Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 453 Filed 11/16/21 Page 1 of 64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`DONALD R. CAMERON, ET. AL.,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 19-cv-3074-YGR
`
`ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY
`APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
`SETTLEMENT AND SETTING DEADLINES
`FOR NOTICE, OBJECTION, EXCLUSION, AND
`FINAL FAIRNESS HEARING
`Re: Dkt. No. 396
`On November 2, 2021, the Court held a hearing on the unopposed motion of plaintiffs
`Donald Cameron and Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc. for preliminary approval of the parties’
`proposed settlement; approval of the proposed Class Notice; appointing Class Representative,
`Class Counsel and the proposed Settlement Administrator; and setting a date for the hearing on
`final approval of the settlement. (Dkt. No. 396.) Steve Berman, Rob Lopez, and Ben Harrington
`of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP appeared for plaintiffs, and Mark Perry, Rachel Brass, and
`Caeli Higney of Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher LLP appeared for defendant Apple, Inc.
`Having considered the motion briefing, the arguments of counsel, the relevant law, the
`terms of the settlement agreement and the class notice, as well as the record in this case, and based
`on the reasons and terms set forth herein, the Court GRANTS the motion for preliminary approval
`of the class action settlement.
`1. Class Definition and Basis for Conditional Certification
`The Settlement Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A, defines the class as:
`
`All former or current U.S. developers of any Apple IOS application
`or in-app product (including subscriptions) sold for a non-zero price
`via Apple’s IOS App Store that earned, through all Associated
`Developer Accounts, proceeds equal to or less than $1,000,000
`through the App Store U.S. storefront in every calendar year in
`which the U.S. developer had a developer account between June 4,
`2015 to the date of the Agreement (August 24, 2021). For class
`definition purposes, the 2015 calendar year consist of June 4, 2015
`through December 31, 2015. The 2021 calendar year shall consist
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 453 Filed 11/16/21 Page 2 of 64
`
`
`
`of January 1, 2021 through April 26, 2021. Additionally, excluded
`from the Settlement Class are (a) directors, officers, and employees
`of Apple or its subsidiaries and affiliated companies, as well as
`Apple’s legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, (b) the
`Court, the Court staff, as well as any appellate court to which this
`matter is ever assigned and its staff, (c) Defense Counsel, as well as
`their immediate family members, legal representatives, heirs,
`successors, or assigns, (d) any Developers who validly request
`exclusion (“opt out”) from the Settlement Class, and (e) any other
`individuals whose claims already have been adjudicated to a final
`judgment.
`The Court finds that, for purposes of settlement, plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements
`of Rule 23(a) as well as the requirements for certification under one or more subsections of Rule
`23(b). With respect to numerosity under Rule 23(a)(1), the Settlement Class includes 67,000
`members, making it so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
`Rule 23(a)(2) commonality requires “questions of fact or law common to the class,”
`though all questions of fact and law need not be in common. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150
`F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiffs brought the following causes of action: (i) Violation of
`the Sherman Act –Monopolization/ Monopsonization (15 U.S.C. § 2); (ii) Violation of the
`Sherman Act-Attempted Monopolization/ Monopsonization (15 U.S.C. § 2); (iii) Unlawful
`business practices and violations under California Business and Professions Code, § 17200, et seq.
`(“UCL”); and (iv) Unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code, § 17200,
`et seq. (“UCL”). (See Dkt. No. 53) (“Consolidated Class Complaint”). The focus of this action—
`whether Apple willfully acquired and maintained monopoly power, or attempted to gain monopoly
`power, by refusing to allow iOS device users to purchase iOS apps and in-app products other than
`through its own App Store—is common to all class members. Antitrust actions are particularly
`appropriate for class treatment as the allegations regarding the defendant’s conduct, and the
`evidence of the same, which typically is expert heavy, impacts the class generally.
`Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the plaintiffs show that the claims or defenses of the
`representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class. Plaintiffs’ and members of
`the Settlement Class claims all stem from the same alleged conduct, i.e. antitrust injury, making
`plaintiffs’ claims typical of class members. Here, while the settlement class is narrower than that
`
`2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 453 Filed 11/16/21 Page 3 of 64
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`alleged in the consolidated complaint, the class representatives themselves are typical of those
`members represented herein, namely the subgroup of 99% of the developers.
