Case 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 608 Filed 03/17/21 Page 1 of 36
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE: APPLE INC. DEVICE
`PERFORMANCE LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`This Document Relates To:
`
` ALL ACTIONS.
`
`Case No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD
`
`ORDER GRANTING NAMED
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL
`APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
`SETTLEMENT
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 470
`
`
`
`This matter is before the Court on Named Plaintiffs’ Motion For Final Approval of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proposed Settlement (hereinafter “Mot.”). Dkt. No. 470. Specifically, Named Plaintiffs move for
`
`an order: (i) granting final certification of the Settlement Class under Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure (“Rule”) 23(a) and 23(b)(3); (ii) granting final approval of the proposed Settlement
`
`reached between Named Plaintiffs and Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Defendant”), under Rule 23(e);
`
`(iii) finding that notice has been conducted in accordance with the Court-approved notice plan and
`
`comports with due process and Rule 23; and (iv) dismissing with prejudice Named Plaintiffs’ and
`
`Settlement Class Members’ claims against Apple. Id. The Court received numerous responses to
`
`the Settlement, including requests for exclusions, as well as responses to Named Plaintiffs’ related
`
`Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards (Dkt. No. 468). Named Plaintiffs filed
`
`a reply on November 11, 2020 (hereinafter “Reply”). Dkt. No. 549. Named Plaintiffs and Apple
`
`submitted a joint proposed order granting final approval. Dkt. No. 554. Apple also filed a
`
`Statement in Support of Final Settlement Approval and Response to Settlement Objections
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02827-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
`ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
` 1
`
`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 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 608 Filed 03/17/21 Page 2 of 36
`
`
`
`(“Statement”). Dkt. No. 555. The Motion was heard on December 4, 2020 and February 17,
`
`2021. Based on pleadings filed to date and the comments made at the hearing, the Court grants
`
`Named Plaintiffs’ Motion.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The Consolidated Actions
`
`In 2015, reports of unexplained shutdowns of certain Apple devices began surfacing, with
`
`consumers complaining their devices were suddenly shutting down even though the batteries were
`
`more than 30% charged. Second Consol. Am. Compl. (“SCAC”) ¶ 2, Dkt. No. 244. Complaints
`
`accelerated in the autumn of 2016 and were accompanied by reports of unexplained heating. Id.
`
`This affected, among other devices, the iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, 7, 7 Plus, and SE. Id. ¶ 1. In
`
`2017, Apple released iOS 10.2.1 and iOS 11.2 to address the alleged defects but, rather than fix
`
`the defects, the software updates allegedly “concealed [them] by secretly throttling the Devices’
`
`performance to reduce the number of unexpected shutdowns to a more manageable volume.” Id.
`
`¶¶ 9-10.
`
`
`
`On December 20, 2017, Apple released a statement regarding a performance management
`
`feature in its iOS 10.2.1 and iOS 11.2 software to prevent unexpected power-offs from occurring
`
`in its devices, stating, in relevant part:
`
`Our goal is to deliver the best experience for customers, which
`includes overall performance and prolonging the life of their devices.
`Lithium-ion batteries become less capable of supplying peak current
`demands when in cold conditions, have a low battery charge or as
`they age over time, which can result in the device unexpectedly
`shutting down to protect its electronic components.
`
`Last year we released a feature for iPhone 6, iPhone 6s and iPhone
`SE to smooth out the instantaneous peaks only when needed to
`prevent the device from unexpectedly shutting down during these
`conditions. We’ve now extended that feature to iPhone 7, with iOS
`11.2, and plan to add support for other products in the future.
`
`
`SCAC ¶ 16; see also Decl. of Joseph W. Cotchett and Laurence D. King in Supp. of Mot. for
`
`Settlement (“Decl. of Co-Lead Class Counsel”) ¶ 9, Dkt. No. 471. On December 28, 2017, Apple
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02827-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
`ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
` 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 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 608 Filed 03/17/21 Page 3 of 36
`
`
`
`issued the following statement:
`
`iOS 10.2.1 (released January 2017) includes updates for previous
`models of iPhone to prevent them from unexpectedly shutting down.
