Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 471 Filed 04/29/22 Page 1 of 24
`
`
`
`Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice)
`Robert F. Lopez (pro hac vice)
`Theodore Wojcik (pro hac vice)
`HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone: (206) 623-7292
`Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
`steve@hbsslaw.com
`robl@hbsslaw.com
`tedw@hbsslaw.com
`
`Shana E. Scarlett (SBN 217895)
`Benjamin J. Siegel (SBN 256260)
`Ben M. Harrington (SBN 313877)
`HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
`715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
`Berkeley, CA 94710
`Telephone: (510) 725-3000
`Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
`shanas@hbsslaw.com
`bens@hbsslaw.com
`benh@hbsslaw.com
`
`Interim Lead Class Counsel
`
`[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`010818-11/1882452 V1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR
`
`DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE
`OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR
`FINAL APPROVAL OF
`SETTLEMENT AND RESPONSE TO
`OBJECTORS
`
`DONALD R. CAMERON, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`June 7, 2022
`Date:
`2:00 p.m.
`Time:
`Judge: Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
`Location: Courtroom 1- 4th Floor
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 471 Filed 04/29/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 7, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the
`matter may be heard by the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of California, located in Courtroom 1, at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA
`94612, Developer Plaintiffs will and hereby do move the Court, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
`Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order:
`(1)
`Granting final approval of the proposed class action settlement with Apple Inc.; and
`(2)
`Certifying the proposed Settlement Class.
`This motion is based on this notice of motion and motion, the accompanying memorandum of
`points and authorities, the declarations in support of the motion, argument by counsel at the hearing
`before this Court, such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this
`motion, and all papers and records on file in this matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTON FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
`SETTLEMENT AND RESPONSE TO OBJECTORS
`No. 19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1882452 V1
`
`- i -
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 471 Filed 04/29/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................................. 1 
`THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR, REASONABLE, AND ADEQUATE .................................. 2 
`THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CLASS SATISFIES RULE 23 ....................................... 4 
`THE APPROVED NOTICE PROGRAM WAS ADEQUATE AND SATISFIED DUE
`PROCESS ................................................................................................................................ 4 
`A. 
`The Robust Notice Program Implemented by the Administrator Satisfies Rule 23 .... 5 
`B. 
`The Results of the Ongoing Claims Process Further Supports That Settlement Class
`Members Have Been Provided With Adequate Notice ............................................... 9 
`THE OBJECTIONS ARE WITHOUT MERIT .................................................................... 11 
`A. 
`Apple’s Critique of Plaintiffs’ Fee Request is Without Merit ................................... 11 
`B. 
`Mr. Wytyshyn’s Objection Provides No Basis to Deny Final Approval .................. 16 
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 17 
`
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTON FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
`SETTLEMENT AND RESPONSE TO OBJECTORS
`No. 19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1882452 V1
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 471 Filed 04/29/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Amin v Mercedes Benz USA, LLC,
`2020 WL 5510730 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 11, 2020) ......................................................................... 10
`
`In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.,
`327 F.R.D. 299 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .................................................................................... 8, 9, 10
`
`In re BioScrip, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`273 F. Supp. 3d 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) ..................................................................................... 15
`
`Ching v. Siemens Indus., Inc.,
`2014 WL 2926210 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2014) ......................................................................... 14
`
`Churchill Village LLC v. Gen. Elec.,
`361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................. 2, 3
`
`Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle,
`955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`de Mira v. Heartland Emp’t Serv., LLC,
`2014 WL 1026282 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2014) ........................................................................ 12
`
`In re Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litig.,
`322 F. Supp. 3d 64 (D.D.C. 2018) ............................................................................................. 8
`
`In re Equifax Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`999 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................... 15
`
`Hamilton v. SunTrust Mortg. Inc.,
`2014 WL 5419507 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2014) .......................................................................... 10
`
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
`150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................................... 2, 4
`
`Keil v. Lopez,
`862 F.3d 685 (8th Cir. 2017) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litig.,
`309 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .......................................................................................... 2, 3
`
`Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship,
`151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................. 16
`
`Moore v. Verizon Commc’n Inc.,
`2013 WL 4610764 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2013) .......................................................................... 9
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTON FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
`SETTLEMENT AND RESPONSE TO OBJECTORS
`No. 19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1882452 V1