`With respect to Rule 23(a)(4), the Court finds the representative parties and class counsel
`have fairly and adequately represented the interests of the Class. No conflicts of interest appear as
`between plaintiffs and the members of the Settlement Class. Class Counsel are deeply versed in
`this area of the law and have routinely demonstrated that they are qualified and have experience
`with prosecuting class actions of this kind and therefore adequate to represent the Settlement Class
`as well. The parties engaged in extensive discovery during the almost 2.5-year course of this
`litigation. More than 5 million documents and 20 million pages have been produced in this
`litigation. Berman Decl. ¶ 3. The parties collectively have taken over fifty depositions, including
`the depositions of Apple’s Senior Management. See Id. Apple has produced 13 terabytes of
`transactional data that plaintiffs and their experts have analyzed. Id.
`The Settlement Class further satisfies Rule 23(b)(3) in that common issues predominate
`and “a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating”
`the claims here.
`Based on the foregoing, the proposed class is conditionally certified pursuant to Rule
`23(c).
`2. Class Representatives and Class Counsel
`Plaintiffs Donald Cameron and Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc., are appointed the Class
`Representatives. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is appointed Class Counsel.
`Class counsel are experts in antitrust litigation and argue that they have aggressively
`pursued and analyzed a massive discovery record, have conducted and/or defended at least
`seventeen depositions, retained prominent experts, and prepared a motion for class certification.
`(Berman Decl. ¶ 3.) With respect to the named plaintiffs, they have actively furthered the interests
`of the class by reviewing submissions, conferring with class counsel, producing documents, and
`sitting for depositions. Named plaintiffs appear to have no conflict of interest with the settlement
`class and have suffered the same alleged injury as all settlement class members. (Mot. at 11, 24.)
`3. Settlement Agreement
`
`3
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 453 Filed 11/16/21 Page 4 of 64
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`In summary, the settlement provides $100,000,000 in monetary relief and structural relief
`in 6 areas of particular concern to the IOS developer community. (See Settlement Agreement). The
`Settlement Agreement appears to have been the product of arm’s length and informed negotiations
`with the assistance of an experienced mediator. The relief provided for the Class appears to be
`adequate, taking into account:
`(i) the costs and risks associated with trial and appeal;
`(ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to the class, including
`the method of processing class-member claims;
`(iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney’s fees, including timing of payment; and
`(iv) any agreements required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3) (in this case, none).
`Moreover, the Settlement Agreement appears to treat Class members equitably relative to
`each other. The Court notes that it is particularly aware of the risks of trial in this case having
`tried and written a 185-page decision in the Epic Games v. Apple dispute referenced above.
`Preliminary approval will allow the Court to hear any objections by the proposed class members
`before final approval.
`In terms of structural relief, under the Settlement, Apple has agreed to maintain the 15-
`percent commission tier for U.S. developers enrolled in the Small Business Program for at least
`three years after Final Approval. See id. § 5.1.1. Next, Apple has agreed to revise its App Store
`Guidelines to permit developers of all app categories to communicate with consenting customers
`outside their app, including via email and other communication services, about purchasing
`methods other than in-app purchase. See id. § 5.1.3. Third, for at least three years after Final
`Approval, Apple will continue to “conduct robust experimentation to drive continuous
`improvement” in App discoverability, including in ways that will “give new and high-quality apps
`a chance to be found.” See id. § 5.1.2. Fourth, Apple will expand its pricing tiers from 100 to 500
`(by December 31, 2022), and maintain those tiers for at least three years from Final Approval. See
`id. § 5.1.4. This enhanced pricing freedom will allow iOS developers to more carefully calibrate
`their prices to compete and enhance revenues. Fifth, Apple will create an appeal process, which
`will be available to any developer who “believes that there has been unfair treatment by Apple in
`4
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 453 Filed 11/16/21 Page 5 of 64
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`the review of any of the U.S. developer’s apps, or in-app products, or updates.” See id. 5.1.5.
`Apple will be required under the Settlement to maintain this appeal process, and the website
`callout, for at least three years. See id. Finally, in terms of transparency, for at least three years
`from Final Approval, Apple will publish an annual “transparency report” that (at a minimum) will
`provide (a) meaningful statistics on the number of apps rejected and reasons why, (b) the number
`of customer and developer accounts deactivated, and (c) objective data regarding search queries
`and results, and the number of apps removed from the App Store. See id. § 5.1.6. The Court finds
`these structural benefits are valuable to the settlement class.
