Dunstan et al v. comScore, Inc.

Filing 263

MOTION by Plaintiffs Jeff Dunstan, Mike HarrisApproval of Amended Class Notice Plan (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Thomassen, Benjamin)

EXHIBIT 2
[FILED PARTIALLY UNDER SEAL]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
MIKE HARRIS and JEFF DUNSTAN,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
COMSCORE, INC., a Delaware corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 1:11-5807
Hon. James F. Holderman

DECLARATION OF GINA M. INTREPIDO-BOWDEN
ON CLASS CERTIFICATION NOTICE PLAN AND NOTICES
I, GINA M. INTREPIDO-BOWDEN, hereby declare as follows:
1.

I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein, and I believe them to be

true and correct. I am a Director of Legal Notice Services at Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC
(“KCC”). I specialize in the design and implementation of legal notification campaigns
supported by evidence based reach calculations relating to the adequacy of notice distribution to
the class. I work with Carla A. Peak, also a Director of Legal Notice Services at KCC, who
specializes in the design and implementation of plain language legal notice documents. Together,
we assure that class members are adequately reached with notices that capture their attention and
are easily understood. Ms. Peak and I have been directly involved in many of the largest and
most complex class action notice programs, involving all aspects of notice dissemination.
2.

This declaration will describe our experience, as well as the notice program (the

“Notice Plan” or “Notice Program”) and notice document (“Notice” or “Notices”) that we
propose for this case, including how the Notice Plan was developed and why we believe it will
be effective. Our c.v. is attached as Attachment A to Exhibit 1.
DECLARATION OF GINA M. INTREPIDO-BOWDEN
ON CLASS CERTIFICATION NOTICE PLAN AND NOTICES

OVERVIEW
3.

The Notice Program we developed, in conjunction with Class Counsel, uses a

combination of individual notice, consisting of “push” notice, email notice, and mailed notice,
along with a notice placement in People magazine and banner notice placements on a variety of
websites to effectively reach 72% of likely Class members. The individual notice efforts will be
tracked throughout the campaign. To the extent that the individual notice effort reaches less than
34.7% of the Class, the media portion of the Notice Plan will be supplemented with additional
publication notice and possibly additional banner ads, as necessary, to reach at least 70% of the
Class.
4.

The reach of the Notice Program is consistent with other effective court-approved

notice programs, and is designed to meet due process requirements. In addition, the Federal
Judicial Center’s (“FJC”) Judges’ Class Action Notice and Claims Process Checklist and Plain
Language Guide (“FJC Checklist”) considers 70-95% reach among class members reasonable.
5.

We developed various forms of notice for Court approval, attached as

Attachments B, C, D, E, F and G to Exhibit 1. All forms of notice are noticeable, clear and
concise, and written in plain, easily understood language.
EXPERIENCE RELEVANT TO THIS CASE
6.

Our c.v. identifies over a hundred cases Ms. Peak and I have been involved with,

including the dissemination of notice around the globe in more than 35 languages. It also
contains numerous judicial comments about our work, as well as articles we have written and
speaking engagements where we have discussed the adequacy and design of legal notice efforts.
7.

Some consumer case examples in which Ms. Peak and I have been involved

include: Shames v. The Hertz Corporation, No. 3:07-cv-02174 (S.D. Cal.), a national antitrust
DECLARATION OF GINA M. INTREPIDO-BOWDEN
ON CLASS CERTIFICATION NOTICE PLAN AND NOTICES
2

settlement involving several million class members who rented vehicles from a variety of car
rental companies; In Re: Uponor, Inc., F1807 Plumbing Fittings Products Liability Litigation,
No. 11-MD-2247 (D. Minn.), a national products liability settlement providing reimbursement,
repair and replacement of affected plumbing components; In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy
Litigation, MDL No. 1350 (N.D. Ill.), perhaps the largest discretionary class action notice
campaign involving virtually every adult in the United States and informing them about their
rights in the $75 million data breach settlement; In re TJX Companies, Inc., Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 1838 (D. Mass.), perhaps one of the largest U.S. and
Canadian retail consumer security breach notice programs; Grays Harbor Adventist Christian
School v. Carrier Corp., No. 05-05437 (W.D. Wash.), Donnelly v. United Technologies Corp.
No. 06-CV-320045CP (Ont. S.C.J.) and Wener v. United Technologies Corp. 500-06-000425088 (QC. Super. Ct.), product liability class action settlements involving secondary heat
exchangers in high efficiency gas furnaces, affecting class members throughout the U.S. and
Canada; and In re Residential Schools Litigation, No. 00-CV-192059 (Ont. S.C.J.), the largest
and most complex class action in Canadian history incorporating a groundbreaking notice
program to disparate, remote aboriginal persons qualified to receive benefits in the multi-billion
dollar settlement.
8.

As noted in our c.v., we have written numerous articles, as well as presented

about notice and due process. We believe notice and due process depend upon clear
communication with the people affected. Our articles include: Carla Peak and Steven Weisbrot,
How to Design Your Notice to Minimize Professional Objectors, CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
DEFENSE: CLASS ACTION DEFENSE NEWS, Developments and Commentary provided by BAKER
HOSTETLER (www.classactionlawsuitdefense.com) (2012); Carla Peak, Is your legal notice
DECLARATION OF GINA M. INTREPIDO-BOWDEN
ON CLASS CERTIFICATION NOTICE PLAN AND NOTICES
3

designed to be noticed? WESTLAW JOURNAL CLASS ACTION Vol.18 Issue 10 (2011); John B.
Isbister, Todd B. Hilsee, & Carla A. Peak, Seven Steps to a Successful Class Action Settlement,
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, SECTION OF LITIGATION, CLASS ACTIONS TODAY 16 (2008); Todd
B. Hilsee, Gina M. Intrepido & Shannon R. Wheatman, Hurricanes, Mobility and Due Process:
The “Desire to Inform” Requirement for Effective Class Notice is Highlighted by Katrina, 80
TULANE L. REV. 1771 (June 2006); Gina M. Intrepido, Notice Experts May Help Resolve CAFA
Removal Issues, Notification to Officials, 6 CLASS ACTION LITIG. REP. 759 (2005); and Todd B.
Hilsee, Shannon R. Wheatman & Gina M. Intrepido, Do You Really Want Me to Know My
Rights? The Ethics Behind Due Process in Class Action Notice Is More Than Just Plain
Language: A Desire to Actually Inform, 18 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 1359 (Fall 2005).
9.

Our speaking engagements regarding notice include: The Fundamentals of

Settlement Administration, accredited CLE Program, presented by Carla Peak and Steven
Weisbrot at DLA Piper LLP in Philadelphia (August 2013), presented by Carla Peak and Robert
DeWitte at Locke Lord LLP in Chicago and broadcast to offices in California, Georgia, New
York, Texas and London (April 2013), presented by Gina Intrepido-Bowden and Robert DeWitte
at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Wexler Wallace LLP in Chicago (January
2013), presented by Gina Intrepido-Bowden and Robert DeWitte at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
in Chicago (October 2012), and presented by Gina Intrepido-Bowden and Rob Taylor-Manning
at Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. in Philadelphia (December 2011); Designing a
Settlement and Notice Program to Minimize Scrutiny and Objections, Gina Intrepido-Bowden
presenter/panelist, AMERICAN CONFERENCE INSTITUTE (ACI), 16th National Conference on
Consumer Finance Class Actions & Litigation (July 2013); Pitfalls of Class Action Notice and
Settlement Administration, Gina Intrepido-Bowden and Robert DeWitte presenters/panelists,
DECLARATION OF GINA M. INTREPIDO-BOWDEN
ON CLASS CERTIFICATION NOTICE PLAN AND NOTICES
4

PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE (PLI), Class Action Litigation 2013 (July 2013); Ethics in Legal
Notification, CLE Program, presented by Gina Intrepido-Bowden, Carla Peak & Steven Weisbrot
at Morgan Lewis & Bockius in New York (December 2012); Class Action Settlement
Administration Tips & Pitfalls on the Path to Approval, accredited CLE program, presented by
Carla Peak, Gina Intrepido-Bowden & Robert DeWitte at Jenner & Block in Chicago and
broadcast to offices in Washington DC, New York and Los Angeles (October 2012);
Perspectives from Class Action Claims Administrators: Innovations in Notification, Gina
Intrepido-Bowden, presenter/panelist, CLE INTERNATIONAL, 8th Annual Class Actions
Conference (May 2012); Innovations in Notification, Carla Peak, presenter, CHICAGO BAR
ASSOCIATION, Class Litigation Committee Spring Seminar (May 2012); Ethical Considerations
in Canadian Class Actions, accredited CLE Program, presented by Gina Intrepido-Bowden and
Robert Taylor-Manning at Rochon Genova, LLP in Toronto (April 2012); Reaching Class
Members & Driving Take Rates, Gina Intrepido-Bowden, presenter/panelist, CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS OF SAN DIEGO, 4th Annual Class Action Symposium (October 2011); Legal Notice
Ethics, accredited CLE Program, presented by Gina Intrepido-Bowden, Carla Peak, and
Elizabeth Grande at Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., and
Chestnut Cambronne in Minneapolis (January 2011), at Berger & Montague, P.C., Anapol
Schwartz, Lundy Law and Dechert LLP, in Philadelphia, and broadcast to Dechert offices in
California, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Washington D.C., and London and
sent via video to their office in China (October 2010); Class Actions 101: Best Practices and
Potential Pitfalls in Providing Class Notice, CLE Program, presented by Brian Christensen, Gina
Intrepido, and Richard Simmons, to the KANSAS BAR ASSOCIATION (March 2009).
10.

We have been recognized by courts for our testimony as to which method of
DECLARATION OF GINA M. INTREPIDO-BOWDEN
ON CLASS CERTIFICATION NOTICE PLAN AND NOTICES
5

notification is appropriate for a given case and whether a certain method of notice represents the
best notice practicable under the circumstances. Our judicial recognition includes notice
programs targeting consumer class members. For example:
a.

Judge Gregory A. Presnell, Poertner v. The Gillette Co. and The

Procter & Gamble Co., (November 5, 2013) No. 6:12-CV-00803 (M.D. Fla.):
The proposed Class Notice and Claim Form are approved as to form and
content. The Court finds that the content of the Class Notice and the Claim
Form satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(e)(1), and due process and accordingly approves them…The Court
finds that compliance with the Notice Plan is the best practicable notice
under the circumstances and constitutes due and sufficient notice of this
Order to all persons entitled thereto and is in full compliance with the
requirements of Rule 23, applicable law, and due process.
b.

Judge Marilyn L. Huff, Beck-Ellman v. Kaz USA, Inc., (June 11, 2013)

No. 3:10-cv-02134 (S. D. Cal.):
The Notice Plan has now been implemented in accordance with the
Court’s Preliminary Approval Order. The Publication Notice was
designed to provide potential class members with information about the
Settlement and their rights, in easy-to-comprehend language… The Notice
Plan was specially developed to cause class members to see the
Publication Notice or see an advertisement that directed them to the
Settlement Website. KCC identified that the class members belong to a
demographic group known as “Pain Relief Users.” The Heating Pads are
considered a Pain Relief product. The publications that KCC’s Notice
Plan used are publications and websites whose viewers and readers
include a high percentage of Pain Relief product users…The Court
concludes that the Class Notice fully satisfied the requirements of Rule
23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and all due process
requirements.
c.

Judge Tom A. Lucas, Stroud v. eMachines, Inc., (December 21, 2012) No.

CJ-2003-968 L (D. Ct. Cleveland Cnty, Okla.):
The Plan of Notice in the Settlement Agreement as well as the content of
the Claim Form, Class Notice, Post-Card Notice, and Summary Notice of
Settlement is hereby approved in all respects. The Court finds that the
Plan of Notice and the contents of the Class Notice, Post-Card Notice and
DECLARATION OF GINA M. INTREPIDO-BOWDEN
ON CLASS CERTIFICATION NOTICE PLAN AND NOTICES
6

Summary Notice of Settlement and the manner of their dissemination
described in the Settlement Agreement is the best practicable notice under
the circumstances and is reasonably calculated, under the circumstances,
to apprise Putative Class Members of the pendency of this action, the
terms of the Settlement Agreement, and their right to object to the
Settlement Agreement or exclude themselves from the Certified Settlement
Class and, therefore, the Plan of Notice, the Class Notice, Post-Card
Notice and Summary Notice of Settlement are approved in all respects.
The Court further finds that the Class Notice, Post-Card Notice and
Summary Notice of Settlement are reasonable, that they constitute due,
adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice,
and that they meet the requirements of due process.
d.

Honorable Michael M. Anello, Shames v. The Hertz Corporation,

(November 5, 2012) No. 3:07-cv-02174 (S.D. Cal.):
. . . the Court is satisfied that the parties and the class administrator made
reasonable efforts to reach class members. Class members who did not
receive individualized notice still had opportunity for notice by
publication, email, or both…The Court is satisfied that the redundancies
in the parties’ class notice procedure—mailing, e-mailing, and
publication—reasonably ensured the widest possible dissemination of the
notice…The Court OVERRULES all objections to the class settlement…
e.

Judge Ann D. Montgomery, In Re: Uponor, Inc., F1807 Plumbing Fittings

Products Liability Litig., (January 18, 2012) No. 11-MD-2247 (D. Minn.):
The Notice Plan detailed by KCC in the Affidavit of Gina M. IntrepidoBowden provides the best notice practicable under the circumstances and
constitutes due and sufficient notice of the Settlement Agreement and the
Final Fairness Hearing to the Classes and all persons entitled to receive
such notice as potential members of the Class…The Notice Plan’s multifaceted approach to providing notice to Class Members whose identity is
not known to the Settling Parties constitutes ‘the best notice that is
practicable under the circumstances’ consistent with Rule
23(c)(2)(B)…Notice to Class members must clearly and concisely state the
nature of the lawsuit and its claims and defenses, the Class certified, the
Class member’s right to appear through an attorney or opt out of the
Class, the time and manner for opting out, and the binding effect of a class
judgment on members of the Class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).
Compliance with Rule 23’s notice requirements also complies with Due
Process requirements. ‘The combination of reasonable notice, the
opportunity to be heard, and the opportunity to withdraw from the class
DECLARATION OF GINA M. INTREPIDO-BOWDEN
ON CLASS CERTIFICATION NOTICE PLAN AND NOTICES
7

satisfy due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment.’ Prudential, 148
F.3d at 306. The proposed notices in the present case meet those
requirements.
f.