`
`- iii -
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 471 Filed 04/29/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`
`
`Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc.,
`221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ............................................................................................... 3
`
`In re Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig.,
`2017 WL 6040065 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2017) .......................................................................... 14
`
`Norcia v. Samsung Telecomms. Am., LLC,
`2021 WL 3053018 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2021) ........................................................................... 9
`
`In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig.,
`779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................... 2, 9, 12, 13
`
`Perdue v. Kenny A. ex. Rel. Winn,
`559 U.S. 542 (2010) ................................................................................................................ 15
`
`Perez v. Asurion Corp.,
`501 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2007) .................................................................................... 10
`
`Perez v. Rash Curtis & Assocs,
`2020 WL 1904533 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020) ......................................................................... 15
`
`Pollard v. Remington Arms Co., LLC,
`896 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................... 10
`
`Staton v. Boeing Co.,
`327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................. 12, 13
`
`Sullivan v. DB Invs., Inc.,
`667 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................... 9
`
`In re TD Ameritrade Account Holder Litig.,
`2011 WL 4079226 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2011) ........................................................................ 16
`
`Taylor v. Shutterfly, Inc.,
`2021 WL 5810294 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7 2021) ............................................................................. 9
`
`Touhey v. United States,
`2011 WL 3179036 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2011) ........................................................................... 9
`
`In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prod.
`Liab. Litig.,
`2013 WL 12327929 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2013) ....................................................................... 12
`
`Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.,
`290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) ..................................................................................... 12, 13, 15
`
`In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig.,
`19 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................................... 14
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTON FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
`SETTLEMENT AND RESPONSE TO OBJECTORS
`No. 19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1882452 V1
`
`- iv -
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 471 Filed 04/29/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`Zimmer Paper Prod., Inc. v. Berger & Montague, P.C.,
`758 F.2d 86 (3d Cir. 1985) ...................................................................................................... 10
`
`FEDERAL RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ................................................................................................................... passim
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTON FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
`SETTLEMENT AND RESPONSE TO OBJECTORS
`No. 19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1882452 V1
`
`- v -
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 471 Filed 04/29/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`I.
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`In November 2021, this Court preliminarily approved the settlement reached with Apple Inc.1
`ECF No. 453. The Court designated Donald Cameron and Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc. as Class
`Representatives for the Settlement Class, and designated Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as
`Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. Id. The Court also approved the form and content of the
`proposed notice forms, which have now been provided to members of the Settlement Class as
`directed. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court now grant final approval to the settlement with
`Apple because it secures an outstanding recovery for the Settlement Class: a $100 million non-
`reversionary cash fund and valuable structural relief that will enable developers to better create,
`distribute, and monetize their apps. As part of the structural relief, Apple agreed to relax its anti-
`steering rules, acknowledged that this litigation was a driver behind its Small Business Program
`(SBP), and agreed to maintain a commission rate of no greater than 15% for U.S. developers who are
`enrolled participants in the SBP, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the SBP and subject to
`program participation requirements, for at least another three years, among other reforms.
`The events since preliminary approval have only confirmed that the settlement is an excellent
`result. The parties have implemented a notice program that provided direct notice to class members
`by email, postcard, and telephone. In addition to this extensive direct notice effort, the Settlement
`Administrator, Angeion, engaged in a robust publication notice campaign that included targeted
`advertising on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. Thus far, Angeion has received 8,162 claims for
`6,761 unique eligible application developer accounts. The administrator has also sent reminder
`notices to potential class members, twice by email and once by postcard, to encourage claim filing
`through the deadline of May 20, 2022. The reaction to the settlement has been overwhelmingly
`positive, with only one objection and thirteen opt-out requests. The sole objection does not impugn
`the settlement—it suggests additional reforms that Apple could make, but it does not criticize the
`significant monetary and structural relief obtained by the settlement. Apple also has submitted a
`
`
`1 All defined terms have the same meaning as in Developer Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary
`Approval (ECF No. 396, “Preliminary Approval Motion”) and the Court’s Order granting
`preliminary approval (ECF No. 453, “Preliminary Approval Order”) unless otherwise noted.
