`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Daniel C. Girard (State Bar No. 114826)
`Jordan Elias (State Bar No. 228731)
`Simon S. Grille (State Bar No. 294914)
`GIRARD SHARP LLP
`601 California Street, Suite 1400
`San Francisco, California 94108
`Tel: (415) 981-4800
`dgirard@girardsharp.com
`jelias@girardsharp.com
`sgrille@girardsharp.com
`
`Norman E. Siegel (pro hac vice)
`J. Austin Moore (pro hac vice)
`Jillian R. Dent (pro hac vice)
`STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
`460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
`Kansas City, MO 64112
`Telephone: (816) 714-7100
`Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
`siegel@stuevesiegel.com
`moore@stuevesiegel.com
`dent@stuevesiegel.com
`
`Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`IN RE INTUIT FREE FILE LITIGATION
`
` Case No. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
`APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
`SETTLEMENT AND TO DISTRIBUTE
`NOTICE TO THE CLASS, AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`THEREOF
`
`Date: December 17, 2020
`Time: 10:00 a.m.
`Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Charles R. Breyer
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`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 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 2 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ......................................................................................... viii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUE TO BE DECIDED ......................................................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ............................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Allegations ................................................................................................. 3
`
`Procedural History ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`The Parties’ Settlement Negotiations ........................................................................... 5
`
`IV.
`
`SUMMARY OF MATERIAL SETTLEMENT TERMS ......................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`The Settlement Class ................................................................................................... 6
`
`Settlement Consideration ............................................................................................ 6
`
`1. Monetary Consideration .................................................................................. 6
`
`2.
`
`Non-monetary Consideration ........................................................................... 7
`
`Distribution of Settlement Fund .................................................................................. 8
`
`Class Notice ................................................................................................................ 9
`
`Opt-Outs and Objections ........................................................................................... 10
`
`Release of Claims ..................................................................................................... 11
`
`Settlement Administrator .......................................................................................... 11
`
`V.
`
`THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE PRELIMINARILY APPROVED AS FAIR,
`REASONABLE, AND ADEQUATE. .................................................................................. 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Proposed Settlement Is the Product of Arm’s Length Negotiations Among
`Experienced Counsel. ................................................................................................ 12
`
`The Proposed Settlement Provides for Equitable Distribution of the Fund. ................ 13
`
`The Relief Under the Proposed Settlement Is Adequate. ............................................ 14
`
`i
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 3 of 35
`
`VI. THE SETTLEMENT CLASS LIKELY WILL BE CERTIFIED. .......................................... 17
`
`A.
`
`The Requirements of Rule 23(a) Are Satisfied........................................................... 17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Class Members Are Too Numerous to Be Joined. ................................... 17
`
`There Are Common Questions of Law and Fact............................................. 18
`
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical of the Class. ................................................... 18
`
`Plaintiffs and Class Counsel Will Fairly and Adequately Protect the
`Interests of the Class. ..................................................................................... 18
`
`B.
`
`The Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) Are Satisfied. ..................................................... 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Common Questions Predominate for Settlement Purposes. ............................ 19
`
`A Class Action Is a Superior Means of Resolving This Controversy. ............. 20
`
`VII. THE CLASS NOTICE AND PLAN FOR DISSEMINATION ARE REASONABLE
`AND SHOULD BE APPROVED. ........................................................................................ 20
`
`VIII. CLASS MEMBERS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO OPT OUT BEFORE PURSUING
`ARBITRATIONS AGAINST INTUIT. ................................................................................ 21
`
`IX. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`ii
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 4 of 35
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Abdullah v. U.S. Sec. Assocs., Inc.
`731 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................................... 18
`
`Allen v. Bedolla
`787 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................................... 11
`
`Amchem Prods. v. Windsor
`521 U.S. 591 (1997) .................................................................................................................... 19
`
`Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.
`844 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017) .......................................................................................................7
`
`Burden v. SelectQuote Ins. Servs.