Judge Jeremy Fogel, Ko v. Natura Pet Products, Inc., (June 24, 2011) No.

5:09cv2619 (N.D. Cal.):
The Court approves, as to form and content, the Long Form Notice of
Pendency and Settlement of Class Action (“Long Form Notice”), and
the Summary Notice attached as Exhibits to the Settlement Agreement,
and finds that the e-mailing of the Summary Notice, and posting on the
dedicated internet website of the Long Form Notice, mailing of the
Summary Notice post-card, and newspaper and magazine publication of
the Summary Notice substantially in the manner as set forth in this
Order meets the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and due process, and is the best notice practicable under the
circumstances and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all
persons entitled to notice.
11.

Additional court comments referencing our work are included in our c.v.

12.

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

well as my educational and related work experiences. I graduated Summa Cum Laude with a
B.A. in Advertising from Penn State University and received formal media training at one of
New York’s largest advertising agency media departments, BBDO. At BBDO, I devised
sophisticated, multi-million dollar media campaigns for large consumer clients such as Gillette,
HBO, DuPont, and GE. I have applied my experience to the legal notification field for more than
a decade. I have been directly responsible for all of the media planning in this case, including
analysis of the media audience data and determining the most effective method to reach the
greatest practicable number of Class members.
13.

Ms. Peak participated in drafting the notice documents in this case for court

approval. Having worked in the legal notification field for over a decade, she has extensive
experience drafting and developing class action notice documents. She also has extensive
DECLARATION OF GINA M. INTREPIDO-BOWDEN
ON CLASS CERTIFICATION NOTICE PLAN AND NOTICES
8

experience managing all aspects of notice dissemination in state and federal courts, including in
numerous countries and languages around the world. She designed the notice documents in this
case to be noticeable, concise, and well understood.
NOTICE PLAN SUMMARY
14.

We designed the Notice Program to reach 72% of likely Class members with

Notices they will be able to understand and act upon if they so choose. The Notice Plan uses a
combination of individual notice, consisting of “push” notice, email notice, and mailed notice,
along with a notice placement in People magazine and banner notice placements on a variety of
websites to effectively reach Class members. To the extent that the individual notice effort
reaches less than 34.7% of the Class, the media portion of the Notice Plan will be supplemented
with additional publication notice and possibly additional banner ads, as necessary, to reach at
least 70% of the Class.
Class Target
15.

The “Class” (or “Class members”) consists of all individuals who have had, at any

time since 2005, downloaded and installed comScore’s tracking software onto their computers
via one of comScore’s third party bundling partners. Subclass members include all Class
members not presented with a functional hyperlink to an end user license agreement before
installing comScore’s software onto their computers. All Subclass members are also Class
members, however, not all Class members are included in the Subclass.
16.

Demographic and media usage data is not readily available for individuals who

downloaded and installed comScore’s tracking software. Therefore, to verify the Notice
Program’s effectiveness, GfK MediaMark Research & Intelligence, LLC (“MRI”) 1 data was

1

GfK MRI is a nationally accredited research firm that provides consumer demographics,
DECLARATION OF GINA M. INTREPIDO-BOWDEN
ON CLASS CERTIFICATION NOTICE PLAN AND NOTICES
9

studied among adults who have used a computer to look at the internet in the last 30 days and
who have downloaded a video game, music, podcast/podcasting, TV program, or movie on the
internet in the last 30 days (“Online Content Downloaders”), because this broad, over inclusive
target group indicates and best represents the Class.
17.

Knowing the characteristics, interests, and habits of a target group aids in the

media selection process. Demographic highlights of Online Content Downloaders include the
following: 92.0% have graduated from high school or beyond and 69.8% have attended or
graduated from college or beyond; 91.0% live in a household consisting of two or more people,
71.1% live in a household consisting of 2-4 people, and 65.2% live in a household consisting of
three or more people; 81.7% are 18-49 years old, 74.8% are 25 years of age or older, and 52.9%
are 18-34 years old; 74.5% are white; 68.6% have a household income of $50,000 or more and
61.0% have a household income of $60,000 or more; 64.3% own a home; and 55.8% own a
home valued at more than $100,000.
18.

On average, Online Content Downloaders are 36 years old, have a household

income of $88,207, and own a home valued at $268,817. 2
19.

Also important is the fact that, compared to the general adult population, Online

Content Downloaders are: 97.6% more likely to be 18-24 years old, 72.5% more likely to be 18-

product and brand usage, and audience/exposure in all forms of advertising media. Established in
1979, MRI measures the usage of nearly 6,000 product and service brands across 550 categories,
along with readership of hundreds of magazines and newspapers, internet usage, television
viewership, national and local radio listening, yellow page usage, and out-of-home exposure.
Based on a yearly face-to-face interview of 26,000 consumers in their homes, MRI’s Survey of
the American Consumer™ is the primary source of audience data for the U.S. consumer
magazine industry and the most comprehensive and reliable source of multi-media audience data
available.
2

The average age for U.S. adults is 46, the average household income is $74,446, and the
average home value is $242,554.
DECLARATION OF GINA M. INTREPIDO-BOWDEN
ON CLASS CERTIFICATION NOTICE PLAN AND NOTICES
10

34 years old, and 54.6% more likely to be 25-34 years old; 58.2% more likely never to have
married; 40.9% more likely to have a household income of $150,000 or more, 30.4% more likely
to have a household income between $100,000-$149,999, and 23.3% more likely to have a
household income of $60,000 or more; 37.6% more likely to work as a manager or professional;
31.9% more likely to be American Indian or Alaska Native, 23.0% more likely to be Asian, and
11.5% more likely to be Black/African American; 30.8% more likely to have lived at their
current address for less than one year and 21.4% more likely to have lived at their current
address for 1-4 years; 29.4% more likely to have graduated from college or beyond and 22.4%
more likely to have attended college; 20.3% more likely to live in a household consisting of 3-4
people and 20.1% more likely to live in a household consisting of five or more people; 15.7%
more likely to rent their home; 10.4% more likely to be men; 10.1% more likely to be a working
woman; and 10.0% more likely to own a home valued at $500,000 or more and 9.2% more likely
to own a home valued between $200,000-$499,999.
Individual Notice
20.

The individual notice effort consists of a “push” notice, email notice, and mailed

notice. ComScore will “push” the Summary Notice text through its OSSProxy software to all
current “panelists” by rendering a dialogue (or pop-up) box on their computer screens. This
Notice will contain an active hyperlink to the case website. It is our understanding that “Pop” or
“Push” efforts are available for
deliverable rate,

Class members. Based on an estimated 95% successful

Class members or

of the Class will likely be reached via these

efforts.
21.

An Email Notice containing a summary of the litigation in the body of the email

and a link to the case website will be sent to all Class members whose email addresses are
DECLARATION OF GINA M. INTREPIDO-BOWDEN
ON CLASS CERTIFICATION NOTICE PLAN AND NOTICES
11

obtained from comScore’s records. It is our understanding that email addresses are available for
approximately

Class members,

software,

of which comScore collected through its

of which Class members provided directly to comScore, and

of which

originate from social media addresses that comScore also collected through its software (e.g.
FacebookIDs). Based on an estimated 80% successful deliverable rate,
or

Class members

of the Class will likely be reached via the email effort.
22.

A Postcard Notice will be sent to the addresses of all Class members whose postal

addresses are obtained from comScore’s records. It is our understanding that mailing addresses
are available for

Class members. Prior to mailing, the names and addresses will be:

checked against the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) National Change of Address
(“NCOA”) 3 database; certified via the Coding Accuracy Support System (“CASS”); 4 and
verified through Delivery Point Validation (“DPV”). 5 Notices returned as undeliverable will be
re-mailed to any address available through postal service information. For example, to the
address provided by the USPS on returned pieces for which the automatic forwarding order has
expired, but is still during the period that the USPS returns the piece with the new address
indicated. Any returned mailing that does not contain an expired forwarding order with a new
address indicated may be researched through a third party look-up service, if applicable. We
3

The NCOA database contains records of all permanent change of address submissions received
by the USPS for the last four years. The USPS makes this data available to mailing firms and
lists submitted to it are automatically updated with any reported move based on a comparison
with the person’s name and last known address.
4

Coding Accuracy Support System is a certification system used by the USPS to ensure the
quality of ZIP+4 coding systems.
5

Records that are ZIP+4 coded are then sent through Delivery Point Validation to verify the
address and identify Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies. DPV verifies the accuracy of
addresses and reports exactly what is wrong with incorrect addresses.
DECLARATION OF GINA M. INTREPIDO-BOWDEN
ON CLASS CERTIFICATION NOTICE PLAN AND NOTICES
12

estimate that

Class members or

of the Class will likely be reached via the mailed

notice effort.
23.

Combined, the individual notice efforts are estimated to reach 37.8% of the Class.
Consumer Publication Notice

24.

To build upon the reach of the individual notice effort, a half page notice will be

placed in People magazine. People offers a circulation of over 3.5 million and, factoring in pass
along readership, an adult audience of over 43 million. In addition, People reaches 23.4% of
Online Content Downloaders and its readers are 25% more likely to be Online Content
Downloaders, as compared to the general adult population.
Internet Banner Notice
25.

Class members are internet users; therefore, to extend reach, we recommend

purchasing approximately 95 million unique impressions over a one month period on 24/7’s
Global Alliance Network. The banners will target adults and will include an embedded link to
the case website.
26.

24/7 Real Media allows access to over 4,000 premium, high quality websites,

reaching 180 million unique users. Sample sites may include: Walmart, Verizon, MSNBC, Evite,
White Pages, People, USA Today, Citysearch, Everyday Health, Monster, Time, This is Your
Health, New York Post, Fox News Channel, Food Network, Trulia, Cooks, Match, and Weather
Channel.
Supplemental Notice
27.

To the extent that the individual notice effort reaches less than 34.7% of the Class,

the media portion of the Notice Plan will be supplemented with additional publication notice and
possibly additional banner ads, as necessary, to reach at least 70% of the Class.
DECLARATION OF GINA M. INTREPIDO-BOWDEN
ON CLASS CERTIFICATION NOTICE PLAN AND NOTICES
13

Response Mechanisms
28.

An informational case website with an easy to remember domain name will be

established, allowing Class members the ability to obtain additional information and documents
about the litigation, including the Second Amended Complaint, Answer to the Second Amended
Complaint, and Class Certification Order. The website address will be prominently displayed in
all printed notice materials, as well as accessible through a hyperlink in the “push” notice, email
notice, and banner notices.
29.

Likewise, a toll-free number will be established to allow a simple way for Class

members to learn more about the litigation in the form of frequently asked questions and answers
and to request to have more information mailed directly to them. The toll-free number will be
prominently displayed in all printed notice materials.
Reach and Frequency
30.

The individual notice effort alone is estimated to reach 37.8% of the Class.

Combined, the individual notice and proposed media effort will reach approximately 72.0% of
likely Class members, on average 1.4 times each. To the extent that the individual notice effort
reaches less than 34.7% of the Class, the media portion of the Notice Plan will be supplemented
with additional publication notice and possibly additional banner ads, as necessary, to reach at
least 70% of the Class.

THE FORM AND CONTENT OF THE NOTICES
31.

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

to be written in “plain, easily understood language.” Plain language requirements have been
applied to the Notices we assisted in drafting for Court approval.
DECLARATION OF GINA M. INTREPIDO-BOWDEN
ON CLASS CERTIFICATION NOTICE PLAN AND NOTICES
14

32.

The Notices are designed to provide a clear, concise statement of Class members’

legal rights and options. To ease response, the toll-free number and case website is provided in
all printed notice documents. In addition, the case website is accessible through a hyperlink in
the “push” notice, email notice, and embedded in the banner notices.
33.

In preparing the Notices in this case, we employed communication methods that

are well-established in our field. We embraced the high standards embodied in the Advisory
Committee’s notes accompanying the 2003 changes to Rule 23(c)(2):
The direction that the class-certification notice be couched in plain easily
understood language is added as a reminder of the need to work unremittingly at
the difficult task of communicating with class members.
CONCLUSION
34.

It is estimated that the Notice Plan will effectively reach approximately 72.0% of

likely Class members, on average 1.4 times each. In addition, the Notice Plan will deliver
“noticeable” Notices to capture Class members’ attention and provide them with information
necessary to understand their rights and options.
35.

In my opinion, the Notice Plan is consistent with other effective notice programs.

It is the best notice practicable and meets the “desiring to actually inform” due process
communications standard of Mullane. It provides the same reach and frequency evidence that
courts have approved and that has withstood appellate scrutiny, other expert critiques, as well as
collateral review. The Notice Plan is also consistent with the guidelines set forth in the FJC
Checklist, which considers 70-95% reach among class members reasonable and recommends the
notice design strategies we employed here.
36.

At the conclusion of the Notice Plan, we will provide a final report verifying its

adequacy and effective implementation.
DECLARATION OF GINA M. INTREPIDO-BOWDEN
ON CLASS CERTIFICATION NOTICE PLAN AND NOTICES
15

Exhibit 1

Legal Notification Services
______________________________________________________________________

Class Certification Notice Plan
Harris and Dunstan v. comScore, Inc.
Case No. 11 C 5807
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Eastern Division

Prepared: November 8, 2013

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential

Table of Contents
Page
Legal Notification Services

.............................................

3

Our Experts

.............................................

4

Case Experience

.............................................

5

Expert Services

.............................................

7

Media Terms

.............................................

8

Media Resources

.............................................

9

Program Overview

.............................................

10

Notice Schedule

.............................................

12

Target Analysis

.............................................

13

Individual Notice

.............................................