`This includes a feature for iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone
`6s Plus, and iPhone SE to dynamically manage the instantaneous
`performance peaks, only when needed, to prevent the device from
`unexpectedly shutting down. This capability was also extended to
`iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus with iOS 11.2, and we will continue
`improving our power management feature in the future. This feature’s
`only intent is to prevent unexpected shutdowns so that the iPhone can
`still be used.
`
`This power management works by looking at a combination of the
`device temperature, battery state of charge, and battery impedance.
`Only if these variables require it, iOS will dynamically manage the
`maximum performance of some system components, such as the CPU
`and GPU, in order to prevent unexpected shutdowns. As a result, the
`device workloads will self-balance, allowing a smoother distribution
`of system tasks, rather than larger, quick spikes of performance all at
`once. In some cases, a user may not notice any differences in daily
`device performance. The level of perceived change depends on how
`much power management is required for a particular device.
`
`In cases that require more extreme forms of this power management,
`the user may notice effects such as:
`
`Longer app launch times
`
`Lower frame rates while scrolling
`
`Backlight dimming (which can be overridden in Control Center)
`
`Lower speaker volume by up to -3dB
`
`Gradual frame rate reductions in some apps
`
`During the most extreme cases, the camera flash will be disabled as
`visible in the camera UI
`
`Apps refreshing in background may require reloading upon launch.
`
`SCAC ¶ 22.
`
`
`
`The allegedly diminished performance of iPhone 6s and iPhone 7s running these operating
`
`systems led to sixty-six class action complaints filed against Apple between December 2017 and
`
`June 2018 in federal district courts around the country (the “Federal Actions”). Id. In the same
`
`time, four class action complaints were filed against Apple in California Superior Courts in San
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02827-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
`ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
` 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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 608 Filed 03/17/21 Page 4 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`Francisco, San Mateo, and Los Angeles (the “State Actions”). Decl. of Andrew J. Brown and
`
`Thomas J. Brandi in Supp. of Mot. for Settlement (“Decl. of JCCP Counsel”) ¶ 10, Dkt. No. 471-
`
`2.
`
`
`
`Beginning in 2018, the Federal Actions were consolidated by the U.S. Judicial Panel on
`
`Multidistrict Litigation in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, into
`
`MDL proceedings captioned In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig., No. 8-md-2827-EJD.
`
`Decl. of Co-Lead Class Counsel ¶ 9; See Transfer Order, Dkt. No. 1. By August 2, 2018, the four
`
`State Actions were coordinated into a single action in San Francisco Superior Court as JCCP No.
`
`4976. Decl. of JCCP Counsel ¶ 11. The JCCP Action follows its own lengthy litigation history,
`
`including demurrers, amended complaints, discovery, etc., not repeated here. See id. ¶¶ 12-33.
`
`The nationwide Settlement Class includes the California Class represented by JCCP Counsel.
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Motions to Dismiss and the Operative Complaint
`
`On May 15, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to serve as
`
`interim lead counsel filed by Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP (“CPM”) and Kaplan Fox &
`
`Kilsheimer LLP. Order Consolidating Related Actions and Appointing Interim Co-Lead Pls.’
`
`Counsel at 4, Dkt. No. 99. Class Counsel filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint (“CAC”) on
`
`July 2, 2018. CAC, Dkt. No. 145. The CAC was a lengthy document, detailing the grievances of
`
`one hundred twenty-two Named Plaintiffs and including seventy-six causes of action. Decl. of
`
`Co-Lead Counsel ¶ 10. On August 9, 2018, Apple moved to dismiss the CAC. Mot. to Dismiss
`
`Pls.’ CAC, Dkt. No. 176. On October 1, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part
`
`Apple’s motion to dismiss the CAC, with leave to amend. Order Granting in Part and Den. in Part
`
`Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 219. On November 30, 2018, Class Counsel filed the SCAC. On
`
`January 24, 2019, Apple filed a motion to dismiss. Mot. to Dismiss Pls.’ SCAC, Dkt. No. 272.
