATIONS”) , and the Frequently Asked Questions page was modified to

3

include this information and emphasize its availability by making it the first listing.

4
5

59.

I relied upon “Google Analytics” to provide information and reporting regarding visitors

to the Settlement website9. Website traffic is summarized in Exhibit 9:

6

a. Between April 25, 2014 and May 25, 2014, there were 84,028 unique visits to the

7

Settlement Website. The “average” visitor viewed 1.43 pages. Through July 24,

8

2014, there have been a total of 90,238 unique visits to the website.

9

b. Visitors to the website were dispersed across the entire United States, with

10

California have the most visitors.

11

c. Visitors who viewed only the main page (80.6%) were able to read a summary of

12

the litigation, their rights and options, as well as deadlines in this matter. The

13

other 19.3% of visitors viewed more than one page.

14

d. The most popular page on the Settlement website (aside from the home page),

15

was the Frequently Asked Questions page. The top two questions viewed were

16

“What does this settlement provide?” and “What is this case about?”.

17

Phone Support

18

60.

Analytics established a toll free number was established to allow Class Members to call

19

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

20

them. The toll free number was prominently displayed in all notice documents. The toll free number

21

established and maintained by Analytics has been accessible 24-hours a day, 7-days a week.

22

Mail Support
61.

23
24

A post office box was also established to allow Class Members the opportunity to request

additional information or ask questions by mail.

25
26
9

27
28

Information from Google Analytics is used for trend purposes only. Many factors, including users
enabling functions in browsers to disable tracking (e.g., blocking “cookies” and javasscript) result in
traffic not being reported. This, along with the same individual clicking an advertisement more than
once, are reasons for differences between display advertisement “clicks” and website visits.
14
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

1
2

SUMMARY OF NOTICE PLAN RESULTS
62.

The notice language used via all media channels used simple, plain language regarding

3

the nature of the lawsuit, the operative complaint, the terms of the Settlement, and how a Class member

4

could participate in, object to, or be excluded from the Settlement.

5

63.

To date, no state or federal officials have raised any objection to the Settlement.

6

64.

Twelve individuals have excluded themselves from the Settlement.

7

65.

The banner ads were viewed 221,668,171 times by an estimated 95,014,649 individuals.

8

66.

Of these views, the banner advertisement was “clicked” 198,018 times..

9

67.

Our firm and Class Counsel collectively responded to 179 inquiries posted by members

10
11
12

on the Settlement Website or sent via email.
68.

Sixty-three (63) Class Members used the toll-free number to contact the Class

Administrator regarding the Settlement.

13

69.

As of July 23, 2014, zero Class Members have raised objections to the Settlement.

14

70.

Since the Class is estimated to consist of more than 100,000,000 members, cash

15
16

payments would be de minimis, if at all.
71.

Individual payments would also be unduly burdensome to execute and distribute.

17
18

CONCLUSION
72.

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

All of these requirements were met in this case.

24
25

73.

I believe the Notice Program provided the best notice practicable under the circumstances

of this case.

26
27

/s/_Richard W. Simmons_______

28

Richard W. Simmons
15
DECLARATION OF RICHARD W. SIMMONS
CASE NO. 5:10-CV-4809-EJD

Exhibit 4-1
Richard Simmons CV

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
President
Analytics
18675 Lake Drive East
Chanhassen, MN 55331
Date: October 2013 to Present (President)
May 2008 to October 2013 (Managing Director, Analytics/BMC Group)
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

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 – 2013
Data Privacy and Class Action/Mass Tort Settlements, 2011
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Panelist, Federal Judicial Center Workshop on Class Action Settlements, 2011
Panelist, Frances McGovern/Duke University, Distribution of Securities Litigation
Settlements -- Improving the Process”, 2005
Charter Member, American Academy of Economic and Financial Experts
Former Referee, Journal of Legal Economics

Page 1 of 24

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: 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

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.)
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.)

Page 2 of 24

Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience
Business

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.)
Garcia, et al. v. Allergan, Inc.
11-CV-9811 (C.D. CA)
Law Offices of Henry E. Gare, P.A., et al. v. Healthport Technologies, LL
No. 16-2011-CA-010202 (Duval County, FL)

Physicians of Winter Haven LLC v. STERIS Corp.
Case No. 1:10-cv-00264 (N.D. Ohio)
Sue Ramirez et al. v. Smart Professional Photocopy Corporation
No. 01-L-385 (Peoria County, IL)
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.)
Waxler Transportation Company, Inc. v. Trinity Marine Products, Inc., e
Case No. 08-cv-01363 (E.D. La.)