15

.......................................

16

Internet Banner Notice

.............................................

17

Supplemental Notice

.............................................

18

Response Mechanism

.............................................

19

Notice Design Strategies

.............................................

20

Draft Forms of Notice

.............................................

22

Consumer Publication Notice

Attachment A – Legal Notice c.v.
Attachment B – “Push” Notice text
Attachment C – Email Notice
Attachment D – Postcard Notice
Attachment E – Summary Notice
Attachment F – Internet Banner Notices
Attachment G – Detailed Notice

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential
2

Legal Notice Experts
Legal Notification Services
KCC’s Legal Notice experts, Gina M. Intrepido-Bowden and Carla A. Peak, specialize in the design and
implementation of class action notice programs devised to reach class members with clear, concise, plain
language notices. With over a decade of legal notice consulting experience, Ms. Intrepido-Bowden and
Ms. Peak have been involved with more than 100 effective and efficient notice programs, including some
of the largest and most complex in history, reaching class members or claimants around the globe and
providing notice in over 35 languages.
Their programs satisfy due process requirements, as well as all applicable state and federal laws.
Judges, including in published decisions, have recognized the reach calculation methodology and notice
design strategies they use. Their notices follow the principles in the Federal Judicial Center’s (FJC)
illustrative model notices, which were written and designed to embody the satisfaction of the plain
language requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2).

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential

3

Our Experts
Consistent with the judicial standards set forth by Daubert and Kumho and as illustrated in the FJC’s
Judges’ Class Action Notice and Claims Process Checklist and Plain Language Guide, KCC’s experts
utilize the same practices and statistical analyses that are relied upon in the advertising industry when
they design and measure the effectiveness of the notice programs they develop. Gina M. IntrepidoBowden and Carla A. Peak have worked with Class Counsel to design the “Notice Plan" (Plan) and notice
documents (Notice or Notices) that follow, and will directly oversee its implementation.
Gina Intrepido-Bowden
With more than 20 years of media research, planning and buying experience, Gina brings substantive
expertise to her role as Director, Legal Notification Services. A leading expert, she is responsible for the
design and implementation of evidence-based legal notice campaigns.
Gina has personally designed more than 75 media campaigns across the United States and Canada for
antitrust, consumer and other class action matters. As an expert witness, she provides Courts with the
reach evidence they need to determine the adequacy of notice. In addition, she has successfully critiqued
other notice plans causing Courts to modify programs to better meet due process obligations.
She began her advertising career working for one of New York’s largest advertising agency media
departments. Gina is a frequent author and speaker on class notice issues including effective reach,
notice dissemination as well as noticing trends and innovations. She earned a Bachelor of Arts in
Advertising from Penn State University, graduating summa cum laude.
Carla Peak
With over a decade of industry experience, Carla specializes in the design of plain language legal notice
documents to effectively address the challenges of communicating complex information to class members
in a manner that they can understand.
Carla’s notices satisfy the plain language requirements of Rule 23 and adhere to the guidelines set forth
in the Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth and by the Federal Judicial Center (FJC), as well as
applicable state laws. She has successfully provided notice in both U.S. and international markets
including communications in more than 35 languages.
She has presented on and written numerous articles about class notification programs, the design of
effective notice documents as well as industry trends and innovations. Carla holds a Bachelor of Arts in
Sociology from Temple University, graduating cum laude.

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential

4

Case Experience
Our experts have been judicially recognized for their design and implementation of notice programs
targeting consumer class members. For example:

Poertner v. The Gillette Co. and The Procter & Gamble Co., No. 6:12-CV-00803 (M.D. Fla.):
o

Jusde Gregory A. Presnell (November 5, 2013): The proposed Class Notice and Claim
Form are approved as to form and content. The Court finds that the content of the Class
Notice and the Claim Form satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2), Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(e)(1), and due process and accordingly approves them The Court finds that
compliance with the Notice Plan is the best practicable notice under the circumstances
and constitutes due and sufficient notice of this Order to all persons entitled thereto and
is in full compliance with the requirements of Rule 23, applicable law, and due process.

Beck-Ellman v. Kaz USA, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-02134 (S. D. Cal.)
o

Judge Marilyn Huff (June 11, 2013): The Notice Plan has now been implemented in
accordance with the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order. The Publication Notice was
designed to provide potential class members with information about the Settlement and
their rights, in easy-to-comprehend language The Notice Plan was specially developed
to cause class members to see the Publication Notice or see an advertisement that
directed them to the Settlement Website. KCC identified that the class members belong
to a demographic group known as “Pain Relief Users.” The Heating Pads are considered
a Pain Relief product. The publications that KCC’s Notice Plan used are publications and
websites whose viewers and readers include a high percentage of Pain Relief product
users The Court concludes that the Class Notice fully satisfied the requirements of Rule
23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and all due process requirements.

o

Judge Marilyn Huff (January 7, 2013): The proposed Class Notice, Publication Notice,
and Settlement Website are reasonably calculated to inform potential Class members of
the Settlement, and are the best practicable methods under the circumstances Notice
is written in easy and clear language, and provides all needed information, including: (l)
basic information about the lawsuit; (2) a description of the benefits provided by the
settlement; (3) an explanation of how Class members can obtain Settlement benefits; (4)
an explanation of how Class members can exercise their rights to opt-out or object; (5) an
explanation that any claims against Kaz that could have been litigated in this action will
be released if the Class member does not opt out; (6) the names of Class Counsel and
information regarding attorneys' fees; (7) the fairness hearing date and procedure for
appearing; and (8) the Settlement Website and a toll free number where additional
information, including Spanish translations of all forms, can be obtained. After review of
the proposed notice and Settlement Agreement, the Court concludes that the Publication
Notice and Settlement Website are adequate and sufficient to inform the class members
of their rights. Accordingly, the Court approves the form and manner of giving notice of
the proposed settlement.

Stroud v. eMachines, Inc., No. CJ-2003-968 L (D. Ct. Cleveland Cnty, Okla.)
o

Judge Tom A. Lucas (March 27, 2013): The Notices met the requirements of Okla. Stat.
tit. 12 section 2023(C), due process, and any other applicable law; constituted the best
notice practicable under the circumstances; and constituted due and sufficient notice to
all persons and entities entitled thereto. All objections are stricken. Alternatively,
considered on their merits, all objections are overruled.

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential

5

o

Judge Tom A. Lucas (December 21, 2012): The Plan of Notice in the Settlement
Agreement as well as the content of the Claim Form, Class Notice, Post-Card Notice, and
Summary Notice of Settlement is hereby approved in all respects. The Court finds that
the Plan of Notice and the contents of the Class Notice, Post-Card Notice and Summary
Notice of Settlement and the manner of their dissemination described in the Settlement
Agreement is the best practicable notice under the circumstances and is reasonably
calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Putative Class Members of the pendency
of this action, the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and their right to object to the
Settlement Agreement or exclude themselves from the Certified Settlement Class and,
therefore, the Plan of Notice, the Class Notice, Post-Card Notice and Summary Notice of
Settlement are approved in all respects. The Court further finds that the Class Notice,
Post-Card Notice and Summary Notice of Settlement are reasonable, that they constitute
due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice, and that they
meet the requirements of due process.

Shames v. The Hertz Corporation, No. 3:07-cv-02174 (S.D. Cal.)
o

Honorable Michael M. Anello (November 5, 2012): the Court is satisfied that the parties
and the class administrator made reasonable efforts to reach class members. Class
members who did not receive individualized notice still had opportunity for notice by
publication, email, or both The Court is satisfied that the redundancies in the parties’
class notice procedure—mailing, e-mailing, and publication—reasonably ensured the
widest possible dissemination of the notice The Court OVERRULES all objections to
the class settlement

o

Honorable Michael M. Anello (May 22, 2012): The Court approves, as to form and
content, the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, substantially in the forms of
Exhibits A-1 through A-6, as appropriate, (individually or collectively, the “Notice”), and
finds that the e-mailing or mailing and distribution of the Notice and publishing of the
Notice substantially in the manner and form set forth in ¶ 7 of this Order meet the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process, and is the best
notice practicable under the circumstances and shall constitute due and sufficient notice
to all Persons entitled thereto.

Ko v. Natura Pet Products, Inc., No. 5:09cv2619 (N.D. Cal.)
o

Judge Jeremy Fogel (June 24, 2011): The Court approves, as to form and content, the
Long Form Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action (“Long Form Notice”), and
the Summary Notice attached as Exhibits to the Settlement Agreement, and finds that the
e-mailing of the Summary Notice, and posting on the dedicated internet website of the
Long Form Notice, mailing of the Summary Notice post-card, and newspaper and
magazine publication of the Summary Notice substantially in the manner as set forth in
this Order meets the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and due process, and is the best notice practicable under the circumstances and shall
constitute due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to notice.

See Attachment A for additional recognition and example cases.

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential

6

Expert Services
Our Legal Notification Services include:
Pre-Settlement Consulting
Review and advise clients of any potential obstacles relative to class definition or legal notification
processes
Develop a noticing plan strategy
Provide judicial decisions that are relevant to the case or terms of the settlement
Demographic Analysis
Define the target audience through research and analysis of class demographics
Identify the geographic location of potential class members giving specific consideration to the
class period
Research class member media usage to define the communication channels that will be most
effective
Notice Programs
Create custom notice programs that incorporate media such as newspapers, magazines, trade
journals, radio, television and the internet to meet due process requirements
Develop press releases, broadcast public service announcements (PSAs), and a content-rich,
case-specific website, as needed
Track media activity to verify the adequacy of placements
Plain Language Communication
Consider audience’s level of understanding and devise communications strategy accordingly
Design, draft and distribute plain-language notices that capture attention and are easily
understood by class members
Incorporate response mechanisms, such as a toll-free number, case website address, and/or QR
code into notice documents
Expert Testimony
Provide defensible opinions and testimony from subject-matter experts to verify the effectiveness
of notice programs
Supply proof of performance for each notice served, as required by the Courts
Provide evidence and judicial decisions to overcome objections

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential

7

Media Terms
The following provides the meaning of media terms highlighted throughout the Notice Plan:
Frequency: Estimated average number of times a population group is exposed to a media vehicle or
combination of media vehicles containing a notice within a given period of time.
Impressions or Exposures: Total number of opportunities to be exposed to a media vehicle or
combination of media vehicles containing a notice. It is a gross or cumulative number that may include
the same person more than once. Impressions can exceed the population size.
Reach or Coverage: Net percentage of a specific population group exposed to a media vehicle or a
combination of media vehicles containing a notice at least once within a given period of time. Reach
factors out duplication, representing the total different/net persons.
Selectivity Index: Shows the concentration of a specific population group relative to the general adult
population. For example, a publication selectivity index of 175 among men indicates that the publication’s
readers are 75% more likely to be men as compared to the general adult population.

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential

8

Media Resources
The resources we use to quantify our plan approach include the same resources used by media
professionals to guide the billions of dollars of advertising we see today:
GfK Mediamark Research & Intelligence, LLC (MRI)
MRI is a nationally accredited research firm that provides consumer demographics, product and brand
usage, and audience/exposure in all forms of advertising media. Established in 1979, MRI measures the
usage of nearly 6,000 product and service brands across 550 categories, along with the readership of
hundreds of magazines and newspapers, internet usage, television viewership, national and local radio
listening, yellow page usage, and out-of-home exposure. Based on a yearly face-to-face interview of
26,000 consumers in their homes, MRI’s Survey of the American Consumer™ is the primary source of
audience data for the U.S. consumer magazine industry and the most comprehensive and reliable source
of multi-media audience data available.
Telmar
Telmar is the world-leading supplier of computer based advertising media information services. Its
software provides for survey analysis, data integration, media planning and optimization. With over 5,000
users in 85 countries, Telmar’s clients include many of the world’s leading advertising agencies,
publishers, broadcasters and advertisers.

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential

9

Program Overview
Objective
To design a notice program that will effectively reach Class members and capture their attention with
notices communicated in clear, concise, plain language so that their rights and options may be fully
understood. The FJC’s Judges’ Class Action Notice and Claims Process Checklist and Plain Language
Guide considers 70-95% reach among class members reasonable.
Class Definition
The Class (or Class members) consists of all individuals who have had, at any time since 2005,
downloaded and installed comScore’s tracking software onto their computers via one of comScore’s third
party bundling partners.
Subclass members include all Class members not presented with a functional hyperlink to an end user
license agreement before installing comScore’s software onto their computers.
Case Analysis
The following known factors were considered when determining our recommendation:
1. The Class is estimated to include 10 million Class members.
2. Class members are located throughout the U.S., including large cities and rural areas.
3. Individual notice efforts are estimated to successfully reach 37.8% of the Class; however, a
reasonable effort cannot identify and locate all Class members.
4. Effective reach and notice content is vital to convey the importance of the information affecting
Class members’ rights, as well as to withstand challenge and collateral review.
Target Audience
Demographic and media usage data is not readily available for individuals who downloaded and installed
comScore’s tracking software. Therefore, to verify the program’s effectiveness, MRI data was studied
among adults who have used a computer to look at the internet in the last 30 days and who have
downloaded a video game, music, podcast/podcasting, TV program, or movie on the internet in the last
30 days (“Online Content Downloaders”), because this broad, over inclusive target group indicates and
best represents the Class.
Strategies
The Notice Plan uses a combination of individual notice, consisting of “push” notice, email notice, and
mailed notice, along with a notice placement in People magazine and banner notice placements on a
variety of websites to effectively reach Class members. To the extent that the individual notice effort
reaches less than 34.7% of the Class, the media portion of the Notice Plan will be supplemented with
publication notice and possible additional banner ads, as necessary, to reach at least 70% of the Class.
Plan Delivery
The individual notice effort alone is estimated to reach 37.8% of the Class. Combined, the individual
notice and proposed media effort will reach approximately 72.0% of likely Class members, on average 1.4

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential

10

times each. To the extent that the individual notice effort reaches less than 34.7% of the Class, the media
portion of the Notice Plan will be supplemented with additional publication notice and possibly additional
banner ads, as necessary, to reach at least 70% of the Class.
Notice Design
The Notices are designed to provide a clear, concise, plain language statement of Class members’ legal
rights and options. To ease response, the toll-free number and website address has been provided in all
printed notice documents. The website will also be accessible through a hyperlink accessible in the
“push” notice and email notice, and embedded in the banner notices.