`
`The Court granted in part and denied in part this motion to dismiss on May 3, 2019 with leave to
`
`amend. Order, Dkt. No. 331.1 Named Plaintiffs ultimately chose not to amend the SCAC and on
`
`
`1 This Order also resolved other issues, such as a pending motion to compel discovery, requests
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02827-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
`ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
` 4
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 608 Filed 03/17/21 Page 5 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`July 31, 2019, Apple filed its Answer to the SCAC. Answer, Dkt. No. 365.
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Discovery and Other Matters
`
`Throughout 2018 and 2019, Named Plaintiffs and Defendants took part in a contentious
`
`discovery process. Ultimately, with the Parties’ stipulation, the Court appointed the Honorable
`
`Judge Rebecca J. Westerfield (Ret.) as Special Discovery Master. Decl. of Co-Lead Counsel ¶ 18;
`
`Order re: Appointment of Special Disc. Master, Dkt. No. 173. Judge Westerfield issued ten
`
`Discovery Master Orders concerning issues such as protective orders, motions to compel, the time
`
`period governing discovery, preservation of certain documents, requests for production of
`
`documents, a request to conduct forensic inspection of devices, and deposition of certain plaintiffs.
`
`Dkt. Nos. 229-232, 240, 245, 310, 323, 354, 389.
`
`
`
`Apple produced over seven million pages of documents. Decl. of Co-Lead Counsel ¶ 25.
`
`Named Plaintiffs produced over 6,000 pages of documents. Id. ¶ 28. Class Counsel took
`
`depositions of ten Apple witnesses, including software and hardware engineers, and moved to
`
`compel the depositions of ten additional witnesses. Id. ¶¶ 32-33. The case was settled before
`
`Judge Westerfield ruled on the Motion to Compel the depositions of the ten additional witnesses.
`
`Id. ¶ 33. Apple deposed nine of the Named Plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 34. Both Parties also issued and
`
`objected to subpoenas to third parties, such as service carriers, manufacturing entities, and
`
`retailers. Id. ¶¶ 37-39.
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Settlement Negotiations and Mediation
`
`The Parties selected the Honorable Judge Layn Phillips (Ret.), a former United States
`
`District Judge and “the founder and lead mediator at Phillips ADR Enterprises, P.C.”, to facilitate
`
`mediation and settlement discussions. Decl. of Hon. Layn Phillips in Supp. of Settlement
`
`(“Phillips Decl.”) ¶¶ 1-4, Dkt. No. 470-1. At Judge Phillips’ direction, the Parties submitted
`
`mediation and supplemental statements. Decl. of Co-Lead Counsel ¶ 41, Dkt. No. 471. After
`
`submitting their statements, counsel for all Parties attended in-person mediations before Judge
`
`
`for judicial notice, and a motion for reconsideration.
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02827-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
`ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
` 5
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 608 Filed 03/17/21 Page 6 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`Phillips on January 7, 2019, August 28, 2019, and September 27, 2019. Id.
`
`
`
`On September 27, 2019, Judge Phillips made a mediator’s proposal to the Parties, which
`
`was accepted with Judge Phillips’ continued involvement in negotiating a term sheet and longform
`
`settlement agreement. Id. ¶ 42; Phillips Decl. ¶ 9. After several months more of negotiation, in
`
`February 2020, the Parties executed the Settlement. Decl. of Co-Lead Counsel ¶ 43.
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Settlement Terms
`
`The Settlement is a comprehensive resolution of all claims in this Action and the JCCP
`
`Action. The Settlement provides for a non-reversionary Minimum Class Settlement Amount of
`
`$310 million, with a Maximum Class Settlement Amount of $500 million, in cash for the benefit
`
`of the Settlement Class. Decl. of Co-Lead Counsel ¶ 46. In exchange for a release of their claims,
`
`Settlement Class Members will receive $25 for each eligible iPhone, although the amount of that
`
`payment may increase or decrease depending on any Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, Named
`
`Plaintiff Service Awards, Notice expenses, and the aggregate value of Approved Claims. Id. ¶ 47.