Civil Rights

Bentley v. Sheriff of Essex County
Case No. 11-01907 (Essex County, MA)
Cazenave, et al. v. Sheriff Charles C. Foti, Jr., et al.
Case No. 00-cv-1246 (E.D. La.)

Page 3 of 24

Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience
Civil Rights

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.)

Angell v. Skechers Canada
8562-12 (Montreal, Quebec)
Anthony Talalai, et al. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company
Case No. L-008830-00-MT (Middlesex County, NJ)
Arnett v. Bank of America, N.A.
No. 3:11-CV-01372-SI (D. OR)
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.)

Boland v. Consolidated Multiple Listing Service, Inc.
Case No. 3:19-cv-01335-SB (D. SC)
Carideo et al. v. Dell, Inc.
Case No. 06-cv-1772 (W.D. Wash.)

Page 4 of 24

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.)
Clements, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.
No. 3:12-cv-02179-JCS (N.D. CA)
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.)
Evans, et al. v. Linden Research, Inc., et al.
Case No. 4:11-cv-1078-DMR (N.D. CA)

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.)

Page 5 of 24

Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience
Consumer

F.T.C. v. American International Travel Services Inc.
Case No. 99-cv-6943 (S.D. Fla.)
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.)

Page 6 of 24

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.)
F.T.C. v. Marketing & Vending, Inc. Concepts, L.L.C., et al.
Case No. 00-cv-1131 (S.D. N.Y.)

Page 7 of 24

Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience
Consumer

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. NBTY, Inc.
No. 05-4793 (E.D. NY)
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.)
F.T.C. v. Stuffingforcash.com Corp.
Case No. 02-cv-5022 (N.D. Ill.)

Page 8 of 24

Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience
Consumer

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. Trustsoft, Inc.
Case No. 05-cv-1905 (S.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.)
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.)

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.)

Page 9 of 24

Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience
Consumer

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: Certainteed Fiber Cement Siding Litigation
MDL 2270 (E.D. PA)
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 Litigat
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.)

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.)

Page 10 of 24

Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience
Consumer

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.)
Kobylanski et al. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc. et al.
No. 13-CV-1181 (W.D. PA)
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 Services
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.)

Northcoast Financial Services v. Marcia Webster
2004 CVF 18651 (Cuyahoga County, OH)
Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan
No. 625-567 (Jefferson Parish, LA)

Page 11 of 24

Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience
Consumer

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.)
Sandra Arnt, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A.
No. 27-cv-12-12279 (Hennepin County, MN)
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.)

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.)
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.)

Page 12 of 24

Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience
Consumer

U.S. v. $1,802,651.56 in Funds Seized from e-Bullion, et al. ("Goldinger"
No. CV 09-1731 (C.D. Cal.)
U.S. v. $1,802,651.56 in Funds Seized from e-Bullion, et al. ("Kum Vent
No. CV 09-1731 (C.D. Cal.)
U.S. v. David Merrick
6:10-cr-109-Orl-35DAB
U.S. v. Sixty-Four 68.5 lbs (Approx.) Silver Bars, et al.
(E.D. FL)
United States of America v. Alfredo Susi, et al.
3:07-cr-119 (W.D. NY)

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, N.A., et al.
No. 10-CV-5332 (E.D. IL)
Alequin, et al. v. Darden Restaurants, Inc. et al.
Case No.: 12-61742-CIV (S.D. FL)

Alice Williams, et a. v. H&R Block Enterprises
RG 08366506, (County of Alameda, CA)
Alma Anguiano v. First United Bank and Trust Co.
Case No. CIV-12-1096 (D. OK)
Andrew R. Rondomanski, et al. v. Midwest Division, Inc.
No. 11-cv-00887 (W.D. MO)
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
Case No. 09-cv-01748 (E.D. Mo.)
Berry v. Farmers Bank & Trust, N.A.
Case No. 13-02020

Page 13 of 24

Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience
Employment

Berte v. WIS Holdings Corporation
07-cv-1932 (S.D. CA)
Bishop et al. v. AT&T Corp.
Case No. 08-cv-00468 (W.D. Pa.)
Bobbie Jarrett v. GGNSC Holdings, LLC
Case No.: 12-CV-4105-BP (W.D. MO)
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.)