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential

11

Notice Schedule
The notice schedule below could be implemented soon after preliminary approval. Supplemental media efforts will be implemented if the individual
notice effort fails to reach 50% of the Class. We recommend scheduling an opt-out/exclusion date at least 30 days from the last notice appearance
(i.e., 30 days after any necessary supplemental media efforts). The case website would remain active throughout the litigation.
Notice Tactic
“Push” Notice

Week 1

Week 2

Email Notice
Mailed Notice
People Magazine
Internet Banner Notices
Case Website
.

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential
12

Week 3

Week 4

Week 5

Target Analysis
Knowing the characteristics, interests, and habits of a target group aids in the media selection process.
Demographic Highlights
Demographic highlights of Online Content Downloaders include the following:
92.0% have graduated from high school or beyond and 69.8% have attended or graduated from
college or beyond;
91.0% live in a household consisting of two or more people, 71.1% live in a household consisting
of 2-4 people, and 65.2% live in a household consisting of three or more people;
81.7% are 18-49 years old, 74.8% are 25 years of age or older, and 52.9% are 18-34 years old;
74.5% are white;
68.6% have a household income of $50,000 or more and 61.0% have a household income of
$60,000 or more;
64.3% own a home; and
55.8% own a home valued at more than $100,000.
On average, Online Content Downloaders: 1
are 36 years old;
have a household income of $88,207; and
own a home valued at $268,817.
Compared to the general adult population, Online Content Downloaders are:
97.6% more likely to be 18-24 years old, 72.5% more likely to be 18-34 years old, and 54.6%
more likely to be 25-34 years old;
58.2% more likely never to have married;
40.9% more likely to have a household income of $150,000 or more, 30.4% more likely to have a
household income between $100,000-$149,999, and 23.3% more likely to have a household
income of $60,000 or more;
37.6% more likely to work as a manager or professional;
31.9% more likely to be American Indian or Alaska Native, 23.0% more likely to be Asian, and
11.5% more likely to be Black/African American;
30.8% more likely to have lived at their current address for less than one year and 21.4% more
likely to have lived at their current address for 1-4 years;
29.4% more likely to have graduated from college or beyond and 22.4% more likely to have
attended college;
20.3% more likely to live in a household consisting of 3-4 people and 20.1% more likely to live in
a household consisting of five or more people;
15.7% more likely to rent their home;

1 The average age for U.S. adults is 46, the average household income is $74,446, and the average home value is $242,554.

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential
13

10.4% more likely to be men;
10.1% more likely to be a working woman; and
10.0% more likely to own a home valued at $500,000 or more and 9.2% more likely to own a
home valued between $200,000-$499,999.
Source: 2012 MRI Doublebase Study

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential

14

Individual Notice
“Push” or “Pop” Notice
ComScore will “push” the Summary Notice text through its OSSProxy software to all current
“panelists” by rendering a dialogue (or pop-up) box on their computer screens. This Notice will
contain an active hyperlink to the case website. It is our understanding that “Pop” or “Push” efforts
are available for
Class members. Based on an estimated 95% successful deliverable
rate,
Class members or
of the Class will likely be reached via these efforts.
Email Notice
An Email Notice containing a summary of the litigation and a link to the case website will be sent
to all available email addresses. It is our understanding that email addresses are available for
approximately
Class members,
of which comScore collected through its
software,
of which Class members provided directly to comScore, and
of which
originate from social media addresses that comScore also collected through its software (e.g.
FacebookIDs). Based on an estimated 80% successful deliverable rate,
Class
members or
of the Class will likely be reached via the email effort.
Mailed Notice
A Postcard Notice will be sent to all available postal addresses. It is our understanding that
mailing addresses are available for
Class members.
Prior to mailing, the names and addresses will be:
o Checked against the United States Postal Service (USPS) National Change of Address
(NCOA) 2 database;
o Certified via the Coding Accuracy Support System (CASS); 3 and
o Verified through Delivery Point Validation (DPV). 4
Notices returned as undeliverable will be re-mailed to any address available through postal
service information.
For example, to the address provided by the USPS on returned pieces for which the
automatic forwarding order has expired, but is still within the period that the USPS returns
the piece with the new address indicated.
Any returned mailing that does not contain an expired forwarding order with a new address
indicated may be researched through a third party look-up service, if applicable.
We estimate that
mailed notice effort.

Class members or

of the Class will likely be reached via the

2 The NCOA database contains records of all permanent change of address submissions received by the USPS for the last four
years. The USPS makes this data available to mailing firms and lists submitted to it are automatically updated with any reported
move based on a comparison with the person’s name and last known address.
3 Coding Accurate Support System is a certification system used by the USPS to ensure the quality of ZIP+4 coding systems.
4 Records that are ZIP + 4 coded are then sent through Delivery Point Validation to verify the address and identify Commercial Mail
Receiving Agencies. DPV verifies the accuracy of addresses, and reports exactly what is wrong with incorrect addresses.

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential

15

Consumer Publication Notice
To build upon the reach of the individual notice effort, we recommend placing a half page notice in People
magazine.

Circulation: 3,542,185
Adult Audience: 43,204,000
Weekly entertainment magazine featuring celebrity news, biographies and gossip
Reaches 23.4% of Online Content Downloaders
Readers are 25.9% more likely to be Online Content Downloaders, as compared to the
general adult population
Provides a large number of pass along readers

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential

16

Internet Banner Notice
Class members are internet users; therefore, to extend reach, we recommend purchasing approximately
95 million unique impressions over a one month period on 24/7’s Global Alliance Network. The banners
will target adults and will include an embedded link to the case website.
24/7 Real media allows access to over 4,000 premium, high quality websites, reaching 180 million unique
users. Sample sites include:

L

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential

17

Supplemental Notice
To the extent that the individual notice effort reaches less than 34.7% of the Class, the media portion of
the Notice Plan will be supplemented with publication notice and possible additional banner ads, as
necessary, to reach at least 70% of the Class.

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential

18

Response Mechanisms
Case Website
Provides an easy to remember domain, such as www.comScoreClassAction.net
Allows Class members the ability to obtain additional information and documents about the
litigation, including the Second Amended Complaint, Answer to the Second Amended Complaint,
and Class Certification Order
Prominently displayed in all printed notice materials
Accessible through a hyperlink in the “push” notice, email notice, and banner notices
Toll-Free Telephone Support
Provides a simple way for Class members to obtain additional information
Allows Class members the opportunity to learn more about the case in the form of frequently
asked questions and answers
Allows Class members to request to have more information mailed directly to them
Prominently displayed in all printed notice materials

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential

19

Notice Design Strategies
The design and content of all of the notice materials are consistent with the FJC’s “illustrative” forms of
model plain language notices, available at www.fjc.gov.
“Push” Notice Text
Headline captures attention and speaks directly to Class members, alerting them that they should
read the Notice and why it is important
Legal significance is highlighted to ensure readers that the communication carries legitimate
information from the court and not commercial advertising
Concise plain language without “legalese” enhances comprehension
Content includes all critical information in simple format
Toll-free number and case website with functional hyperlink invite response, allowing Class
members the opportunity to obtain additional information
Email Notice
Bold headline in the beginning of the message captures attention and speaks directly to Class
members
Legal significance is highlighted to ensure readers that the communication carries legitimate
information from the court and not commercial advertising
Concise plain language without “legalese” enhances comprehension
Content includes all critical information in simple format
Toll-free number and hyperlink to case website invite response, allowing Class members the
opportunity to obtain additional information
Postcard Notice
Bold call-out on the front of the postcard captures attention and speaks directly to Class
members, alerting them that they should read the Notice and why it is important
Concise plain language without “legalese” enhances comprehension
Content includes all critical information in simple format
Toll-free number and case website invite response, allowing Class members the opportunity to
obtain additional information
Summary Notice
Bold call-out on the front of the postcard captures attention and speaks directly to Class
members, alerting them that they should read the Notice and why it is important
Concise plain language without “legalese” enhances comprehension
Content includes all critical information in simple format
Toll-free number and case website invite response, allowing Class members the opportunity to
obtain additional information
Internet Banner Notices
A simple rotating message alerts Class members about the litigation

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential

20

A simple click on the banner allows immediate access to the case website
Detailed Notice
Prominent “Your Rights and Options” table on first page immediately informs readers of their
rights and options in the case
Bold headline captures attention and speaks directly to Class members, alerting them that they
should read the Notice and why it is important
Concise plain language without “legalese” enhances comprehension
Provides more detailed information than that of a Summary Notice
Content includes all essential information in simple format
Toll-free number and case website invite response, allowing Class members the opportunity to
obtain additional information

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential

21

Draft Forms of Notice
Attachments B, C, D, E, F and G contain the draft forms of the following notice documents:
The “Push” Notice text that will be “pushed” through comScore’s OSSProxy software to all
current “panelists.”
The Email Notice that will be sent to all Class members for whom an email address is available.
The Postcard Notice that will be mailed to all Class members for whom a postal address is
available.
The Summary Notice that will be published in People magazine and other publications, if
needed.
The Internet Banner Notices that will be posted on a variety of web properties.
The Detailed Notice that will be available at the case website, as well as mailed upon request.

2013 KCC LLC
Proprietary and Confidential

22

Attachment A

___________________________________________________________________________
KCC’s Legal Notification Services team provides expert legal notice services in class action,
mass tort and bankruptcy settings. We specialize in the design and implementation of notice
programs with plain language notices; expert opinions and testimony on the adequacy of
notice; and critiques of other notice programs and notices. With over a decade of experience,
our legal noticing team has been involved in more than a hundred effective and efficient
notice programs reaching class members and claimants in almost every country, dependency
and territory in the world, and providing notice in over 35 languages. Our programs satisfy
due process requirements, as well as all applicable state and federal laws. Some case
examples our experts have been involved with include:
• Shames v. The Hertz Corporation, No. 3:07-cv-02174 (S.D. Cal.) A national antitrust
settlement involving several million class members who rented vehicles from a variety of car
rental companies.
• In Re: Uponor, Inc., F1807 Plumbing Fittings Products Liability Litigation, No. 11-MD2247 (D. Minn.) A national products liability settlement providing reimbursement, repair and
replacement of affected plumbing components.
• In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy Litigation, MDL No. 1350 (N.D. Ill.) Perhaps the largest
discretionary class action notice campaign involving virtually every adult in the United States
and informing them about their rights in the $75 million data breach settlement.
• In re TJX Companies, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 1838 (D.
Mass.) One of the largest U.S. and Canadian retail consumer security breach notice
programs.
• Grays Harbor Adventist Christian School v. Carrier Corp., No. 05-05437 (W.D. Wash.),
Donnelly v. United Technologies Corp. No. 06-CV-320045CP (Ont. S.C.J.) and Wener v.
United Technologies Corp. 500-06-000425-088 (QC. Super. Ct.) Product liability class
action settlements involving secondary heat exchangers in high efficiency gas furnaces,
affecting class members throughout the U.S. and Canada.
• In re Residential Schools Litigation, No. 00-CV-192059 (Ont. S.C.J.) The largest and most
complex class action in Canadian history incorporating a groundbreaking notice program to
disparate, remote aboriginal persons qualified to receive benefits in the multi-billion dollar
settlement.

Gina M. Intrepido-Bowden
With more than 20 years of media research, planning and buying experience, Gina M. IntrepidoBowden brings substantive expertise to her role as Director, Legal Notification Services. A
leading expert, she is responsible for the design and implementation of evidence-based legal
notice campaigns.
Gina has designed more than 75 judicially approved media campaigns across the United States
and Canada for antitrust, consumer and other class action matters. As a legal notice expert, she
provides Courts with the reach evidence they need to determine the adequacy of notice. In
addition, she has successfully critiqued other notice plans, causing Courts to modify programs to
better meet due process obligations.
She began her advertising career working for one of New York’s largest advertising agency
media departments. Gina is a frequent author and speaker on class notice issues including
effective reach, notice dissemination as well as noticing trends and innovations. She earned a
Bachelor of Arts in Advertising from Penn State University, graduating summa cum laude. Gina
can be reached at [e-mail].

Carla A. Peak
With over a decade of industry experience, Carla A. Peak specializes in the design of plain
language legal notice documents to effectively address the challenges of communicating complex
information to class members in a manner that they can understand.
Carla’s notices satisfy the plain language requirements of Rule 23 and adhere to the guidelines
set forth in the Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth and by the Federal Judicial Center (FJC), as
well as applicable state laws. She has successfully provided notice in both U.S. and international
markets including communications in more than 35 languages.
She has presented on and written numerous articles about class notification programs, the design
of effective notice documents as well as industry trends and innovations. Carla holds a Bachelor
of Arts in Sociology from Temple University, graduating cum laude. Carla can be reached at
[e-mail].