`
`In particular, if the payment of $25 for each iPhone device identified as Approved Claims plus the
`
`payment of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, Named Plaintiff Service Awards, and Notice and
`
`administration fees does not reach the Minimum Class Settlement Amount, then the “Residual”
`
`will be allocated according to the Stipulation of Settlement (Dkt. No. 416), including increasing
`
`payments to Settlement Class Members on a pro rata basis. Id. Conversely, if the number of
`
`iPhone devices identified as Approved Claims, multiplied by $25, exceeds the Maximum Class
`
`Settlement Amount of $500 million, then the cash payment for each device will be reduced on a
`
`pro rata basis so as not to exceed the Maximum Class Settlement Amount of $500 million. Id.
`
`Under the Settlement, Named Plaintiffs may also seek Service Awards of $3,500 for
`
`Named Plaintiffs who were deposed in the Action and $1,500 for all Named Plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 49.
`
`Class Counsel may also seek an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. Id. ¶ 50. The Settlement is
`
`not conditioned upon the Court’s approval of the full (or any) amount of Service Awards or
`
`attorneys’ fees and expenses. Id.
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02827-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
`ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
` 6
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 608 Filed 03/17/21 Page 7 of 36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`F.
`
`Settlement Terms
`
`On February 28, 2020, Named Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
`
`Settlement. Motion for Preliminary Approval, Dkt. No. 415. On May 27, 2020, the Court granted
`
`preliminary approval, provisionally certified the nationwide Settlement Class, and directed notice
`
`to be issued to Settlement Class Members pursuant to the Settlement and preliminary approval
`
`motion. Order Granting Prelim. Approval of Class Action Settlement (“Prelim. Approval Order”),
`
`Dkt. No. 429.
`
`
`
`The Court granted preliminary certification to a settlement class of:
`
`[a]ll former or current U.S. owners of iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, 7, 7 Plus,
`and SE devices running iOS 10.2.1 or later (for iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus,
`and SE devices) or iOS 11.2 or later (for iPhone 7 and 7 Plus devices), and
`who ran these iOS versions before December 21, 2017.
`
`
`Prelim. Approval Order at 2 (reciting the definition of Stipulation § 1.32). “U.S. owners” is
`
`defined to “include all individuals who owned, purchased, leased, or otherwise received an eligible
`
`device, and individuals who otherwise used an eligible device for personal, work, or any other
`
`purposes. An individual qualifies as a “U.S. owner” if his or her device was shipped to the United
`
`States, its territories, and/or its possessions. Id. “The Settlement Class shall not include iPhone
`
`owners who are domiciled outside of the United States, its territories, and/or its possessions.” Id.
`
`“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) any of the individuals identified in paragraph 1.36 of the
`
`Settlement Agreement, as well as their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, (d)
`
`Defense Counsel, as well as their immediate family members, legal representatives, heirs,
`
`successors, or assigns, and (e) any other individuals whose claims already have been adjudicated
`
`to a final judgment.” Id. at 2-3.
`
`
`
`///
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02827-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
`ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
` 7
`
`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 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 608 Filed 03/17/21 Page 8 of 36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`G. Notice to the Class
`
`Court-approved Settlement Administrator Angeion Group (“Angeion”) disseminated
`
`Notice to the Class via (1) direct email and/or postcard notices, (2) a case-specific website, and (3)
`
`a case-specific toll-free number. Decl. of Settlement Adm’r (“Angeion Decl.”) ¶¶ 4-12, Dkt. No.