Creed, et al. v. Benco Dental Supply Co.
3:12-CV-1571 (E.D. PA)
Doe, et al. v. Cin-Lan, Inc, et al.
Case No. 4:08-cv-12719 (E.D. Mich.)
DuBeau et al v. Sterling Savings Bank et al.
No. 12-cv-1602 (D. OR)
DuBeau, et al. v. Sterling Savings Bank, et al.
1:12-cv-01602-CL (D. OR)
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.)

Page 14 of 24

Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience
Employment

Holt v. Living Social
1:2012cv00745 (D. DC)
Jimmy West v. PSS World Medical, Inc.
Case No. 4:13-cv-00574 (E.D. Mo)
John Alba, et al. v. Papa John's USA, Inc.
Case No. 05-cv-7487 (W.D. Cal.)
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.)

Kelly, et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al.
No. 10-5332 (ND IL)
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.)
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.)
Sequoia Moss-Clark, et al. v. New Way Services, Inc., et al.
Case No. C12-1391 (Contra Costa County, CA)
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.)

Page 15 of 24

Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience
Employment

Teeter v. NCR Corporation
Case No. 08-cv-00297 (C.D. Cal.)
Thomas Cramer et al. v. Bank of America, N.A. et al.
Case No. 12-08681 (N.D. IL)
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.)
Williams, et al. v. H&R Block Enterprises, Inc.
No. RG 08366506 (Alameda County, CA)
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.)

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.)
McGruder, et al. v. DPC Enterprises
No. CV2003-022677 (Maricopa County, AZ)
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)

Page 16 of 24

Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience
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.)
Pat Beesley, et al v. International Paper Co. et al.
Case No. 06-703-DRH (S.D. IL)
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)
Fouks, et al. v. Red Wing Hotel Corporation
Case No. 12-cv-02160 (D. MN)
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.)
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.
Case No. 2006-CH-09489 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill.)
Deborah Hillgamyer, et al. v. Reliastar Life Insurance Company, et al.
No. 11-cv-729 (W.D. WI)

Page 17 of 24

Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience
Insurance

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)
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, et
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.)

Page 18 of 24

Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience
Insurance

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.)

Legal Notice

Cazenave, et al. v. Sheriff Charles C. Foti, Jr., et al.
Case No. 00-cv-1246 (E.D. La.)
City of Greenville, et al., v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., and Syngent
No. 3:10-cv-00188-JPG-PMF (S. D. Ill.)

Evans, et al. v. Linden Research, Inc., et al.
Case No. 4:11-cv-1078-DMR (N.D. CA)
F.T.C. v. NBTY, Inc.
No. 05-4793 (E.D. NY)
In Re: Aftermarket Filters Antitrust Litigation
No. 1:08-cv-4883, MDL No. 1957 (N.D. Ill.)
In Re: Certainteed Fiber Cement Siding Litigation
MDL 2270 (E.D. PA)
In Re: Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation
No. 10-04809 (N.D. CA)

In Re: Salmonella Litigation
Case No. 94-cv-016304 (D. Minn.)
Kobylanski et al. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc. et al.
No. 13-CV-1181 (W.D. PA)
Mary Plubell, et al. v. Merck and Co., Inc.
Case No. 04-cv-235817 (Jackson County, MO)
McGruder, et al. v. DPC Enterprises
No. CV2003-022677 (Maricopa County, AZ)
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)
Skold, et al. v Intel Corporation, et al.
Case No. 1-05-cv-039231 (County of Santa Clara, CA)

Page 19 of 24

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)
Privacy/Data Breach

Anderson, et al. v. United Retail Group, Inc., et al.
Case No. 37-cv-89685 (San Diego County, Cal.)

Page 20 of 24

Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience
Privacy/Data Breach

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.)
St. Clair, et al. v MRB, et al.
Casse No. 12-cv-1572 (D. MN)

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)

Friedman, et al. v. Penson Worldwide, Inc.
11-cv-02098 (N.D. TX)
In Re: American Adjustable Rate Term Trust Securities Litigation
Case No. 4:95-cv-666 and 4:95-cv-667 (D. Minn.)