Following are some judicial comments recognizing the work of our expert(s):
Judge Gregory A. Presnell, Poertner v. The Gillette Co. and The Procter & Gamble Co.,
(November 5, 2013) No. 6:12-CV-00803 (M.D. Fla.):
The proposed Class Notice and Claim Form are approved as to form and
content. The Court finds that the content of the Class Notice and the Claim Form
satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1), and
due process and accordingly approves them…The Court finds that compliance
with the Notice Plan is the best practicable notice under the circumstances and
constitutes due and sufficient notice of this Order to all persons entitled thereto
and is in full compliance with the requirements of Rule 23, applicable law, and
due process.
Judge Marilyn L. Huff, Beck-Ellman v. Kaz USA, Inc., (June 11, 2013) No. 3:10-cv-02134 (S.
D. Cal.):
The Notice Plan has now been implemented in accordance with the Court’s
Preliminary Approval Order. The Publication Notice was designed to provide
potential class members with information about the Settlement and their rights, in
2

easy-to-comprehend language… The Notice Plan was specially developed to
cause class members to see the Publication Notice or see an advertisement that
directed them to the Settlement Website. KCC identified that the class members
belong to a demographic group known as “Pain Relief Users.” The Heating Pads
are considered a Pain Relief product. The publications that KCC’s Notice Plan
used are publications and websites whose viewers and readers include a high
percentage of Pain Relief product users…The Court concludes that the Class
Notice fully satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and all due process requirements.
Judge Tom A. Lucas, Stroud v. eMachines, Inc., (March 27, 2013) No. CJ-2003-968 L (D. Ct.
Cleveland Cnty, Okla.):
The Notices met the requirements of Okla. Stat. tit. 12 section 2023(C), due
process, and any other applicable law; constituted the best notice practicable
under the circumstances; and constituted due and sufficient notice to all persons
and entities entitled thereto. All objections are stricken. Alternatively, considered
on their merits, all objections are overruled.
Judge Marilyn L. Huff, Beck-Ellman v. Kaz USA, Inc. (January 7, 2013) No. 3:10-cv-02134 (S.
D. Cal.):
The proposed Class Notice, Publication Notice, and Settlement Website are
reasonably calculated to inform potential Class members of the Settlement, and
are the best practicable methods under the circumstances… Notice is written in
easy and clear language, and provides all needed information, including: (l) basic
information about the lawsuit; (2) a description of the benefits provided by the
settlement; (3) an explanation of how Class members can obtain Settlement
benefits; (4) an explanation of how Class members can exercise their rights to
opt-out or object; (5) an explanation that any claims against Kaz that could have
been litigated in this action will be released if the Class member does not opt out;
(6) the names of Class Counsel and information regarding attorneys' fees; (7) the
fairness hearing date and procedure for appearing; and (8) the Settlement
Website and a toll free number where additional information, including Spanish
translations of all forms, can be obtained. After review of the proposed notice and
Settlement Agreement, the Court concludes that the Publication Notice and
Settlement Website are adequate and sufficient to inform the class members of
their rights. Accordingly, the Court approves the form and manner of giving notice
of the proposed settlement.
Judge Tom A. Lucas, Stroud v. eMachines, Inc., (December 21, 2012) No. CJ-2003-968 L (D.
Ct. Cleveland Cnty, Okla.):
The Plan of Notice in the Settlement Agreement as well as the content of the
Claim Form, Class Notice, Post-Card Notice, and Summary Notice of Settlement
is hereby approved in all respects. The Court finds that the Plan of Notice and
the contents of the Class Notice, Post-Card Notice and Summary Notice of
Settlement and the manner of their dissemination described in the Settlement
Agreement is the best practicable notice under the circumstances and is
reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Putative Class
Members of the pendency of this action, the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
and their right to object to the Settlement Agreement or exclude themselves from
the Certified Settlement Class and, therefore, the Plan of Notice, the Class
Notice, Post-Card Notice and Summary Notice of Settlement are approved in all
respects. The Court further finds that the Class Notice, Post-Card Notice and
Summary Notice of Settlement are reasonable, that they constitute due,
adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice, and that
they meet the requirements of due process.

3

Honorable Michael M. Anello, Shames v. The Hertz Corporation, (November 5, 2012) No.
3:07-cv-02174 (S.D. Cal.):
…the Court is satisfied that the parties and the class administrator made
reasonable efforts to reach class members. Class members who did not receive
individualized notice still had opportunity for notice by publication, email, or
both…The Court is satisfied that the redundancies in the parties’ class notice
procedure—mailing, e-mailing, and publication—reasonably ensured the widest
possible dissemination of the notice…The Court OVERRULES all objections to
the class settlement…
Judge Ann D. Montgomery, In Re: Uponor, Inc., F1807 Plumbing Fittings Products Liability
Litigation, (July 9, 2012) No. 11-MD-2247 (D. Minn.):
The objections filed by class members are overruled; The notice provided to the
class was reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise class
members of the pendency of this action, the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
and their right to object, opt out, and appear at the final fairness hearing;…
Judge Ann D. Montgomery, In Re: Uponor, Inc., F1807 Plumbing Fittings Products Liability
Litigation, (June 29, 2012) No. 11-MD-2247 (D. Minn.):
After the preliminary approval of the Settlement, the parties carried out the notice
program, hiring an experienced consulting firm to design and implement the plan.
The plan consisted of direct mail notices to known owners and warranty
claimants of the RTI F1807 system, direct mail notices to potential holders of
subrogation interests through insurance company mailings, notice publications in
leading consumer magazines which target home and property owners, and
earned media efforts through national press releases and the Settlement
website. The plan was intended to, and did in fact, reach a minimum of 70% of
potential class members, on average more than two notices each…The
California Objectors also take umbrage with the notice provided the class.
Specifically, they argue that the class notice fails to advise class members of the
true nature of the aforementioned release. This argument does not float, given
that the release is clearly set forth in the Settlement and the published notices
satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B) by providing information regarding:
(1) the nature of the action class membership; (2) class claims, issues, and
defenses; (3) the ability to enter an appearance through an attorney; (4) the
procedure and ability to opt-out or object; (5) the process and instructions to
make a claim; (6) the binding effect of the class judgment; and (7) the specifics of
the final fairness hearing.
Honorable Michael M. Anello, Shames v. The Hertz Corporation, (May 22, 2012) No. 3:07-cv02174 (S.D. Cal.):
The Court approves, as to form and content, the Notice of Proposed Settlement
of Class Action, substantially in the forms of Exhibits A-1 through A-6, as
appropriate, (individually or collectively, the “Notice”), and finds that the e-mailing
or mailing and distribution of the Notice and publishing of the Notice substantially
in the manner and form set forth in ¶ 7 of this Order meet the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process, and is the best notice
practicable under the circumstances and shall constitute due and sufficient notice
to all Persons entitled thereto.
Judge Anthony Powell, Molina v. Intrust Bank, N.A., (May 21, 2012) No. 10-CV-3686 (18th
J.D. Ct., Kan.):
The form, content, and method of dissemination of Class Notice given to the
Class were adequate and reasonable, and constituted the best notice practicable
4

under the circumstances. The Notice, as given, provided valid, due, and sufficient
notice of the proposed settlement, the terms and conditions set forth in the
Settlement Agreement, and these proceeding to all persons entitled to such
notice, and said notice fully satisfied the requirements of K.S.A. § 60-223 and
due process.
Judge Ronald L. Bauer, Blue Cross of California Website Securities Litigation, (April 5,
2012) No. JCCP 4647 (Super. Ct. Cal.):
The form, content, and method of dissemination of the notice given to the
Settlement Class were adequate and reasonable, and constituted the best notice
practicable under the circumstances. The notice, as given, provided valid, due,
and sufficient notice of the proposed settlement, the terms and conditions set
forth in the Settlement Agreement, and these proceedings to all Person entitled
to such notice, and said notice satisfied the requirements of California Rules of
Court, Rule 3,766(e) and (f), and due process.
Judge Ann D. Montgomery, In Re: Uponor, Inc., F1807 Plumbing Fittings Products Liability
Litigation, (January 18, 2012) No. 11-MD-2247 (D. Minn.):
The Notice Plan detailed by KCC in the Affidavit of Gina M. Intrepido-Bowden
provides the best notice practicable under the circumstances and constitutes due
and sufficient notice of the Settlement Agreement and the Final Fairness Hearing
to the Classes and all persons entitled to receive such notice as potential
members of the Class…The Notice Plan’s multi-faceted approach to providing
notice to Class Members whose identity is not known to the Settling Parties
constitutes ‘the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances’
consistent with Rule 23(c)(2)(B)…Notice to Class members must clearly and
concisely state the nature of the lawsuit and its claims and defenses, the Class
certified, the Class member’s right to appear through an attorney or opt out of the
Class, the time and manner for opting out, and the binding effect of a class
judgment on members of the Class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). Compliance with
Rule 23’s notice requirements also complies with Due Process requirements.
‘The combination of reasonable notice, the opportunity to be heard, and the
opportunity to withdraw from the class satisfy due process requirements of the
Fifth Amendment.’ Prudential, 148 F.3d at 306. The proposed notices in the
present case meet those requirements.
Judge Jeffrey Goering, Molina v. Intrust Bank, N.A., (January 17, 2012) No. 10-CV-3686 (18th
J.D. Ct. Ks.):
The Court approved the form and content of the Class Notice, and finds that
transmission of the Notice as proposed by the Parties meets the requirements of
due process and Kansas law, is the best notice practicable under the
circumstances, and constitutes due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled
thereto.
Judge Charles E. Atwell, Allen v. UMB Bank, N.A., (October 31, 2011) No. 1016-CV34791
(Cir. Ct. Mo.):
The form, content, and method of dissemination of Class Notice given to the
Class were adequate and reasonable, and constituted the best notice practicable
under the circumstances. The Notice, as given, provided valid, due, and sufficient
notice of the proposed settlement, the terms and conditions set forth in the
Settlement Agreement, and these proceedings to all persons entitled to such
notice, and said notice fully satisfied the requirements of Rule 52.08 of the
Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure and due process.
Judge Charles E. Atwell, Allen v. UMB Bank, N.A., (June 27, 2011) No. 1016-CV34791 (Cir.
5

Ct. Mo.):
The Court approves the form and content of the Class Notice, and finds that
transmission of the Notice as proposed by the Parties meets the requirements of
due process and Missouri law, is the best notice practicable under the
circumstances, and constitutes due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled
thereto.
Judge Jeremy Fogel, Ko v. Natura Pet Products, Inc., (June 24, 2011) No. 5:09cv2619 (N.D.
Cal.):
The Court approves, as to form and content, the Long Form Notice of Pendency
and Settlement of Class Action (“Long Form Notice”), and the Summary Notice
attached as Exhibits to the Settlement Agreement, and finds that the e-mailing of
the Summary Notice, and posting on the dedicated internet website of the Long
Form Notice, mailing of the Summary Notice post-card, and newspaper and
magazine publication of the Summary Notice substantially in the manner as set
forth in this Order meets the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and due process, and is the best notice practicable under the
circumstances and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all persons
entitled to notice.
Judge M. Joseph Tiemann, Billieson v. City of New Orleans, (May 27, 2011) No. 94-19231
(Civ. D. Ct. La.):
The plan to disseminate notice for the Insurance Settlements (the “Insurance
Settlements Notice Plan”) which was designed at the request of Class Counsel
by experienced Notice Professionals Gina Intrepido-Bowden and Carla A.
Peak… IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. The Insurance Settlements Notice Plan is
hereby approved and shall be executed by the Notice Administrator; 2. The
Insurance Settlements Notice Documents, substantially in the form included in
the Insurance Settlements Notice Plan, are hereby approved.
Judge James Robertson, In re Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Data Theft Litig.,
(February 11, 2009) MDL No. 1796 (D.C.):
The Court approves the proposed method of dissemination of notice set forth in
the Notice Plan, Exhibit 1 to the Settlement Agreement. The Notice Plan meets
the requirements of due process and is the best notice practicable under the
circumstances. This method of Class Action Settlement notice dissemination is
hereby approved by the Court.
Judge Louis J. Farina, Soders v. General Motors Corp., (December 19, 2008) No. CI-0004255 (C.P. Pa.):
The Court has considered the proposed forms of Notice to Class members of the
settlement and the plan for disseminating Notice, and finds that the form and
manner of notice proposed by the parties and approved herein meet the
requirements of due process, are the best notice practicable under the
circumstances, and constitute sufficient notice to all persons entitled to notice.
Judge Robert W. Gettleman, In Re Trans Union Corp., (September 17, 2008) MDL No. 1350
(N.D. Ill.):
The Court finds that the dissemination of the Class Notice under the terms and in
the format provided for in its Preliminary Approval Order constitutes the best
notice practicable under the circumstances, is due and sufficient notice for all
purposes to all persons entitled to such notice, and fully satisfies the
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the requirements of due
6

process under the Constitution of the United States, and any other applicable
law…Accordingly, all objections are hereby OVERRULED.
Judge William G. Young, In re TJX Companies, (September 2, 2008) MDL No. 1838 (D.
Mass.):
…as attested in the Affidavit of Gina M. Intrepido…The form, content, and
method of dissemination of notice provided to the Settlement Class were
adequate and reasonable, and constituted the best notice practicable under the
circumstances. The Notice, as given, provided valid, due, and sufficient notice of
the proposed settlement, the terms and conditions set forth in the Settlement
Agreement, and these proceedings to all Persons entitled to such notice, and
said Notice fully satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and due process.
Judge David De Alba, Ford Explorer Cases, (May 29, 2008) JCCP Nos. 4226 & 4270 (Cal.
Super. Ct.):
[T]he Court is satisfied that the notice plan, design, implementation, costs, reach,
were all reasonable, and has no reservations about the notice to those in this
state and those in other states as well, including Texas, Connecticut, and Illinois;
that the plan that was approved -- submitted and approved, comports with the
fundamentals of due process as described in the case law that was offered by
counsel.
Judge Kirk D. Johnson, Hunsucker v. American Standard Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, (August
10, 2007) No. CV-2007-155-3 (Cir. Ct. Ark.):
Having admitted and reviewed the Affidavits of Carla Peak and Christine
Danielson concerning the success of the notice campaign, including the fact that
written notice reached approximately 86% of the potential Class Members, the
Court finds that it is unnecessary to afford a new opportunity to request exclusion
to individual class members who had an earlier opportunity to request exclusion
but failed to do so…Specifically, the Court received and admitted affidavits from
Carla Peak and Christine Danielson, setting forth the scope and results of the
notice campaign. Based on the Court’s review of the evidence admitted and
argument of counsel, the Court finds and concludes that the Class Notice and
settlement website as disseminated to members of the Settlement Class in
accordance with provisions of the Preliminarily Approval Order was the best
notice practicable under the circumstances to all members of the Settlement
Class.