`- 1 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTON FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
`SETTLEMENT AND RESPONSE TO OBJECTORS
`No. 19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1882452 V1
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 471 Filed 04/29/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`response to Plaintiffs’ Fee Motion, which raises only misguided criticisms of Class Counsel’s
`reasonable fee request.
`Developer Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court certify the proposed Settlement Class,
`grant final approval to the settlement, and overrule the lone objection.
`II.
`THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR, REASONABLE, AND ADEQUATE
`
`The law favors the settlement of class action lawsuits. See, e.g., Churchill Village LLC v.
`Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 576 (9th Cir. 2004).2 And “the decision to approve or reject a settlement is
`committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge because [s]he is exposed to the litigants, and their
`strategies, positions and proof.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998).
`
`To grant final approval, Rule 23(e) requires the district court to determine whether the
`proposed settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig.,
`779 F.3d 934, 944 (9th Cir. 2015). Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Approval Motion, which this Court
`granted (ECF No. 453), addressed the traditional factors courts consider in making this
`determination, the Rule 23(e)(2) factors added in 2018, and the factors listed in the Northern District
`of California’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements. Because the relevant facts have
`largely not changed since the Preliminary Approval Motion, Plaintiffs will not burden the Court with
`a repetitive discussion, and respectfully refer to the Court to that pleading. See ECF No. 396 at 11-
`23. This submission instead addresses the execution of the notice plan and the only factor that could
`not be assessed at preliminary approval—the reaction of the class. It also provides additional
`information about the annual transparency report, one aspect of the structural relief provided by the
`settlement.
`In approving class action settlements, courts often gauge the reaction of the class by looking
`at the number of objections and opt-outs as compared to the overall size of the class. See, e.g., In re
`LinkedIn User Privacy Litig., 309 F.R.D. 573, 589 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“A low number of opt-outs and
`objections in comparison to class size is typically a factor that supports settlement approval.”); see
`
`
`2 See also Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992).
`- 2 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTON FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
`SETTLEMENT AND RESPONSE TO OBJECTORS
`No. 19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1882452 V1
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 471 Filed 04/29/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`
`also Churchill Village, 361 F.3d at 577 (affirming settlement where 45 of approximately 90,000
`class members objected).
`Here, the class list compiled by the settlement administrator includes 67,440 application
`developer accounts associated with 62,237 class member names and emails. See Declaration of
`Steven Platt of Angeion Group Regarding Notice Dissemination and Administration (“Platt Decl.”)
`¶ 8, concurrently submitted herewith. After an extensive notice campaign (see infra, Part IV), only
`thirteen class members have opted out and just one class member objected. See id., ¶¶ 42-43. As
`discussed in Part VI below, the one class member objection is from Steven Wytyshyn. Mr. Wytyshyn
`provides criticisms of the App Store and discusses changes that he would like to see, but he does not
`assert that the considerable monetary relief and structural changes obtained by the settlement are not
`valuable, or that the settlement is not fair, reasonable, and adequate. The lack of objection to the
`settlement supports its approval. See Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D.
`523, 529 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (“[T]he absence of a large number of objections to a proposed class action
`settlement raises a strong presumption that the terms of a proposed class settlement action are
`favorable to the class members.”); see also In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litig., 309 F.R.D. at 589,
`supra.