`Accordingly, the Settlement Agreement is granted preliminary approval pursuant to Rule
`23(e)(2). Based upon the information before the Court, the Settlement Agreement falls within the
`range of possible approval as fair, adequate and reasonable, and there is a sufficient basis for
`notifying the Class and for setting a Fairness and Final Approval Hearing.
`4. Plan of Allocation
`The allocation plan provides a minimum payment to every member of the settlement class,
`with higher payments available to those who have participated more extensively in the iOS app
`ecosystem. Each class member’s recovery will be tied to the historic proceeds they have generated
`through the App store. Given that settlement class members’ proceeds in the app store can be
`influenced by discoverability issues outside their control, plaintiffs believe that an equitable means
`of allocating the settlement fund is to group settlement class members into tiers, which the
`settlement does. In its initial analysis, the Court finds that this appears to be a fair method of
`distribution.
`The estimated recovery falls into the following categories:
`51% will get a minimum payment of $250
`23% will get a minimum payment of $500
`11% will get a minimum payment of $1,000
`4% will get a minimum payment of $1,500
`6% will get a minimum payment of $2,000
`2% will get a minimum payment of $3,500
`5
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 453 Filed 11/16/21 Page 6 of 64
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`2% will get a minimum payment of $ 5,000
`1% will get a minimum payment of $10,000
`1% will get a minimum payment of $20,000
`1% will get a minimum payment of $30,000
`The Court preliminarily approves the proposed plan of allocation set forth in the Motion and the
`Class Notice. Class members will receive a settlement share unless they submit a valid and timely
`request for exclusion no later than MARCH 21, 2022.
`
`5. Notice Plan
`The parties’ proposed notice plan appears to be constitutionally sound in that plaintiffs
`have made a sufficient showing that it is: (i) the best notice practicable; (ii) reasonably calculated,
`under the circumstances, to apprise the Class members of the proposed settlement and of their
`right to object or to exclude themselves as provided in the settlement agreement; (iii) reasonable
`and constitute due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive notice; and (iv)
`meet all applicable requirements of due process and any other applicable requirements under
`federal law.
`The Court approves the revised form of the proposed Class Notice attached as Exhibit B to
`this Order. Taken together these notices are sufficient to inform Class members of the terms of the
`Settlement Agreement, their rights under the Settlement Agreement, their rights to object to or
`comment on the Settlement Agreement, their right to receive a payment or opt out of the
`Settlement Agreement, the process for doing so, and the date and location of the Fairness and
`Final Approval hearing, and are therefore APPROVED.
`6. Settlement Administrator
`Angeion Group is appointed to act as the Settlement Administrator, pursuant to the terms
`set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
`The Settlement Administrator shall distribute the Class Notice according to the notice plan
`described in the Settlement Agreement and substantially in the form approved herein, no later than
`JANUARY 14, 2022 (“Notice Date”). Proof of distribution of the Class Notice shall be filed by the
`parties in conjunction with the motion for final approval.
`6
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 453 Filed 11/16/21 Page 7 of 64
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Defendant is directed to provide to the Settlement Administrator the Class members’
`contact data as specified by the Settlement Agreement no later than DECEMBER 3, 2021.
`7. Exclusion/Opt-Out
`Any Class Member shall have the right to be excluded from the Class by mailing a request
`for exclusion to the Settlement Administrator no later than MARCH 21, 2022. Requests for
`exclusion must be in writing and must set forth the name and address of the person who wishes to
`be excluded, and must be signed by the class member seeking exclusion. No later than APRIL 29,
`2022, Class Counsel shall file with the Court a list of all persons or entities who have timely
`requested exclusion from the Class as provided in the Settlement Agreement.
`Any Class Member who does not request exclusion from the settlement class as provided
`above shall be bound by the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement upon its final
`approval, including but not limited to the releases, waivers, and covenants described in the
`Settlement Agreement, whether or not such person or entity objected to the Settlement Agreement
`and whether or not such person or entity makes a claim upon the settlement funds.
`8. Objections
`Any Class Member who has not submitted a timely request for exclusion from the
`Settlement Agreement shall have the right to object to (1) the Settlement Agreement, (2) the plan
`of allocation; and/or Class Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and Class Representative Awards
`by mailing to the Settlement Administrator a written objection and stating whether they intend to
`appear at the Fairness Hearing, as set forth in the Class Notice, no later than MARCH 21, 2022.
`Failure to submit a timely written objection will preclude consideration of the Class Member’s
`later objection at the time of the Fairness Hearing.