Designing a Settlement and Notice Program to Minimize Scrutiny and Objections, AMERICAN
CONFERENCE INSTITUTE (ACI), 16th National Conference on Consumer Finance Class Actions &
Litigation, Gina Intrepido-Bowden presenter/panelist (July 2013).
Pitfalls of Class Action Notice and Settlement Administration, PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE (PLI),
Class Action Litigation 2013, Gina Intrepido-Bowden and Robert DeWitte presenters/panelists
(July 2013).
The Fundamentals of Settlement Administration accredited CLE Program, Carla Peak and Steven
Weisbrot, presented in Philadelphia at DLA Piper LLP (August 2013); Carla Peak and Robert
DeWitte, presented in Illinois at Locke Lord LLP and broadcast to offices in California, Georgia,
New York, Texas and London (April 2013); Gina Intrepido-Bowden and Robert DeWitte,
presented in Illinois at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Wexler Wallace LLP
7

(January 2013); Gina Intrepido-Bowden and Robert DeWitte, presented in Illinois at Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP (October 2012); Gina Intrepido-Bowden and Rob Taylor-Manning, presented in
Pennsylvania at Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. (December 2011).
Ethics in Legal Notification, accredited CLE Program, Gina Intrepido-Bowden, Carla Peak &
Steven Weisbrot, presented in New York at Morgan Lewis & Bockius (December 2012).
Class Action Settlement Administration Tips & Pitfalls on the Path to Approval accredited CLE
Program, Carla Peak, Gina Intrepido-Bowden & Robert DeWitte, presented in Illinois at Jenner &
Block and broadcast to offices in Washington DC, New York and California (October 2012).
Perspectives from Class Action Claims Administrators: Innovations in Notification, CLE
INTERNATIONAL, 8th Annual Class Actions Conference, Gina Intrepido-Bowden, presenter/panelist
(May 2012).
Innovations in Notification, CHICAGO BAR ASSOCIATION, Class Litigation Committee Spring
Seminar, Carla Peak, presenter (May 2012).
Ethical Considerations in Canadian Class Actions, accredited CLE Program, Gina IntrepidoBowden and Robert Taylor-Manning, presented in Canada at Rochon Genova, LLP (April 2012).
Reaching Class Members & Driving Take Rates, CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF SAN DIEGO, 4th
Annual Class Action Symposium, Gina Intrepido-Bowden, presenter/panelist (October 2011).
Legal Notice Ethics, accredited CLE Program, Gina Intrepido-Bowden, Carla Peak & Elizabeth
Grande, presented in New York at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Milberg LLP (May
2010), in Illinois at Miller Law LLC (May 2010), in Pennsylvania at Berger & Montague, P.C.,
Anapol Schwartz, Lundy Law, and Dechert LLP, which was broadcast to offices in California, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Washington D.C., and London and sent via video to
their office in China (October 2010), and in Minnesota at Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., and Chestnut Cambronne (January 2011).
Class Actions 101: Best Practices and Potential Pitfalls in Providing Class Notice, accredited CLE
Program, Brian Christensen, Gina Intrepido & Richard Simmons, presented to Kansas Bar
Association (March 2009).

Carla Peak and Steven Weisbrot. How to Design Your Notice to Minimize Professional Objectors,
Class Action Lawsuit Defense: Class Action Defense News, Developments and Commentary
provided by BakerHostetler (www.classactionlawsuitdefense.com) (July 20, 2012).
Carla Peak, Is your legal notice designed to be noticed? WESTLAW JOURNAL CLASS ACTION Vol.18
Issue 10 (2011).
John B. Isbister, Todd B. Hilsee & Carla A. Peak, Seven Steps to a Successful Class Action
Settlement, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, SECTION OF LITIGATION, CLASS ACTIONS TODAY 16 (2008).
Todd B. Hilsee, Gina M. Intrepido & Shannon R. Wheatman, Hurricanes, Mobility and Due
Process: The “Desire-to-Inform” Requirement for Effective Class Action Notice Is Highlighted by
Katrina, 80 TULANE LAW REV. 1771 (2006); reprinted in course materials for: AMERICAN BAR
ASSOCIATION, 10th Annual National Institute on Class Actions (2006); NATIONAL BUSINESS
INSTITUTE, Class Action Update: Today’s Trends & Strategies for Success (2006); CENTER FOR
LEGAL EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL, Class Actions: Prosecuting and Defending Complex Litigation
(2007).
Gina M. Intrepido, Notice Experts May Help Resolve CAFA Removal Issues, Notification to
8

Officials, 6 CLASS ACTION LITIG. REP. 759 (2005).
Todd B. Hilsee, Shannon R. Wheatman, & Gina M. Intrepido, Do You Really Want Me to Know
My Rights? The Ethics Behind Due Process in Class Action Notice Is More Than Just Plain
Language: A Desire to Actually Inform, 18 GEORGETOWN JOURNAL LEGAL ETHICS 1359 (2005).

Following is a list of cases in which our expert(s) have been involved in the design and
implementation of the notice program and/or notice documents:
Naef v. Masonite Corp (Hardboard Siding)

Cir. Ct. Ala., CV-94-4033

Williams v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (Hardboard Siding)

Cal. Super. Ct., CV-995787

In re Babcock and Wilcox Co. (Asbestos Related Bankruptcy)

E.D. La., 00-10992

Brown v. Am. Tobacco

Cal. Super. Ct., J.C.C.P. 4042 No. 711400

Microsoft I-V Cases (Antitrust Litig. Mirroring Justice Dept.)

Cal. Super. Ct., J.C.C.P. No. 4106

Scott v. Blockbuster, Inc. (Extended Viewing Fees)

136th Tex. Jud. Dist., No. D 162-535

Talalai v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. (Tire Layer Adhesion)

N.J. Super. Ct., No. MID-L-8839-00 MT

Thompson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Race Related Sales
Practices)

S.D. N.Y., No. 00-CIV-5071 HB

Ervin v. Movie Gallery Inc. (Extended Viewing Fees)

Tenn. Ch. Fayette Co., No. CV-13007

Walker v. Rite Aid of PA, Inc. (PA Act 6)

C.P. Pa., No. 99-6210

Myers v. Rite Aid of PA, Inc. (PA Act 6)

C.P. Pa., No. 01-2771

Baker v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc. & Dominick’s Finer Foods, Inc.
(Milk Price Fixing)

Cir. Ct. Ill. Cook Co., No. 00-L-9664

In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. (Billing Practices Litig.)

M.D. Tenn., MDL No. 1227

Soders v. General Motors Corp. (Marketing Initiative)

C.P. Pa., No. CI-00-04255

Nature Guard Cement Roofing Shingles Cases

Cal. Super. Ct., J.C.C.P. No. 4215

Defrates v. Hollywood Entertainment Corp. (Extended Viewing
Fees)

Cir. Ct. Ill., St. Clair. Co., No. 02L707

West v. G&H Seed Co. (Crawfish Farmers)

27th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 99-C-4984-A

Baiz v. Mountain View Cemetery (Burial Practices)

Cal. Super. Ct., No. 809869-2

Richison v. American Cemwood Corp. (Roofing Durability)

Cal. Super. Ct., No. 005532

Friedman v. Microsoft Corp. (Antitrust)

Ariz. Super. Ct., No. CV 2000-000722

Davis v. Am. Home Prods. Corp. (Norplant Contraceptive)

Civ. D. Ct. La., Div. K, No. 94-11684

Gordon v. Microsoft Corp. (Antitrust)

D. Minn., No. 00-5994

Fisher v. Virginia Electric & Power Co.

E.D. Va., No 3:02-CV-431

Bardessono v. Ford Motor Co. (15 Passenger Vans Outreach)

Wash. Super. Ct., No. 32494

Gardner v. Stimson Lumber Co. (Forestex Siding)

Wash. Super. Ct., No. 00-2-17633-3SEA

Nichols v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (Paxil)

E.D. Pa., No. 00-6222

In re Educ. Testing Serv. PLT 7-12 Test Scoring

E.D. La., 2:04md1643

In re Serzone Products Liability

S.D. W. Va., 02-md-1477

9

Ford Explorer Cases

Cal. Super. Ct., JCCP Nos. 4226 & 4270

In re Lupron Marketing & Sales Practices

D. Mass., MDL No.1430

Morris v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co.

D. Okla., NO. CJ-03-714

Thibodeaux v. Conoco Philips Co.

D. La., No. 2003-481

Morrow v. Conoco Inc.

D. La., No. 2002-3860

Tobacco Farmer Transition Program

U.S. Dept. of Agric.

Froeber v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co.

Cir. Ct. Ore., No. 00C15234

Carnegie v. Household Int’l, Inc.

N. D. Ill., No. 98-C-2178

In re Royal Ahold Securities and “ERISA”

D. Md., 1:03-md-01539

First State Orthopaedics et al. v. Concentra, Inc., et al.

E.D. Pa., No. 2:05-CV-04951-AB

Meckstroth v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

24th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 583-318

In re High Sulfur Content Gasoline Products Liability

E.D. La., MDL No. 1632

Desportes v. American General Assurance Co.

Ga. Super. Ct., No. SU-04-CV-3637

In re Residential Schools Litigation

Ont. Super. Ct., 00-CV-192059 CPA

Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.

E.D. La., No. 2:05-CV-04206-EEF-JCW

Carter v. North Central Life Ins. Co.

Ga. Super. Ct., No. SU-2006-CV-3764-6

Spence v. Microsoft Corp. (Antitrust Litig.)

Cir. Ct. Wis., No. 00-CV-003042

Ciabattari v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

N.D. Cal., No. C-05-04289-BZ

Peek v. Microsoft Corporation

Cir. Ct. Ark., No. CV-2006-2612

Reynolds v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.

D. Ore., No. CV-01-1529 BR

Zarebski v. Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest

Cir. Ct. Ark., No. CV-2006-409-3

In re Parmalat Securities

S.D. N.Y., 1:04-md-01653 (LAK)

Beasley v. The Reliable Life Insurance Co.

Cir. Ct. Ark., No. CV-2005-58-1

Sweeten v. American Empire Insurance Company

Cir. Ct. Ark., No. 2007-154-3

Gunderson v. F.A. Richard & Associates, Inc. (FARA)

14th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 2004-2417-D

Gunderson v. F.A. Richard & Associates, Inc. (Focus)

14th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 2004-2417-D

Hunsucker v. American Standard Ins. Co. of Wisconsin

Cir. Ct. Ark., No., CV-2007-155-3

Burgess v. Farmers Insurance Co., Inc.

D. Okla., No. CJ-2001-292

Grays Harbor v. Carrier Corporation

W.D. Wash., No. 05-05437-RBL

Donnelly v. United Technologies Corp.

Ont. S.C.J., 06-CV-320045CP

Wener v. United Technologies Corp.

QC. Super. Ct., 500-06-000425-088

Brookshire Bros. v. Chiquita (Antitrust)

S.D. Fla., No. 05-CIV-21962

Johnson v. Progressive

Cir. Ct. Ark., No. CV-2003-513

Bond v. American Family Insurance Co.

D. Ariz., CV06-01249-PXH-DGC

Angel v. U.S. Tire Recovery (Tire Fire)

Cir. Ct. W. Va., No. 06-C-855

In re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach

D. Mass., MDL No. 1838

Webb v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

Cir. Ct. Ark., No. CV-2007-418-3

10

Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Co. (Long Term Care Insurance)

C.D. Cal., SACV06-2235-PSG (PJWx)

Palace v. DaimlerChrysler (Neon Head Gaskets)

Cir. Ct. Ill., Cook Co., No. 01-CH-13168

Beringer v. Certegy Check Services, Inc. (Data Breach)

M.D. Fla., No. 8:07-cv-1657-T-23TGW

Lockwood v. Certegy Check Services, Inc. (Data Breach)

M.D. Fla., No. 2:07-CV-587-FtM-29-DNF

Sherrill v. Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co.

18th D. Ct. Mont., No. DV-03-220

Gunderson v. F.A. Richard & Associates, Inc. (AIG)

14th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 2004-2417-D

Jones v. Dominion Transmission, Inc.

S.D. W. Va., No. 2:06-cv-00671

Gunderson v. F.A. Richard & Associates, Inc. (Wal-Mart)

14th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 2004-2417-D

In re Trans Union Corp. Privacy (Data Breach)

N.D. Ill., MDL No. 1350

Gunderson v. F.A. Richard & Associates., Inc. (Amerisafe)

14th Jud. D. Ct. La., No. 2004-002417

Bibb v. Monsanto Co. (Nitro)

Cir. Ct. W.Va., No. 041465

Carter v. Monsanto Co. (Nitro)

Cir. Ct. W.Va., No. 00-C-300

In re U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Data Breach

D. D.C., MDL 1796

In re Countrywide Financial Corp. Customer Data Security
Breach

W.D. Ky., MDL No. 1998

Dolen v. ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (Callable CDs)

Nos. 01-L-454 & 01-L-493

Griffin v. Dell Canada Inc.

Ont. Super. Ct., No. 07-CV-325223D2

Plubell v. Merck & Co., Inc.

Cir. Ct. Mo., No. 04CV235817-01

Billieson v. City of New Orleans

Civ. D. Ct. La., No. 94-19231

Anderson v. Government of Canada

Sup. Ct. NL, No. 2008NLTD166

Ko v. Natura Pet Products, Inc.

N.D. Cal., No. 5:09cv02619

Allen v. UMB Bank, N.A.

Cir. Ct. Mo., No. 1016-CV34791

Blue Cross of California Website Security Cases

Sup. Ct. Cal., No. JCCP 4647

Alvarez v. Haseko Homes, Inc.

Cir. Ct. HI., No. 09-1-2691-11

LaRocque v. TRS Recovery Services, Inc.

D. Maine, No. 2:11cv00091

In re: Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability Litig.

D. Minn., MDL No. 08-1958

Molina v. Intrust Bank, N.A.

th
18 Jud. D. Ct., 10-cv-3686

In Re: Uponor, Inc., F1807 Products Liability Litigation

D. Minn, MDL No. 2247

Shames v. The Hertz Corporation

S.D. Cal., No. 07cv2174-MMA

Wells v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.