Page 21 of 24

Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience
Securities

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: Cybex International Securities Litigation
No. 653794/2012 (County of New York, NY)

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.)
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: Frontier Oil Corporation
Case No. 2011-11451 (Harris County, Tex.)

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)

Page 22 of 24

Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience
Securities

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: 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: 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.)
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.)

Page 23 of 24

Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience
Securities

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.)
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)

Page 24 of 24

Partial List of Legal Notification and Settlement Administration Experience
Securities

Robert Trimble, et al. v. Holmes Harbor Sewer District, et al.
Case No. 01-2-00751-8 (Island County, Wash.)
SEC v Al-Raya Investment Company, et. al.
No. 109-CV-6533
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.)
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)

Exhibit 4-2
Pew Internet and American Life
Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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%

18-29 [n=314]

60%

30-49 [n=508]

College grad [n=667]

19%

70%

23%

57%

27%

68%

26%

54%*

<30K [n=344]

20%

Weekly

6%

30%

41%
0%

11% 1%

36%

75K+ [n=507]

16%

36%
40%

1%
7%

31%

36%

30K to <75K [n=516]

13%

39%

Some college [n=423]

1%

14%

27%

41%

HS grad or less [n=515]

15%

26%

60%

50+ [n=756]

Daily

30%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
July 2008viii
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

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

32

pewinternet.org

YEST1NW

Did you happen to use the internet YESTERDAY?8

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

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

YEST1NW continued...
YES, USED
INTERNET
YEST ERDAY

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
YESTERDAY

HAVE NOT
DONE THIS

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

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

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

%

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

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

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

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 THIS

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

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

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

Exhibit 4-3
Notice Plan

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-S-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'onRline'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

Exhibit 4-4
Long Form Notice

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

If you used Google Search at any time after October 26, 2006,
you may be a “Class Member” in this Lawsuit.

This Notice explains important legal rights you may have. Your legal rights will be affected regardless of
whether you do or do not act.
and the deadlines to exercise them

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT

DO NOTHING

EXCLUDE YOURSELF

OBJECT

GO TO A HEARING

WHAT THIS NOTICE CONTAINS
BASIC INFORMATION

THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT

THE COURT’S FAIRNESS HEARING

GETTING MORE INFORMATION

BASIC INFORMATION
1. Why did I get this Notice?

In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation

2. What is this case about?

2

and

3. Why is there a Settlement?

4. Why is this a class action, and how do I know if I am part of the Settlement?

or

THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS
5. What does this Settlement provide?

Therefore, no individual class member will receive
money as a result of this Settlement.

3

the Net Settlement Amount to go to each recipient will be posted on the website not later than sixty days
after the settlement’s Effective Date

6. What am I giving up as part of the Settlement?

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.
at

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?

4

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?

COURT

st

CLASS COUNSEL

Street

DEFENSE COUNSEL

CLASS ADMINISTRATOR

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?

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?

and to check the status
of the Settlement or if the Settlement has been approved by the Court,

Priyev v. Google Inc
Priyev v. Google Inc

PLEASE DO NOT ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT OR LITIGATION TO THE
CLERK OF THE COURT OR THE JUDGE.

6

Exhibit 4-5
Banner Advertisements

Digital'Banner'Advertisements'
'
'
'
'
'

'

'
'

'

Exhibit 4-6
CAFA Notice

Notice Administrator for U.S. District Court
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
ERIC H HOLDER, JR
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
950 PENNSYLVANIA AVE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20530-0001