`9. Attorneys’ Fees and Class Representative Awards
`Plaintiffs and their counsel shall file their motion for attorneys’ fees and for Class
`Representative awards no later than FEBRUARY 14, 2022. Counsel is reminded that the Court does
`not typically award thirty-three percent (33%) of the gross settlement fund as fees and that any
`request for the same will need to be accompanied by detailed time records. Each settlement class
`member shall have the right to object to the motion for attorneys’ fees and Class Representative
`7
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 453 Filed 11/16/21 Page 8 of 64
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`awards by filing a written objection with the Court no later than MARCH 21, 2022, as stated in
`paragraph 8 above.
`Plaintiffs shall file a reply brief responding to any timely objection no later than APRIL 29,
`
`2022.
`
`10. Fairness and Final Approval Hearing
`All briefs, memoranda and papers in support of final approval of the settlement shall be
`filed no later than APRIL 29, 2022.
`The Court will conduct a Fairness and Final Approval Hearing on JUNE 7, 2022 AT 2:00
`PM, to determine whether the Settlement Agreement should be granted final approval as fair,
`reasonable, and adequate as to the Class. The Court will hear all evidence and argument necessary
`to evaluate the Settlement Agreement and will consider Class Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees
`and for Class Representative awards.
`Class members may appear, by counsel or on their own behalf, to be heard in support of or
`opposition to the Settlement Agreement and Class Counsel’s Motion for attorneys’ fees and Class
`Representative awards by filing a Notice of Intention to Appear no later than MAY 6, 2022.
`The Court reserves the right to continue the date of the final approval hearing without
`further notice to Class members.
`The Court retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications arising out of or in
`connection with the Settlement.
`
`11. Post-Distribution Accounting
`If final approval is granted, the parties will be required to file a Post-Distribution
`Accounting in accordance with this District’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements
`and at a date set by the Court at the time of the final approval hearing. Counsel should prepare
`accordingly.
`
`Event
`Class data to be provided to Settlement Administrator
`
`Summary of Key Dates
`
`Date
`
`Notice Campaign and Claims Period Begins (“Notice
`Date”)
`
`8
`
`December 3, 2021
`
`January 14, 2022
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 453 Filed 11/16/21 Page 9 of 64
`
`Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of Litigation
`Expenses, and Service Awards
`Exclusion and Objection Deadline
`
`Motion for Final Approval and Response to Objections 
`Claims Period Closes
`
`Final Approval Hearing
`
`February 14, 2022
`
`March 21, 2022
`April 29, 2022
`May 20, 2022
`June 7, 2022 at 2:00pm
`
`IS SO ORDERED.
`This terminates Docket No. 396.
`
`11/16/2021
`Dated:
`
`YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
`
`9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 453 Filed 11/16/21 Page 10 of 64
`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 453 Filed 11/16/21 Page 10 of 64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 453 Filed 11/16/21 Page 11 of 64
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`
`Donald R. Cameron, et al.,
`
`
`
` Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`The Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
`
`
`
`STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
` v.
`
`Apple Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`
`SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
`
`The Parties, by and through their respective counsel, in consideration for and subject to the
`
`promises, terms, and conditions contained in this Settlement Agreement, hereby warrant,
`
`represent, acknowledge, covenant, stipulate and agree, subject to Court approval pursuant to Rule
`
`23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as follows:
`
`1. DEFINITIONS
`
`As used herein the following terms have the meanings set for below:
`
`1.1
`
`“Action” shall mean the litigation styled Donald R. Cameron, Pure Sweat
`
`Basketball, Inc., and Barry Sermons, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
`
`Apple Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR, filed in the United States District Court for the
`
`Northern District of California (the “Court”).
`
`1.2
`
`“Apple” means Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 453 Filed 11/16/21 Page 12 of 64
`
`
`
`
`
`1.3
`
`“Approved Claims” means those Claims which are approved by the Settlement
`
`Administrator for payment.
`
`1.4
`
`“Associated Developer Accounts” means any U.S. Apple Developer Program
`
`account that an individual or legal entity owns or controls, or any U.S. Apple Developer Program
`
`account that owns or controls a given individual’s or legal entity’s account.
`
`1.5
`
`“Attorneys’ Fees” means any award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses of any
`
`kind or description incurred by Class Counsel or other attorneys, experts, consultants, or agents of
`
`the Named Plaintiffs or the Settlement Class.
`
`1.6
`
`“Claim Form” means the proof of claim and release form(s) in a form mutually
`
`agreeable to the parties, to be attached as an exhibit to the Motion for Preliminary Approval.