`
`At the preliminary approval hearing, this Court directed the parties to develop, before final
`approval, further details about the content of the annual transparency report that is part of the
`structural relief obtained by the settlement. See Hrg. Tr., Cameron v. Apple Inc., Case No. 19-cv-
`03074-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Nov. 2, 2021, at 6:20-7:10; see also ECF No. 453 at 5 (in preliminary
`approval order, discussing transparency report described in § 5.1.6 of Settlement Agreement as one
`of the “structural benefits [that] are valuable to the settlement class”). Apple has shared with
`Plaintiffs that the transparency report will include at least the following metrics:
` With regard to apps—the number of app submissions reviewed, the number of apps
`rejected (with criteria specified such as performance, legal, design, business, safety, or
`other), and the number of apps removed from the App Store.
` With regard to developers—the number of developer accounts deactivated (i.e.,
`terminated).
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTON FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
`SETTLEMENT AND RESPONSE TO OBJECTORS
`No. 19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1882452 V1
`
`- 3 -
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 471 Filed 04/29/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
` With regard to customers—the number of customer accounts deactivated, the dollar
`value of fraudulent transactions halted, the number of visitors to the App Store per week
`on a global basis, the number of downloads and redownloads per week on a global basis,
`and the number of automatic and manual updates per week on a global basis.
` With regard to search—the number of customer accounts that search per week on a
`global basis and the number of apps appearing in the top 10 results in at least 1,000
`searches in a week on a global basis.3
`Plaintiffs believe including these metrics in the transparency report will provide important
`information to developers and is an additional indication of the valuable structural relief provided by
`the settlement.
`III. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CLASS SATISFIES RULE 23
`For final approval of a class action settlement, the proposed settlement class also must satisfy
`the Rule 23(a) requirements referred to as numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
`representation. Additionally, the proposed class must meet one of the Rule 23(b) requirements. See
`Hanlon, 150 F.3d at1019-1022. Plaintiffs seek certification of the proposed settlement class pursuant
`to Rule 23(b)(3). In the Preliminary Approval Motion, Plaintiffs discussed at length why the
`Settlement Class should be certified. See ECF No. 396 at 23-26. Because the facts relevant to
`certification have not changed, and no class member has objected to certification of the proposed
`Settlement Class, Plaintiffs do not repeat that discussion here.
`IV.
`THE APPROVED NOTICE PROGRAM WAS ADEQUATE
`AND SATISFIED DUE PROCESS
`A court approving a class action settlement must “direct notice in a reasonable manner to
`all class members who would be bound by the proposal.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B). For a proposed
`Rule 23(b)(3) Settlement Class, the court must also “direct to class members the best notice that is
`practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be
`
`
`3 See Declaration of Steve W. Berman in Support of Developer Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final
`Approval of Settlement and Response to Objectors (“Berman Decl.”) ¶ 2, filed concurrently
`herewith.
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTON FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
`SETTLEMENT AND RESPONSE TO OBJECTORS
`No. 19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1882452 V1
`
`- 4 -
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 471 Filed 04/29/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`identified through reasonable effort.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). The 2018 Amendments to Rule 23
`explain that “notice may be by one or more of the following: United States mail, electronic means, or
`other appropriate means.” Fed R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).4
`A.
`The Robust Notice Program Implemented by the Administrator Satisfies Rule 23
`
`The multifaceted notice process undertaken by the Administrator meets these requirements.
`As detailed in the initial Notice Plan approved by the Court, the Administrator provided individual
`direct notice to all reasonably identifiable Settlement Class Members via email and mail. The
`Administrator also created a dedicated settlement website where Settlement Class Members can
`make claims using an easy-to-follow online form, download claim forms, and learn more about their
`rights and options pursuant to the terms of the Settlement. The Administrator also provided a toll-
`free telephone number where Settlement Class Members can obtain information about the settlement
`and ask questions. See Platt Decl. ¶¶ 4-23. Pursuant to agreement of the parties, additional notice was
`provided to members of the Settlement Class to maximize the likelihood that class members had
`every opportunity to review and comment on the settlement, as well as to make claims. That
`additional noticed included the sending of two email reminder notices, a reminder postcard notice, an
`outbound calling campaign directed to members of the Settlement Class, and targeted social media
`advertisements. Id. ¶¶ 24-36.