`
`470-2; see also Stipulation § 6.2. Specifically, 90,119,272 class notices were emailed to potential
`
`Class Members, with 2,611,071 returned undeliverable. Angeion Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, 11. Angeion re-
`
`deployed 340,289 email notices that had a technical error during the initial distribution. Suppl.
`
`Decl. of Settlement Adm’r (“Suppl. Angeion Decl.”) ¶ 5, Dkt. No. 551. Of the 340,289 email
`
`notices that were re-deployed, 320,329 were delivered and 19,960 were not delivered. Id. ¶ 6.
`
`Between August 24, 2020 and September 9, 2020, Angeion sent a second round of email notices
`
`to 89,395,480 Class Members. Id. ¶ 18.2
`
`Angeion also sent 5,609,281 postcard notices to potential Settlement Class Members. Id. ¶
`
`11. On September 4, 2020, Angeion mailed an additional 72,282 notices. Id. ¶ 13. After
`
`conducting address verification searches (“skip traces”), Angeion identified and re-mailed notices
`
`to 275,292 updated addresses, including the records which the USPS returned with a forwarding
`
`address. Id. ¶ 14. Angeion also sent a second round of post card notices to 5,609,277 Class
`
`Members. Id. ¶ 17. These efforts resulted in notice being sent to ninety-nine (99) percent of the
`
`Class. Tr. of Dec. 4, 2020 Hr’g at 153, Dkt. No. 589.
`
`The case-specific website devoted to the Settlement had 16,440,243 pageviews and
`
`9,891,698 sessions through November 16, 2020. Id. ¶ 22. The toll-free information line for the
`
`case received approximately 31,647 calls through November 16, 2020. Id. ¶ 24. The extensive
`
`
`2 During the December 4, 2020 hearing, it was reported that many email notices to Class Members
`were redirected to a spam folder, and that as result, many Class Members may not have received
`notice if they didn’t know to look in their spam folders. Tr. of Dec. 4, 2020 Hr’g at 102.
`Although this is disappointing, it is not surprising in a case of this magnitude and does not mean
`the notice program failed to comport with due process. Angeion employed other methods of
`notice, including establishing a case-specific website and a case-specific toll-free number. And as
`noted previously, the extensive media coverage of the Settlement has also increased the likelihood
`that Settlement Class Members learned of the Settlement and the process for submitting a claim.
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02827-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
`ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
` 8
`
`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 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 608 Filed 03/17/21 Page 9 of 36
`
`
`
`media coverage of the Settlement has also increased the likelihood that Settlement Class Members
`
`learned of the Settlement and the process for submitting a claim. Angeion Decl. ¶ 26.3
`
`
`
`H. Claims Process
`
`Settlement Class Members had up to 92 days to submit a claim, object, or opt out. Def.’s
`
`Statement at 5. The chart below tabulates the total number of claims submitted, approved, and not
`
`approved (including the reasons for the provisional rejections) as of January 22, 2021:
`
`Claims Not Approved
`
`signature)
`
`Other (e.g., missing
`
`Duplicate
`
`Insufficient
`
`Attestation Missing or
`
`Matched to Class List
`
`Could Not Be
`
`Device Not Eligible –
`
`Device Eligibility
`
`Validation Regarding
`
`Claims Pending
`
`(Pending Deduplication)
`
`Claims Approved
`
`Claims Withdrawn
`
`Claims Submitted
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Online
`
`2,152,228
`
`137
`
`2,094,916
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`57,175
`
`0
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`Hard Copy
`
`74,543
`
`Corporate
`
`1,058,214
`
`43
`
`66
`
`20,698
`
`57
`
`44,430
`
`3,549
`
`Pending
`
`5,766
`
`153,246
`
`41,522
`
`664,675
`
`164,053
`
`32,533
`
`2,119
`
`Total
`
`3,284,985
`
`246
`
`2,268,860
`
`41,579
`
`709,105
`
`167,602
`
`89,708
`
`7,885
`
`Updated Joint Status Report In Supp. of Final Settlement Approval at 1, Dkt. No. 596. “The
`
`Settlement Administrator approved all claims that could be matched to eligible devices, provided
`
`that the other settlement requirements were satisfied.” Id. at 2. “For claims that could not be
`
`approved as initially submitted, the Settlement Administrator sent deficiency notices to inform the
`
`claimants of the reason(s) their claims could not be approved.” Id. All claimants had an
`
`opportunity to submit additional information. Id.