`
`1.7
`
`1.8
`
`“Claim” means any claim submitted by a Settlement Class Member.
`
`“Claims Period” means the period between the Notice Date until the deadline set
`
`forth in paragraph 7.4.
`
`1.9
`
`“Class Counsel” means the law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, who
`
`has any and all authority and capacity necessary to execute this Settlement Agreement and bind
`
`all of the Named Plaintiffs who have not personally signed this Settlement Agreement, as if each
`
`of those individuals had personally executed this Settlement Agreement.
`
`1.10
`
`“Class Notice” means the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
`
`Action in a form mutually agreeable to the parties, to be attached as an exhibit to the Motion for
`
`Preliminary Approval.
`
`1.11
`
`“Court” means the United States District Court for the Northern District of
`
`California.
`
`1.12
`
`“Defense Counsel” means the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 453 Filed 11/16/21 Page 13 of 64
`
`
`
`
`
`1.13
`
`“Developer” means a person or entity who has registered for a Developer Program
`
`Account with Apple, and shall include all Associated Developer Accounts. A “U.S. Developer”
`
`means a Developer who self-identified as U.S.-based when registering for the Developer Program.
`
`1.14
`
`“Effective Date” shall mean the first day after which all of the following events and
`
`conditions of this Settlement Agreement have been met or occurred:
`
`(a) Apple, Class Counsel, and Defense Counsel have executed this Settlement
`
`Agreement;
`
`(b) The Court has conditionally certified the Settlement Class, preliminarily
`
`approved the Settlement, and approved notice to the Settlement Class;
`
`(c) The time period for members of the Settlement Class to exclude
`
`themselves has expired;
`
`(d) The Settlement Administrator has delivered the spreadsheet(s) and
`
`information to Defense Counsel and Class Counsel as specified in Section
`
`7.9 and 7.10;
`
`(e) All disputed Claims have been resolved;
`
`(f) The Court has entered the Final Approval Order and Final Judgment;
`
`(g) The time for appeal or writ of the Final Approval Order and Final
`
`Judgment has expired or, if an appeal and/or petition for review is taken
`
`and the Settlement is affirmed, the time period during which further
`
`petition for hearing, appeal, or writ of certiorari can be taken has expired;
`
`(h) The time for appeal or writ of any order regarding Attorneys’ Fees and
`
`Expenses and/or Named Plaintiff Service Awards has expired or, if an
`
`appeal and/or petition for review is taken and the order is affirmed, the
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 453 Filed 11/16/21 Page 14 of 64
`
`time period during which further petition for hearing, appeal, or writ of
`
`certiorari can be taken has expired;
`
`(i) The Action is dismissed with prejudice and a final judgment is entered;
`
`and
`
`(j) The time for appeal or writ of the final judgment in the Action has expired
`
`or, if an appeal and/or petition for review is taken and the dismissal is
`
`affirmed, the time period during which further petition for hearing, appeal,
`
`or writ of certiorari can be taken has expired.
`
`1.15
`
`“Final Approval Order and Final Judgment” means the final approval order and
`
`judgment dismissing and closing the Action.
`
`1.16
`
`“Final Hearing” means the hearing(s) held by the Court to consider and determine
`
`whether the requirements for certification of the Settlement Class have been met and whether the
`
`Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; whether Class Counsel’s
`
`Attorneys’ Fees should be approved; and whether the Final Approval Order and Final Judgment
`
`should be entered. The Final Hearing may, from time to time and without further notice to the
`
`Settlement Class (except those who have filed timely and valid objections and requested to speak
`
`at the Final Hearing), be continued or adjourned by order of the Court.
`
`1.17
`
`1.18
`
`“Named Plaintiffs” means Donald R. Cameron and Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc.
`
`“Net Small Developer Assistance Fund” means the Small Developer Assistance
`
`Fund, reduced by the sum of the following amounts: (1) the costs of notice and the costs of
`
`administering the Settlement, as set forth in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 below; (2) any Attorneys’ Fees
`
`(which may include separate awards for fees and expenses) to Class Counsel, as set forth in
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 453 Filed 11/16/21 Page 15 of 64
`
`
`
`
`Sections 9.1 and 9.2 below; and (3) any Service Awards provided to Named Plaintiffs with the
`
`authorization of the Court.
`
`1.19
`
`“Notice Date” means the date set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order for
`
`commencing the transmission of the Email Notice.