`
`The notice process began with the collection of a large amount of data from Apple, and the
`cleaning and organizing of that data by the Administrator into a usable database. In total, the
`resulting class list comprised 67,440 unique application developer accounts for potentially eligible
`class members. Id. ¶¶ 7-9.
`
`Using this information and engaging in various techniques to ensure address accuracy and
`maximize email delivery (e.g., avoiding spam filters), on January 14, 2022, Angeion sent the
`Summary Email Notice to the 62,237 email addresses included on the class list. The email notice was
`
`
`4 See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Notes of Advisory Comm., Subdivision (c)(2) (2018) (discussing
`technological changes that may provide opportunities for better notice).
`- 5 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTON FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
`SETTLEMENT AND RESPONSE TO OBJECTORS
`No. 19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1882452 V1
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 471 Filed 04/29/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`successfully delivered to 58,820 email addresses, with 820 hard bounces and 2,597 soft bounces.5
`Starting on January 18, 2022, Angeion re-sent the email notice to the 2,597 email addresses for
`which the initial dissemination resulted in a soft bounce. After this was complete, of the 62,237
`email addresses contained in the class member list, 59,061 (94.9%) were successfully delivered. Id.
`¶¶ 13-19. The Summary Email Notice, approved by this Court, provided, inter alia, concise
`information about the settlement, a claimant ID number and confirmation code, and a link to the
`website where class members can fill out a claim form digitally or download a claim form to be
`mailed to the administrator. Id. ¶ 19, Ex. B.
`
`The same day Angeion sent the direct email notice, January 14, Angeion also mailed the
`Summary Postcard Notice to all 67,484 mailing addresses on the class list. As of April 28, 2022,
`only 15,448 had been returned as undeliverable. After using a combination of forwarding addresses
`and addresses discovered via address verification searches, 12,429 of the Postcard Notices were
`remailed. As a result, the direct mailing resulted in a delivery rate of 93.1%. Id. ¶¶ 20-23. Like the
`email notice, the Summary Postcard Notice, approved by this Court, provided, inter alia, concise
`information about the settlement and a link to the website where the potential class members could
`fill out a claim form digitally or download a claim form to be mailed to the administrator. Id. ¶ 20,
`Ex. C.
`
`As noted above, the Email Notices and Postcard Notices both contained links to the
`settlement website, located at www.SmallAppDeveloperAssistance.com. The settlement website was
`established on January 13, 2022 (the day before the notices were emailed/mailed). The website
`contains an online claim submission portal and a downloadable claim form. It also has the
`functionality to estimate each Settlement Class Member’s minimum potential payment. Id. ¶¶ 10-11.
`In addition, the website contains general information about the Settlement, court documents, a
`downloadable and searchable Long-Form Notice, a list of frequently asked questions and answers,
`
`
`5 A hard bounce is a permanent deliverability problem, meaning the email cannot be delivered. A
`soft bounce is a temporary deliverability problem, meaning the recipient’s email address is valid but it
`is returned when it reached the recipient’s inbox, either because the inbox is full, because the server
`was down, because the email was too large, or because the email was blocked by the recipient’s email
`provider. Platt Decl. ¶ 17.
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTON FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
`SETTLEMENT AND RESPONSE TO OBJECTORS
`No. 19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1882452 V1
`
`- 6 -
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 471 Filed 04/29/22 Page 13 of 24
`
`
`
`important dates and deadlines, and an email address where Settlement Class Member can email
`questions pertaining to the settlement. Id. On January 13, Angeion also established a toll-free hotline
`to provide information and answer questions. Id. ¶ 12.