August 8, 2013
CAFA Notification to Federal and State Officials
As part of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b), you are being sent this notification to inform you
about a proposed class action settlement that may include residents of the United States.
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Case Caption: In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation, Case No. 5:10-CV-04809 EJD.
Named Defendant: Google Inc.
Documents Enclosed: The documents included on the enclosed CD are in Adobe Acrobat PDF format.
If you do not have Acrobat Reader, it may be obtained free of charge at
http://get.adobe.com/reader/otherversions/.
o Complaint Gaos v. Google Inc., N.D. Cal. Case No. 5-10-CV-04809 (filed 10/25/2010)
o First Amended Complaint, Gaos v. Google Inc., N.D. Cal. Case No. 5-10-CV-04809 (filed
5/2/2011)
o Second Amended Complaint, Gaos v. Google Inc., N.D. Cal. Case No. 5-10-CV-04809 (filed
5/1/2012)
o Complaint Priyev v. Google Inc., N.D. Cal. Case No. 5-13-00093 (formerly N.D. Ill. Case No.
12-CV-01467) (filed 2/29/2012)
o Amended Complaint, Priyev v. Google Inc., N.D. Cal. Case No. 5-13-00093 (formerly N.D. Ill.
Case No. 12-CV-01467) (filed 8/3/2012)
o Second Amended Complaint, Priyev v. Google Inc., N.D. Cal. Case No. 5-13-00093 (filed
8/10/12)
o Stipulation and Order for Consolidation of Class Actions (filed 4/30/2013)
o Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
and Exhibits (filed 07/19/2013) including:
Ex. 1: Aschenbrener Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs’ motion for Preliminary
Approve of Class Action Settlement
Ex. 1-A: Aschenbrener Law Firm Resume
Ex. 2: Chorowsky Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement
Ex. 2-A: Progressive Law Group, LLC Resume
Ex. 3: Settlement Agreement and Release

Ex. 4: Declaration of Richard W. Simmons Regarding Class Notice
Ex. 4-A: Richard W. Simmons Resume
Ex. 4-B: Supporting Data Regarding Notice Plan
Ex. 4-C: Notice Plan
Ex. 4-D: Notice of Settlement
Ex. 4-E: Sample Internet Banner Ads For Notice Dissemination
Ex. 5: Declaration of Kassra Nassiri in Support of Motion For Preliminary Approval of
Settlement
Ex. 5-A: Nassiri & Jung LLP Firm Resume
Ex. 6: Proposed Preliminary Approval Order
Reasonable Estimate: The Settlement Class includes “[a]ll persons in the United States who submitted
a search query to Google at any time between October 25, 2006 and the date of the notice to the class of
certification.” Because of the vast number of searches done on the Internet using Google, it is not
feasible to determine the size of the class or the identity of the class members. The settlement will be
distributed to Cy Pres Recipients. Further details regarding relief can be found in the Settlement
Agreement at Section 3.
Upcoming Judicial Hearings: The Court has scheduled a Preliminary Approval Hearing at the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California United States Courthouse, San Jose Division,
located at 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113, before the Honorable Edward J. Davila in
Courtroom 4, 5th Floor on August 23, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. The time and location of this hearing is subject
to change.
Additional Information: A case website, www.googlesearchsettlement.com, will be established so that
Class Members and other interested parties can obtain additional information about the settlement,
including, as they become available, any additional materials required to be provided by 28 U.S.C. §
1715 (b).

Exhibit 4-7
Notice Campaign Results

Summary9of9Digital9Advertising9Delivery

Impressions
Delivered

Clicks

Click
Through
Rate

Data9Enabled9Purchasing9(Mediamath)
Facebook.com

136,719,783
68,714,105

153,222
20,598

0.11%
0.03%

Total

205,433,888

173,820

0.08%

10,957,457
4,023,431
1,253,395

9,566
11,548
3,084

0.09%
0.29%
0.25%

16,234,283

24,198

0.15%

221,668,171

198,018

0.09%

Notice9Program9;9All9Class9Members

Reach
Frequency

70.8%
2.2

"Security9Concisous"9Class9Members
Data9Enabled9Purchasing9(Mediamath)
ArsTechnica.com
Zdnet.com

Total
Reach
Frequency

91.8%
3.2

Exhibit 4-8
Website Home Page

!

Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation

7/25/14, 10:31 AM

In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation
Case No. 5:10-cv-04809 EJD

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

English (US) ▾

In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation,
Case No. 5:10-cv-04809 EJD

If you used Google Search at any time after October 26, 2006,
you may be a “Class Member” in this Lawsuit.
This Website 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," "Key
Terms" and About Google Web History" webpages to include conspicuous, clear and concise explanations of how and when search queries may be disclosed to
third parties via referrer headers.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT
DO NOTHING

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.

EXCLUDE YOURSELF

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. The Deadline for Excluding Yourself is Tuesday, June 24, 2014.
Exclusion forms are available for download here.