`
`The Court later provided guidance regarding the attestation requirement for corporate and
`
`non-natural person claims (Dkt. No. 598), and as of February 21, 2021, the claims process is
`
`
`3 Notice of the Settlement was also provided to federal and state officials as required by the Class
`Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715. Pls.’ Reply at 9.
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02827-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
`ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
` 9
`
`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 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 608 Filed 03/17/21 Page 10 of 36
`
`
`
`ongoing. Tr. of Feb. 17, 2021 Hr’g at 8, Dkt. No. 605. The Settlement Administrator will submit
`
`a final report to the Court once the claims administration process is complete. Id.
`
`II.
`
`STANDARDS
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires judicial approval of a settlement as fair,
`
`reasonable, and adequate. The procedure for judicial approval is well established:
`
`(1) Certification of a settlement class and preliminary approval of
`the proposed settlement after submission to the court of a written
`motion for preliminary approval.
`
`(2) Dissemination of notice of the proposed settlement to the
`affected class members.
`
`(3) A final approval hearing, at which evidence and argument
`concerning the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the
`settlement are presented.
`
`
`See Manual for Complex Litig. (Fed. Jud. Center, 4th ed. 2004), § 21.63.
`
`“[T]he decision to approve or reject a settlement is committed to the sound discretion of
`
`the trial judge because that judge is ‘exposed to the litigants, and their strategies, positions and
`
`proof.’” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1027 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Officers for
`
`Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 626 (9th Cir. 1982)). In reviewing class action
`
`settlements, the court should give “proper deference to the private consensual decision of the
`
`parties.” Id. “[T]he court’s intrusion upon what is otherwise a private consensual agreement
`
`negotiated between the parties to a lawsuit must be limited to the extent necessary to reach a
`
`reasoned judgment that the agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion
`
`between, the negotiating parties, and that the settlement, taken as a whole, is fair, reasonable and
`
`adequate to all concerned.” Id. (quoting Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625); see also In re
`
`Zynga Inc. Sec. Litig., 2015 WL 6471171, at *8-11 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2015) (granting
`
`preliminary approval after finding proposed settlement was “noncollusive,” “lacks obvious
`
`deficiencies,” and was “within the range of possible approval”). In making this determination,
`
`courts in the Ninth Circuit consider and balance a number of factors, including:
`
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02827-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
`ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
` 10
`
`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 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 608 Filed 03/17/21 Page 11 of 36
`
`
`
`(1) the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; (2) the risk, expense,
`complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of
`maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (4) the amount
`offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed and the
`stage of the proceedings; (6) the experience and views of counsel; (7)
`the presence of a governmental participant; and (8) the reaction of the
`class members of the proposed settlement.
`
`Churchill Vill. L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575-76 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Hanlon, 150 F.3d
`
`at 1026); Officers for Justice, 688 F.2d at 625 (citing same). Further, “[t]he recommendations of
`
`plaintiffs’ counsel should be given a presumption of reasonableness.” Knight v. Red Door Salons,
`
`Inc., 2009 WL 248367, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2009); see also In re NVIDIA Corp. Derivative
`
`Litig., 2008 WL 5382544, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2008) (“[S]ignificant weight should be
`
`attributed to counsel’s belief that settlement is in the best interest of those affected by the
`
`settlement.”) (citation omitted); Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 1997 WL 450064, at *5 (N.D.
`
`Cal. July 18, 1997), aff’d, 151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The involvement of experienced class
`
`action counsel and the fact that the settlement agreement was reached in arm’s length negotiations,
`
`after relevant discovery had taken place create a presumption that the agreement is fair.”) (citation
`
`omitted).