`
`Angeion has continued to directly contact Settlement Class Members to provide information
`about the settlement and to encourage claim filing. On February 18, 2022, Apple provided Angeion
`with supplemental email and telephone contact information for 202,549 account holders,
`administrators, application managers, developers and finance managers for the 67,440 eligible
`application developer accounts. On February 28, 2022, at the direction of the Plaintiffs and Apple,
`Angeion began disseminating a Reminder Summary Email Notice to the 140,915 valid email
`addresses included in the class member list and supplemental contact data that had not filed a claim
`form. After re-transmitting certain emails that had a soft bounce-back, of the 140,915 email
`addresses pertaining to application developer accounts for which Angeion had not received a claim
`form, 136,232 (96.7%) had Reminder Email Notices successfully delivered to them. Id. ¶¶ 24-28.
`The Reminder Email Notices again provided potential class members with information about how to
`file a claim, a link to the website, and pertinent dates, among other things. Id. ¶ 28, Ex. D. On April
`19, 2022, Angeion send a second reminder email notice to 133,547 unique email accounts associated
`with an Application Developer Account that had not yet submitted a claim. Id. ¶ 35.
`
`Then, on April 22, 2022, Angeion began mailing Postcard Reminder Notices. Angeion sent
`notices to the 61,584 addresses for application developer accounts that had not filed claims or opt out
`requests as of that date. Id. ¶ 36.
`
`On March 10, 2022, based on the 57,190 telephone numbers Apple provided belonging to
`account holders, administrators, application managers, developers and finance managers for the
`67,440 eligible application developer account, Angeion also began an outbound calling campaign to
`account holders that had not yet made claims. This was another means of directly noticing the class
`and encouraging claims. On the calls, Angeion sought to make sure potential claimants knew how to
`make a claim, were aware of the benefits of making a claim, and offered to answer any questions. As
`of April 27, 2022, Angeion had made 30,746 telephone calls to account holders, administrators,
`application managers, developers and finance managers associated with eligible application
`- 7 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTON FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
`SETTLEMENT AND RESPONSE TO OBJECTORS
`No. 19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1882452 V1
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 471 Filed 04/29/22 Page 14 of 24
`
`
`
`developer accounts. Of these telephone calls, Angeion successfully delivered the message to 15,177
`points of contact listed on application developer accounts. Id. ¶¶ 31-32.
`
`Angeion supplemented the direct written notice campaign with a robust publication notice
`effort. On April 6, 2022, Angeion began a targeted social media campaign utilizing Facebook,
`Instagram, and LinkedIn, to provide further notice to class members that had not yet filed a claim.
`The ads notified class members of their potential eligibility and directed them to the settlement
`website for more information about how to file a claim. As of April 28, Angeion had placed 91,852
`ads for a frequency of three ads placed per class member social media account. Angeion’s 91,852 ad
`placements have resulted in 846 click-throughs to the settlement website. See id. ¶¶ 33-34, Ex. F
`(copies of social media ads).
`Apple also posted a message to its developer news website on April 25, 2022, directing
`developers to the settlement website. See Small developer assistance submission requests due by
`May 20, available at https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=r24k5i3m.
`This extensive and multifaceted direct and publication notice campaign more than complied
`with Due Process and Rule 23 by providing notice to potential settlement class members “in a
`reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal,” including individual
`notice to all members who could be identified through reasonable effort. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
`23(c)(2)(B), (e)(1)(B); see also In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 327 F.R.D. 299, 329 (N.D.
`Cal. 2018) (“[N]either Rule 23 nor the Due Process Clause requires actual notice to each individual
`class member. . . . The notice must be the best practicable, reasonably calculated, under all the
`circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an
`opportunity to present their objections.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); In re
`Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litig., 322 F. Supp. 3d 64, 68 (D.D.C. 2018) (“The Due Process
`Clause also gives unnamed class members the right to notice of a class action settlement but does not
`require actual notice to all class members who may be bound by the litigation. . . . Notice need only
`be reasonably calculated to reach the class in order to satisfy due process.” (citing Fidel v. Farley,
`534 F.3d 508, 513-14 (6th Cir. 2008)).
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTON FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF
`SETTLEMENT AND RESPONSE TO OBJECTORS
`No. 19-cv-03074-YGR
`010818-11/1882452 V1
`
`- 8 -
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`1