`
`1.20
`
`“Parties” means Apple and the Named Plaintiffs.
`
`1.21
`
`“Proceeds” means a Developer’s net revenues on the U.S. App Store storefront,
`
`after subtracting out any commission paid to Apple.
`
`1.22
`
`“Preliminary Approval Order” means an order preliminarily approving the
`
`Settlement, providing for notice to the Settlement Class, and preliminarily approving a proposed
`
`disposition of the Small Developer Assistance Fund.
`
`1.23
`
`“Released Parties” means (a) Apple and its past, present, and future parents,
`
`subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, joint ventures, licensees, franchisees, and any other legal entities,
`
`whether foreign or domestic, that are owned or controlled by Apple; and (b) the past, present, and
`
`future shareholders, officers, directors, members, agents, employees, independent contractors,
`
`consultants, administrators, representatives, fiduciaries, insurers, predecessors, successors, and
`
`assigns of the entities in part (a) of this paragraph.
`
`1.24
`
`“Service Award” means a payment from the Small Developer Assistance Fund to
`
`either or both of the two Named Plaintiffs, in an amount not to exceed $5,000.00, in recognition
`
`of their service in prosecuting this action as developer businesses, exclusive of any other payments
`
`to which they might be entitled under this Agreement, if approved by the Court.
`
`1.25
`
`“Settlement” and “Settlement Agreement” mean the settlement described in this
`
`Stipulation of Settlement.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 453 Filed 11/16/21 Page 16 of 64
`
`
`
`
`
`1.26
`
`“Settlement Administrator” means Angeion Group, which shall provide settlement
`
`notice and administration services pursuant to the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
`
`1.27
`
`“Settlement Class” means all former or current U.S. Developers of any Apple iOS
`
`application or in-app product (including subscriptions) sold for a non-zero price via Apple’s iOS
`
`App Store that earned, through all Associated Developer Accounts, Proceeds equal to or less than
`
`$1,000,000.00 through the App Store U.S. storefront in every calendar year in which the U.S.
`
`Developer had a Developer Account between June 4, 2015 to the date of this Agreement. For class
`
`definition purposes, the 2015 calendar year shall consist of June 4, 2015 through December 31,
`
`2015. The 2021 calendar year shall consist of January 1, 2021 through April 26, 2021, the last
`
`date in 2021 for which there are available developer transactional data as produced in this Action.
`
`Additionally, excluded from the Settlement Class are (a) directors, officers, and employees of
`
`Apple or its subsidiaries and affiliated companies, as well as Apple’s legal representatives, heirs,
`
`successors, or assigns, (b) the Court, the Court staff, as well as any appellate court to which this
`
`matter is ever assigned and its staff, (c) Defense Counsel, as well as their immediate family
`
`members, legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, (d) any Developers who validly
`
`request exclusion (“opt out”) from the Settlement Class, and (e) any other individuals whose
`
`claims already have been adjudicated to a final judgment.
`
`1.28
`
`“Settlement Class Member” means and includes every member of the Settlement
`
`Class who does not validly and timely request exclusion (“opt out”) from the Settlement Class.
`
`1.29
`
`“Small Developer Assistance Fund” means a non-reversionary cash fund total of
`
`$100,000,000.00 to be paid by Apple and administered by the Settlement Administrator in
`
`accordance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 453 Filed 11/16/21 Page 17 of 64
`
`
`
`
`
`1.30
`
`“Settlement Website” means an Internet website that the Settlement Administrator
`
`shall establish to inform the Settlement Class of the terms of this Settlement, their rights, dates,
`
`deadlines, and related information.
`
`1.31
`
`“Summary Notice” means the Summary Notice of Settlement in a form mutually
`
`agreeable to the parties, to be attached as an exhibit to the Motion for Preliminary Approval.
`
`2. RECITALS
`
`This Agreement is made for the following purposes and with reference to the following
`
`facts:
`
`2.1
`
`On June 4, 2019, plaintiffs Donald Cameron and Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc. filed
`
`the first complaint in the Action in the United State District Court for the Northern District of
`
`California. On September 30, 2019, Named Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint.
`
`The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that Apple had monopolized an alleged iOS app
`
`and in-app-product distribution services market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; that
`
`Apple had attempted to monopolize an alleged iOS app and in-app-product distribution services
`
`market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; and that Apple’s conduct violated Section
`
`17200 of the California Business and Professions Code.
`
`2.2
`
`The Parties engaged in extensive discovery in the Action, which was consolid