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Certification of the Class
`
`On May 27, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the Class. Nothing has occurred that
`
`changes this Court’s previous determination that class certification is appropriate under Rule 23.
`
`The requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b) are fully satisfied. Accordingly, the Court grants final
`
`certification of the Settlement Class.
`
` B.
`
`Final Approval of the Settlement
`
`For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and
`
`adequate.
`
`1.
`
`Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case
`
`The parties actively and aggressively litigated this action and Class Counsel conducted a
`
`thorough investigation and prosecution of the claims. The Named Plaintiffs firmly believe that
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02827-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
`ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
` 11
`
`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 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 608 Filed 03/17/21 Page 12 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`their liability case is strong and that class certification is warranted. Mot. at 9. In their SCAC,
`
`Named Plaintiffs supported their claims with allegations that users of Apple devices began
`
`reporting reduced functionality after installing iOS 10.2.1, and began experiencing marked
`
`decrease in battery life after downloading iOS 11. SCAC ¶¶ 435, 436. Further, a study “revealed
`
`that existing iPhones operating on the iOS 10 software on average drained to 0% battery after 240
`
`minutes (4 hours), whereas those operating on iOS 11 on average drained to 0% battery after only
`
`96 minutes (just over 1½ hours).” Id. ¶ 438. “In other words, iOS 11 reduced the average
`
`iPhone’s battery life by more than 60%.” Id. Named Plaintiffs alleged that “[t]he study
`
`demonstrates the substantially increased power demands that Apple foist upon users’ Devices
`
`through its iOS update.” Id. Another report based on an analysis of 100,000 iPhones concluded
`
`that “the decrease in performance of the affected iPhones was caused by the iOS 10.2.1 and iOS
`
`11.2 updates, and not the normal decreased function that would be caused by an aging battery.”
`
`Id. ¶ 440. A software engineer charted phone performance before and after the iOS updates at
`
`issue were installed, and concluded that there was a “real loss of performance.” Id. ¶¶ 441-42.
`
`Another researcher opined that the iOS updates at issue slowed the iPhone 6s by nearly 60%, and
`
`thus “effectively turn[ed] the device’s performance into that of a device 1-2 generations older.”
`
`Id. ¶ 442. Named Plaintiffs also cited to an article indicating that “tests run by iPhone 6 users
`
`following the iOS 10.2.1 update revealed a processor speed of 600MHz; which was less than half
`
`the device’s advertised speed. Id. ¶ 443. Named Plaintiffs further alleged that Apple never asked
`
`its purchasers for their authorization to slow down their device, nor informed them of this change.
`
`Id. ¶ 447.
`
`Nevertheless, Named Plaintiffs recognized the real and substantial risk that they might not
`
`be able to obtain any recovery at all given the significant legal challenges they would have to face
`
`if the case did not settle. Apple has consistently maintained and continues to maintain that “[the]
`
`software update prolonged the life of devices with aged batteries and allowed loyal Apple
`
`customers to continue using the iPhone devices that they love.” Def.’s Statement at 1. Further,
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02827-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS
`ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
` 12
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02827-EJD Document 608 Filed 03/17/21 Page 13 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`Apple has maintained and continues to maintain that “[t]he performance management feature was
`
`only activated when the device was at risk of shutting down when power demands were high in
`
`some temporary conditions based on environmental temperature, state of charge, and customer
`
`usage.” Id. “In such circumstances, some users may have noticed changes in performance, such
`
`as longer app launch times, lower speaker volume, gradual frame rate reductions in some apps, or
`
`other potential effects.” Id. “Apple disputes that all devices were used in a way that would have
`
`activated the performance management feature; and even when it was activated, users may not
`
`have even noticed any differences in daily device performance.” Id. “Apple stands by the
`
`performance management feature as a solution to a complex technological problem that delivered
`
`a better experience for customers and prolonged the life of older iPhone devices.” Id.
`
`The first factor weighs in fav