OBJECT

Write to the Court about why you think the Settlement should not be approved. The Deadline for Objecting is
Friday, August 8, 2014. Objection forms are available for download here.

GO TO A HEARING

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

The Court in charge of this Lawsuit has preliminarily approved the Settlement and will hold a hearing to make a final decision on whether 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. Visit this website to learn about the outcome or change in status of the Settlement. This website will remain active until at least 30 days
after the date in which a Settlement is finally approved.
For more information on how to Object or how to Exclude yourself from the Class, please consult the Class Notice by clicking here.
For more information about referrer headers and/or how Google handles your search queries, visit Google’s FAQ, Key Terms and About Google Web
History webpages, currently available at https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/key-terms/, https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/faq, and
https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/54068?hl=en respectively.
Questions: contact the Settlement Administrator by e-mail [e-mail] or call 1-855-332-3405
http://www.googlesearchsettlement.com/hc/en-us

Page 1 of 2

Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation

7/25/14, 10:31 AM

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

CASE DOCUMENTS

★ Proposed Cy Pres Recipients and Allocations

Class Notice

What does this settlement provide?

Settlement Agreement

What is this case about?

Exclusion Form

Why is this a class action?

Objection Form

Why is there a Settlement?

Motion for Preliminary Approval

Should I get my own lawyer?

Complaints

See all 13 articles

See all 9 articles

IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES

CONTACT INFORMATION

Proposals for Settlement Funding: May 2014

About the Settlement Administrator

Exclusion Deadline: June 24, 2014

Attorneys for the Class / Class Counsel

Objection Deadline: August 8, 2014
Settlement Fairness Hearing: August 29, 2014

# Search

Have more questions? Submit a request
Privacy Policy and Terms of Use (c) 2014 Analytics Consulting LLC

http://www.googlesearchsettlement.com/hc/en-us

Page 2 of 2

Exhibit 4-9
Website Traffic Summary

7/25/14
Google0Search0Settlement
Summary0Web0Traffic
April025,020140K0May025,02014

Visits%
4,5000
4,0000
3,5000
3,0000
2,5000
2,0000
1,5000
1,0000
5000
00

Visits

Unique0Visitors

87,341

84,028

5,0000

50000

4,0000

40000

3,0000

30000

2,0000

20000

1,0000

10000

00

00

Page0Views

Average0Pages/Visit

125,199

1.43

60000
40000
20000
00

7/25/14
Google1Search1Settlement
Web1Traffic1by1Geography
April125,120141Z1May125,12014

Region
United1States

Visits

%1New1Visits

New1Visits

Pages1/1Visit

79,153

91.39%

72,338

1.43

Visits
12,422
6,454
5,621
5,073
2,795
2,774
2,752
2,729
2,566
2,101

%1New1Visits
90.84%
91.12%
92.15%
91.60%
90.91%
90.41%
92.37%
92.63%
92.91%
90.86%

New1Visits
11284
5881
5180
4647
2541
2508
2542
2528
2384
1909

Pages1/1Visit
1.45
1.37
1.43
1.41
1.49
1.37
1.40
1.38
1.42
1.36

Top1States
State
California
New1York
Texas
Florida
Illinois
New1Jersey
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Massachusetts
Michigan

NOTE:1Geogrpahic1location1could1not1be1identified1for1all1visitors.

7/25/14

Google+Search+Settlement
Website+Engagement:+Page+Depth
April+25,+2014+I+May+25,+2014
Page+Depth
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20+

Visits
70,431
8,878
3,974
1,564
902
465
340
198
176
82
97
44
42
25
28
16
11
10
11
47
87,341

Pageviews
70,431
17,756
11,922
6,256
4,510
2,790
2,380
1,584
1,584
820
1,067
528
546
350
420
256
187
180
209
1,423
125,199

Note:&&Page&Depth&is&the&average&number&of&page&views&a&visitor&reads&
before&ending&their&session.

7/25/14

Google3Search3Settlement
Top3Pages3Viewed
April325,320143P3May325,32014

Page
Home3Page
Frequently3Asked3Questions
FAQ:3What3does3this3settlement3provide?
FAQ:3What3is3this3case3about?
Case3Documents
Total:

Pageviews
96,182
6,174
5,324
4,517
2,371

Unique3Pageviews
86,156
4,647
5,162
4,389
2,032

114,568

102,386