Sup. Ct. Cal., No.BC389753

Stroud v. eMachines, Inc.

D. Ct. Cleveland Cnty, Okla., No. CJ-2003968-L

Holman v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

N.D. Cal., No. 4:11cv00180

Beck-Ellman v. Kaz USA Inc.

S.D. Cal., No. 10cv2134

Lee v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Company

N.D. Cal., No. 3:11-cv-00043

Dunstan v. comScore, Inc.

N.D. Ill., No. 11-cv-5807

Steinfeld v. Discover Financial Services

N.D. Cal., No. 3:12-cv-01118

Cappalli v. BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc.

D. R.I., No. 1:10cv00407

11

Poertner v. The Gillette Co. and The Procter & Gamble Co.

M.D. Fla., No. 6:12-CV-00803

Following is a list of cases in which our expert(s) were involved with a critique of the notice
program and/or notices:
Barbanti v. W.R. Grace and Co. (Zonolite/Asbestos Litig.)

Wash. Super. Ct., 00201756-6

In re W.R. Grace Co. (Asbestos Related Bankruptcy)

Bankr. D. Del., No. 01-3293-JCS

In re USG Corp. (Asbestos Related Bankruptcy)

Bankr. D. Del., No. 01-02094-RJN

Johnson v. Ethicon, Inc. (Product Liability Litigation)

Cir. Ct. W. Va., Nos. 01-C-1530, 1531,
1533, 01-C-2491 to 2500

Parsons/Currie v. McDonalds

Ont. S.C.J., No. 02-CV-235958CP/No. 02CV-238276

Chambers v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (Neon Head Gaskets)

N.C. Super. Ct., No. 01:CVS-1555

West v. Carfax, Inc.

Ohio C.P., No. 04-CV-1898 (ADL)

Perrine v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Cir. Ct. W. Va., No. 04-C-296-2

Clark v. Pfizer, Inc. (Neurontin)

C.P. Pa. Phila. Co., No. 9709-3162

In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig.

D. Kan., MDL No. 1840

Gallucci v. Boiron, Inc.

S.D. Ca., No. 3:11-cv-02039

Tchoboian v. FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc.

C.D. Cal., No.10-CV01008

In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation

E.D. N.Y., No. 1:06-md-1738

12

Attachment B

If you installed free software on your computer and received RelevantKnowledge or
PremierOpinion as part of that download, a class action lawsuit may affect your rights.
You may be affected by a class action lawsuit claiming that comScore, Inc. (“comScore”) violated federal privacy laws by
accessing information on your computer without proper consent. The lawsuit, Dunstan v. comScore, Inc., No. 11-cv-5807, is
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Court decided this lawsuit should be a class action
on behalf of a “Class,” or group of people that could include you. There is no money available now and no guarantee that
there will be.
Am I Included? Yes, records indicate that comScore’s tracking software (i.e., “RelevantKnowledge” and
“PremierOpinion”) was installed on your computer sometime after 2005, and comScore collected information from your
computer. Specifically the lawsuit includes a Class of people who at any time since 2005, downloaded and installed
RelevantKnowledge and PremierOpinion onto their computers via one of comScore’s third party bundling partners. It also
includes a Subclass of people who were not presented with a functional hyperlink to an end user license agreement before
installing comScore’s software onto their computer. All Subclass Members are also Class Members, but not all Class
Members are included in the Subclass.
What is the Case About? The lawsuit claims that comScore “bundled” its tracking software with other free software
(like screensavers), causing people to download it onto their computers. It also claims that once downloaded, comScore
used the software to access certain information stored on the computers and monitor their usage (including internet
usage), and then sold the information they collected to third parties. The lawsuit seeks money damages and a Court order
requiring comScore to stop or correct their software installation and tracking practices. comScore denies that it did
anything wrong or violated the law, and claims that everyone who installed its tracking software consented to it. The Court
has not decided who is right. The lawyers for the Class will have to prove their claims at a trial, which has not yet been
scheduled.
Who Represents Me and Other Class Members? The Court has appointed a team of lawyers from Edelson LLC to
represent you as “Class Counsel.” You do not have to pay Class Counsel or anyone else to participate. If Class Counsel
obtains money or other benefits for the Class, they may ask the Court for attorneys’ fees and costs, which would be paid
out of any money recovered for the Class or paid separately by comScore. You may hire your own lawyer to represent
you at your expense. Jeff Dunstan and Mike Harris are Class Members like you, and the Court appointed them as the
“Class Representatives.”
What are My Rights & Options? You have a choice of whether to stay in the Class or not. If you do nothing, you are
choosing to stay in the Class. This means you will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court and you won’t
be able to sue or continue to sue comScore for the legal claims made in this case in a different lawsuit. If money or benefits
are obtained, you will be notified about how to get a share. If you do not want to stay in the Class, you must submit a request
for exclusion. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get any money or benefits from this lawsuit if any are obtained, but you
will keep your right to separately sue comScore over the legal issues in this case. To ask to be excluded from the Class, send
a letter to the address below postmarked by [Month 00, 2013] saying you want to be excluded from Dunstan v. comScore,
Inc., No. 11-cv-5807. Include your name, address, email address, and signature.
How Do I Get More Information? For a detailed notice and other documents about this lawsuit and your rights, go to
www.comScoreClassAction.net, call 1-___-___-____, write to comScore Class Action Administrator, c/o KCC Class
Action Services, [PO Box 0000, City, ST 00000-0000], or call Class Counsel at 1-866-354-3015.

Attachment C

To:
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Legal Notice about tracking software downloaded on your computer

If you installed free software on your computer and received RelevantKnowledge or
PremierOpinion as part of that download, a class action lawsuit may affect your rights.
You may be affected by a class action lawsuit claiming that comScore, Inc. (“comScore”) violated federal privacy laws by
accessing information on your computer without proper consent. The lawsuit, Dunstan v. comScore, Inc., No. 11-cv-5807, is
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Court decided this lawsuit should be a class action
on behalf of a “Class,” or group of people that could include you. There is no money available now and no guarantee that
there will be.
Am I Included? Yes, records indicate that comScore’s tracking software (i.e., “RelevantKnowledge” and
“PremierOpinion”) was installed on your computer sometime after 2005, and comScore collected information from your
computer. Specifically the lawsuit includes a Class of people who at any time since 2005, downloaded and installed
RelevantKnowledge and PremierOpinion onto their computers via one of comScore’s third party bundling partners. It also
includes a Subclass of people who were not presented with a functional hyperlink to an end user license agreement before
installing comScore’s software onto their computer. All Subclass Members are also Class Members, but not all Class
Members are included in the Subclass.
What is the Case About? The lawsuit claims that comScore “bundled” its tracking software with other free software
(like screensavers), causing people to download it onto their computers. It also claims that once downloaded, comScore
used the software to access certain information stored on the computers and monitor their usage (including internet
usage), and then sold the information they collected to third parties. The lawsuit seeks money damages and a Court order
requiring comScore to stop or correct their software installation and tracking practices. comScore denies that it did
anything wrong or violated the law, and claims that everyone who installed its tracking software consented to it. The Court
has not decided who is right. The lawyers for the Class will have to prove their claims at a trial, which has not yet been
scheduled.
Who Represents Me and Other Class Members? The Court has appointed a team of lawyers from Edelson LLC to
represent you as “Class Counsel.” You do not have to pay Class Counsel or anyone else to participate. If Class Counsel
obtains money or other benefits for the Class, they may ask the Court for attorneys’ fees and costs, which would be paid
out of any money recovered for the Class or paid separately by comScore. You may hire your own lawyer to represent
you at your expense. Jeff Dunstan and Mike Harris are Class Members like you, and the Court appointed them as the
“Class Representatives.”
What are My Rights & Options? You have a choice of whether to stay in the Class or not. If you do nothing, you are
choosing to stay in the Class. This means you will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court and you won’t
be able to sue or continue to sue comScore for the legal claims made in this case in a different lawsuit. If money or benefits
are obtained, you will be notified about how to get a share. If you do not want to stay in the Class, you must submit a request
for exclusion. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get any money or benefits from this lawsuit if any are obtained, but you
will keep your right to separately sue comScore over the legal issues in this case. To ask to be excluded from the Class, send
a letter to the address below postmarked by [Month 00, 2013] saying you want to be excluded from Dunstan v. comScore,
Inc., No. 11-cv-5807. Include your name, address, email address, and signature.
How Do I Get More Information? For a detailed notice and other documents about this lawsuit and your rights, go to
www.comScoreClassAction.net, call 1-___-___-____, write to comScore Class Action Administrator, c/o KCC Class
Action Services, [PO Box 0000, City, ST 00000-0000], or call Class Counsel at 1-866-354-3015.

Attachment D

LEGAL NOTICE

If you installed free
software on your
computer and received
RelevantKnowledge or
PremierOpinion as part
of that download, a class
action lawsuit may affect
your rights.
A Federal Court authorized this notice.
You are not being sued.
This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

comScore Class Action
Class Action Administrator
P.O. Box 0000
City, State 00000-0000

First-Class
Mail
US Postage
Paid
Permit #__

|||||||||||||||||||||||
Postal Service: Please do not mark barcode

XXX
XXX—1234567-8

First Last
C/O
Addr1 Addr2
City, St ZipCode Country

You may be affected by a class action lawsuit claiming that comScore, Inc. (“comScore”) violated federal privacy laws by accessing
information on your computer without proper consent. The lawsuit, Dunstan v. comScore, Inc., No. 11-cv-5807, is in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Court decided this lawsuit should be a class action on behalf of a “Class,” or
group of people that could include you. There is no money available now and no guarantee that there will be.
Am I Included? Yes, records indicate that comScore’s tracking software (i.e., “RelevantKnowledge” and “PremierOpinion”) was
installed on your computer sometime after 2005, and comScore collected information from your computer. Specifically the lawsuit
includes a Class of people who at any time since 2005, downloaded and installed RelevantKnowledge and PremierOpinion onto
their computers via one of comScore’s third party bundling partners. It also includes a Subclass of people who were not presented
with a functional hyperlink to an end user license agreement before installing comScore’s software onto their computer. All
Subclass Members are also Class Members, but not all Class Members are included in the Subclass.
What is the Case About? The lawsuit claims that comScore “bundled” its tracking software with other free software (like
screensavers), causing people to download it onto their computers. It also claims that once downloaded, comScore used the
software to access certain information stored on the computers and monitor their usage (including internet usage), and then sold the
information they collected to third parties. The lawsuit seeks money damages and a Court order requiring comScore to stop or
correct their software installation and tracking practices. comScore denies that it did anything wrong or violated the law, and claims
that everyone who installed its tracking software consented to it. The Court has not decided who is right. The lawyers for the Class
will have to prove their claims at a trial, which has not yet been scheduled.
Who Represents Me and Other Class Members? The Court has appointed a team of lawyers from Edelson LLC to represent you
as “Class Counsel.” You do not have to pay Class Counsel or anyone else to participate. If Class Counsel obtains money or other
benefits for the Class, they may ask the Court for attorneys’ fees and costs, which would be paid out of any money recovered for
the Class or paid separately by comScore. You may hire your own lawyer to represent you at your expense. Jeff Dunstan and Mike
Harris are Class Members like you, and the Court appointed them as the “Class Representatives.”
What are My Rights & Options? You have a choice of whether to stay in the Class or not. If you do nothing, you are choosing to stay
in the Class. This means you will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court and you won’t be able to sue or continue to
sue comScore for the legal claims made in this case in a different lawsuit. If money or benefits are obtained, you will be notified about
how to get a share. If you do not want to stay in the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion. If you exclude yourself, you cannot
get any money or benefits from this lawsuit if any are obtained, but you will keep your right to separately sue comScore over the legal
issues in this case. To ask to be excluded from the Class, send a letter to the address below postmarked by [Month 00, 2013] saying you
want to be excluded from Dunstan v. comScore, Inc., No. 11-cv-5807. Include your name, address, email address, and signature.
How Do I Get More Information? For a detailed notice and other documents about this lawsuit and your rights, go to
www.comScoreClassAction.net, call 1-___-___-____, write to comScore Class Action Administrator, c/o KCC Class Action
Services, [PO Box 0000, City, ST 00000-0000], or call Class Counsel at 1-866-354-3015.

Attachment E

LEGAL NOTICE

If you installed free software on your computer and
received RelevantKnowledge or PremierOpinion as part of
that download, a class action lawsuit may affect your rights.
You may be affected by a class action lawsuit claiming that comScore, Inc.
(“comScore”) violated federal privacy laws by accessing information on
your computer without proper consent. The lawsuit, Dunstan v. comScore,
Inc., No. 11-cv-5807, is in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The Court decided this lawsuit should be a class action on
behalf of a “Class,” or group of people that could include you. There is no
money available now and no guarantee that there will be.
Am I Included? You are included in the Class if at any time since 2005,
you downloaded and installed RelevantKnowledge and PremierOpinion onto
your computers through one of comScore’s third party bundling partners.
You may also be included in the Subclass if you were not presented with
a functional hyperlink to an end user license agreement before installing
comScore’s software onto your computer. All Subclass Members are also
Class Members, but not all Class Members are included in the Subclass.
What is the Case About? The lawsuit claims that comScore “bundled” its
tracking software with other free software (like screensavers), causing people
to download it onto their computers. It also claims that once downloaded,
comScore used the software to access certain information stored on the
computers and monitor their usage (including internet usage), and then sold
the information they collected to third parties. The lawsuit seeks money
damages and a Court order requiring comScore to stop or correct their
software installation and tracking practices. comScore denies that it did
anything wrong or violated the law, and claims that everyone who installed
its tracking software consented to it. The Court has not decided who is right.
The lawyers for the Class will have to prove their claims at a trial, which has
not yet been scheduled.

Who Represents Me and Other Class Members? The Court has appointed
a team of lawyers from Edelson LLC to represent you as “Class Counsel.”
You do not have to pay Class Counsel or anyone else to participate. If Class
Counsel obtains money or other benefits for the Class, they may ask the Court
for attorneys’ fees and costs, which would be paid out of any money recovered
for the Class or paid separately by comScore. You may hire your own lawyer to
represent you at your expense. Jeff Dunstan and Mike Harris are Class Members
like you, and the Court appointed them as the “Class Representatives.”
What are My Rights & Options? You have a choice of whether to stay in
the Class or not. If you do nothing, you are choosing to stay in the Class. This
means you will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court
and you won’t be able to sue or continue to sue comScore for the legal claims
made in this case in a different lawsuit. If money or benefits are obtained
you will be able to share in them. If you do not want to stay in the Class,
you must submit a request for exclusion. If you exclude yourself, you cannot
get any money or benefits from this lawsuit if any are obtained, but you will
keep your right to separately sue comScore over the legal issues in this case.
To ask to be excluded from the Class, send a letter to the address below
postmarked by [Month 00, 0000] saying you want to be excluded from
Dunstan v. comScore, Inc., No. 11-cv-5807. Include your name, address,
email address, and signature.
How Do I Get More Information? For a detailed notice and other documents
about this lawsuit and your rights, go to www.comScoreClassAction.net, call
1-___-___-____, write to comScore Class Action Administrator, c/o KCC
Class Action Services, [PO Box 0000, City, ST 00000-0000], or call Class
Counsel at 1-866-354-3015.

www.comScoreClassAction.net

1-___-___-____

Attachment F

Attachment G

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

If you installed free software on your computer
and received RelevantKnowledge or
PremierOpinion as part of that download, a class
action lawsuit may affect your rights.
A Federal Court authorized this notice.
You are not being sued. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.
•

A class action lawsuit has been filed against comScore, Inc. (“comScore”) claiming that it
violated federal privacy laws by using its tracking software to monitor and collect personal
information from personal computers without proper consent.

•

You may be included in this class action if, at any time since 2005, you downloaded and
installed comScore’s tracking software (i.e., RelevantKnowledge and PremierOpinion) onto
your computer via one of comScore’s third party bundling partners.

•

The Court has not yet decided whether comScore did anything wrong. There is no money
available now, and no guarantee there will be. However, your legal rights are affected, and
you have a choice to make now.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS LAWSUIT:

DO NOTHING

ASK TO BE EXCLUDED

Stay in this lawsuit. Await the outcome. Give up certain rights.
By doing nothing, you are choosing to stay in the lawsuit. You will
automatically keep the possibility of getting money or benefits that may
come from a trial or settlement. But, you are giving up any rights to
separately sue comScore about the same legal claims in this lawsuit.
Get out of this lawsuit. Get no money or benefits. Keep rights.
If you ask to be excluded and money or other benefits are later awarded,
you won’t be able to share in those. But, you keep any rights to
separately sue comScore about the same legal claims in this lawsuit.

• If this case is not dismissed or settled before trial, lawyers must prove the claims against
comScore at a trial that is scheduled to begin on [Month 00, 0000]. If you remain in the Class
and money or other benefits are obtained from comScore, you will be notified about how to
ask for a share.
• Your rights and options are explained in this notice. To ask to be excluded, you must act
before [Month 00, 0000].

Questions? Go to www.comScoreClassAction.net or call 1-___-___-____.
1

BASIC INFORMATION
1. Why was this Notice issued?
The Court authorized this Notice to explain that it has allowed, or “certified,” a class action lawsuit
that may affect you. You have legal rights and options that you may exercise before the Court holds
a trial. The trial is to decide whether the claims being made against comScore, on your behalf, are
correct. The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
and is known as Dunstan v. comScore, Inc., No. 11-cv-5807.
2. What is this lawsuit about?
This lawsuit claims that comScore distributed its tracking software under various names
(RelevantKnowledge and PremierOpinion) to consumers by “bundling” it with other free software
offerings (such as downloadable screensavers, photo editing software and others). The lawsuit
claims that, when consumers downloaded and installed one of these free software offerings, they
were also prompted to install a “bundled” version of comScore’s tracking software, and were
presented with terms that explained its operation. According to the lawsuit, comScore’s tracking
software violated federal law by: (1) accessing certain files and information on consumers’
computers; (2) monitoring computer usage (including internet usage); (3) collecting all accessed,
monitored, and tracked information; and (4) selling that information to other businesses.
comScore denies all of the claims in the lawsuit. comScore claims that it received consent to access
the information it monitored, collected, and sold to third parties.
3. What is a class action and who is involved?
In a class action, one or more people called “Class Representatives” (in this case, Jeff Dunstan and
Mike Harris) sue on behalf of a group of people who have similar claims. The people together are a
“Class” or “Class Members” (or sometimes a “Subclass” or “Subclass Members”). The individuals
who sue are called the Plaintiffs. The company they sue (in this case, comScore, Inc.) is called the
Defendant. In a class action, the court resolves the issues for all Class Members, except for those
who exclude themselves from the Class.
4. Why is this lawsuit a class action?
The Court decided that this lawsuit can be a class action and move towards a trial because it meets
the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which governs class actions in federal
courts. Specifically, the Court found, among other things, that:
• there are legal questions and facts that are common to each of the consumers tracked by
comScore’s software (i.e., to all consumers who have comScore’s tracking software installed
on their personal computers);
• Jeff Dunstan’s and Mike Harris’s claims are typical of the claims of the rest of the Class, and
Mike Harris’s claims are typical of the Subclass;
• Jeff Dunstan, Mike Harris, and the lawyers from Edelson LLC representing the Class will
fairly and adequately represent the Class’s interests;

2

• the common legal questions and facts are more important than questions that affect only
individuals; and
• this class action will be more efficient than having many individual lawsuits.
More information about why the Court is allowing this lawsuit to be a class action is in the Court’s
Order Re: Class Certification, which is available in the “Court Documents” section of this website.

THE CLAIMS IN THE LAWSUIT
5. What claims does the lawsuit allege?
The lawsuit claims that comScore’s practices of allegedly installing tracking software without proper
consent, accessing certain computer files and information, monitoring computer usage, collecting
accessed, monitored, and tracked information, and selling the information to other businesses
violated provisions of the Stored Communications Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Additionally, the lawsuit included a state law claim for “unjust
enrichment,” but the Court determined that claim could not proceed as part of this class action.
You can read a copy of the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Class Action Complaint which describes
these summarized allegations in much greater detail at the case website.
6. How did comScore answer?
comScore denies that it did anything wrong or violated any law. comScore claims that everyone who
downloaded a bundled version of its tracking software (that is, in conjunction with the download of
another free piece of software, like a free screensaver) did so purposefully and consented to allowing
comScore to track their computer usage, collect tracked information, and sell that information to
other businesses. You can read a copy of comScore’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Class
Action Complaint which explains comScore’s response in greater detail at the case website.
7. Has the Court decided who is right?
The Court hasn’t decided whether the Plaintiffs or Defendant are correct. By establishing the Class
and Subclass and issuing this Notice, the Court is not suggesting that the Plaintiffs will win or lose
the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs must prove their claims at a trial that may begin on [date] (see “The Trial”
section below).
8. What are the Plaintiffs asking for?
The Plaintiffs are asking the Court to award each Class Member money damages for the privacy
violations alleged in the lawsuit. They are also seeking an injunction from the Court which would
require comScore to stop and/or correct the conduct that is being challenged in the lawsuit. They are
also asking that comScore be ordered to pay their costs and attorneys fees in bringing this lawsuit.
9. Is there any money available now?
No money or benefits are available now because the Court has not decided whether comScore did
anything wrong, and the two sides have not settled the case. There is no guarantee that money or
benefits will ever be obtained. If they are, you will be notified about how to ask for a share.

3

WHO IS IN THE CLASS
You need to determine whether you are affected by this lawsuit.
10. Am I part of the Class?
The Court decided that there is one “Class” in this case, and that certain individuals within that Class
are also part of a “Subclass.”
The Court found that the people in the Class are “All individuals who have had, at any time since
2005, downloaded and installed comScore’s tracking software onto their computers via one of
comScore’s third party bundling partners.”
The Court found that the people in the Subclass are “All Class Members not presented with a
functional hyperlink to an end user license agreement before installing comScore’s software
onto their computers.”
Because all Subclass Members are a part of the larger Class, when this document refers to the
“Class” or to “Class Members,” it refers to both the Class and Subclass.
11. How do I determine whether I am a part of the Class?
If you downloaded and installed a bundled version of comScore’s software—which is labeled as
either RelevantKnowledge or PremierOpinion—onto your computer (or someone else downloaded
and installed it to your computer) any time between 2005 and [Month 00, 2013], then you are part of
the Class.
You are a Class Member regardless of whether comScore’s tracking software is currently installed
on your computer or you removed it from your computer sometime after 2005 by either
“uninstalling” it or removing it using another computer program, such as anti-virus or anti-spyware
software.
There are many ways to determine whether the software is currently installed on your computer. For
example, you may have recently received a “pop-up” notice about this lawsuit. This notice reached
you because comScore attempted to send a signal to each computer currently running its tracking
software. If that signal reached you, you may have seen a pop-up window open on your computer
screen notifying you about this class action and stating that you have comScore’s tracking software
installed on your computer and you are part of the Class.
You may have also received an email from the class action administrator, KCC Class Action
Services explaining that comScore’s business records indicate that you had its tracking software
installed on your computer at some point after 2005, and you are a member of the Class. KCC sent
you this email because, according to comScore’s business records, you provided comScore with
your email address when or after you installed its tracking software on your computer.
If you are not sure whether comScore’s tracking software is or was installed on your computer,
please contact Class Counsel at 1-866-354-3015.

4

12. How do I determine if I am part of the Subclass?
All Subclass Members are Class Members, but only certain Class Members are Subclass Members.
The Subclass consists of specific individuals who downloaded and installed comScore’s tracking
software from a specific third-party software provider during a specific period of time. According to
the lawsuit, people who downloaded the tracking software during these instances were not presented
with a hyperlink to a full “user license agreement” (often referred to as a “ULA”) before installing
the tracking software.
If you downloaded and installed the PremierOpinion version of comScore’s software that was
bundled with a program called “Secret Land Screensaver” from a website called “7-artscreensavers.com,” sometime in 2009 or 2010, you may be a part of the Subclass.
13. I’m still not sure if I am included.
If you are still not sure whether you are included in either the Class or Subclass, you can get free
help by calling the Plaintiffs’ lawyers in this case at 1-866-354-3015. The Plaintiffs’ lawyers and
their staff can help you determine whether you installed comScore’s tracking software in the past, or
help you determine whether it is currently installed on your computer.

YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS
You have a choice about whether to stay in the Class or ask to be excluded before the trial, and you
have to decide this now.
14. What happens if I do nothing at all?
By doing nothing you are staying in the Class. This means that regardless of whether the Plaintiffs
win or lose the legal motions or trial, you will be legally bound by all of the Orders and Judgments
of the Court and you will not be able to separately sue, or continue to sue comScore—as part of any
other lawsuit—about the same legal claims that are the subject of this lawsuit. However, if the
Plaintiffs obtain money or benefits, either as a result of any trial or settlement, you will be notified
about how to apply for a share.
15. Why would I ask to be excluded?
If you exclude yourself, you cannot get any money or benefits from this lawsuit if any are
obtained, but you will keep your right to separately sue comScore over the legal issues in this
case.
16. How do I ask the Court to exclude me from the Class?
To exclude yourself from the Class, you must send a letter stating that you want to be excluded from
Dunstan v. comScore, Inc., No. 11-cv-5807. Your letter must include your name, address, email
address and your signature. You must mail your exclusion request so it is postmarked no later than
[exclusion deadline] to:
comScore Federal Privacy Class Action Administrator
c/o KCC Class Action Services

5

PO Box 0000
City, ST 00000-0000

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
17. Do I have a lawyer in the case?
The Court has appointed a team of lawyers from Edelson LLC as the attorneys to represent the
Class. They are called “Class Counsel.” They are experienced in handling similar class action cases.
More information about these lawyers, their law firm, and their experience is available at
www.edelson.com.
18. Should I get my own lawyer?
You do not need to hire your own lawyer because Class Counsel is working on your behalf. You can
hire your own lawyer, but you will have to pay that lawyer. For example, you can your lawyer to
appear in Court for you if you want someone other than Class Counsel to speak for you.
19. How will the lawyers be paid?
If Class Counsel obtains money or other benefits for the Class, they may ask the Court for fees and
expenses. You won’t have to pay these fees and expenses. If the Court grants Class Counsel’s
request, the fees and expenses would be either deducted from any money obtained for the Class or
paid separately by comScore.

THE TRIAL
The Court has scheduled a trial to decide who is right in this case.
20. How and when will the Court decide who is right?
As long as the case isn’t decided through legal motions or settled, Class Counsel will have to prove
the Plaintiffs’ claims at a trial. The trial will take place at the Everett McKinley Dirksen United
States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Courtroom 2541, Chicago, Illinois 60604, but the
date of the trial has not yet been scheduled. During the trial, a Jury or the Judge will hear all of the
evidence to help them reach a decision about whether the Plaintiffs or the Defendant are right about
the claims in the lawsuit. There is no guarantee that the Plaintiffs will win or that they will get any
money for the Class.
21. Do I have to come to the trial?
You do not need to attend the trial. Class Counsel will present the case for the Plaintiffs, and
comScore will present its defenses. You or your own lawyer are welcome to come at your own
expense.
22. Will I get money after the trial?

6

If the Plaintiffs obtain money or other benefits as a result of the trial or a settlement, you will be
notified about how to apply for a share or what your other options are at that time. Currently, we do
not know if any benefits will be available or how long this process will take.

GETTING MORE INFORMATION
23. Where do I get more information?
The website, www.comScoreClassAction.net, contains several Court Documents that provide
additional information about the case. It will be updated with the most current information about the
lawsuit as it becomes available. You may also write with questions to comScore Federal Privacy
Class Action Administrator, c/o KCC Class Action Services, PO Box 0000, City, ST 00000-0000.
You can call the Class Action Administrator at [1-000-000-0000] or Class Counsel at 1-866-3543015 if you have any questions. Before doing so, however, please read this full Notice carefully.

7