`2013 WL 1190634 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2013) ............................................................................. 12
`
`Camacho v. Auto. Club of S. Calif.
`142 Cal. App. 4th 1394 (2006) .................................................................................................... 15
`
`Carlough v. Amchem Prod., Inc.
`10 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 1993) .......................................................................................................... 24
`
`DeHoyos v. Allstate Corp.
`240 F.R.D. 269 (W.D. Tex. 2007) ................................................................................................ 22
`
`Doe v. Deja Vu Servs., Inc.
`2017 WL 530434 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 9, 2017).......................................................................... 22, 25
`
`Dohrmann v. Intuit, Inc.
`823 F. App’x 482 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................ 15
`
`Ebarle v. Lifelock, Inc.
`2016 WL 234364 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2016) ................................................................................. 17
`
`Federal Ins. Co. v. Caldera Med., Inc.
`2016 WL 5921245 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2016) ............................................................................... 13
`
`Fitzhenry-Russell v. Keurig Dr. Pepper, Inc.
`No. 5:17-cv-00564-NC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2019) ........................................................................ 17
`
`Franco-Gonzales v. Napolitano
`2011 WL 11705815 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011) ........................................................................... 17
`
`iii
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`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 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 5 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Free Range Content, Inc. v. Google, LLC
`2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47380 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2019) ............................................................ 17
`
`Global Fitness Holdings, LLC
`2014 WL 1350509 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 4, 2014) .................................................................................8
`
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.
`150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) .............................................................................................. passim
`
`Harris v. Wells
`764 F. Supp. 743 (D. Conn. 1991) ............................................................................................... 24
`
`Hendricks v. StarKist Co.
`2015 WL 4498083 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2015) .............................................................................. 14
`
`In re Baldwin-United Corp.
`770 F.2d 328 (2d Cir. 1985) ........................................................................................................ 24
`
`In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig.
`2016 WL 3648478 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2016) .......................................................................... 14, 17
`
`In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig.
`2016 WL 6778406 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2016) ............................................................................. 13
`
`In re CenturyLink Sales Practices & Sec. Litig.
`2020 WL 3512807 (D. Minn. June 29, 2020) .............................................................................. 24
`
`In re CenturyLink Sales Practices & Sec. Litig.
`2020 WL 869980 (D. Minn. Feb. 21, 2020) ................................................................................. 24
`
`In re ConAgra Foods, Inc.
`90 F. Supp. 3d 919 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ........................................................................................... 18
`
`In re Glenn W. Turner Enters. Litig.
`521 F.2d 775 (1975) .............................................................................................................. 22, 23
`
`In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litig.
`414 F. Supp. 3d 686 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) .......................................................................................... 13
`
`In re Haier Freezer Consumer Litig.
`2013 WL 2237890 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2013) .............................................................................. 16
`
`In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig.
`213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) ....................................................................................................... 17
`
`iv
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 6 of 35
`
`
`
`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 re Nat’l Football League Players’ Concussion Injury Litig.
`301 F.R.D. 191 (E.D. Pa. 2014) ................................................................................................... 21
`
`In re Oracle Sec. Litig.
`1994 WL 502054 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 1994) ................................................................................ 13
`
`In re Painewebber Ltd. P’ships Litig.
`1996 WL 374162 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 1996) ................................................................................... 21
`
`In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merch. Disc. Antitrust Litig.
`2019 WL 35998 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2019) ................................................................................... 11
`
`In re School Asbestos Litig.
`1991 WL 61156 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 1991)
`aff’d, 950 F.2d 723 (3d Cir. 1991) ......................................................................................... 21, 22
`
`In re Sony PS3 “Other OS” Litig.
`2017 WL 5598726 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2017) ............................................................................. 21
`
`In re Sulzer Hip Prothesis & Knee Prosthesis Liab. Litig.
`2002 WL 32138298 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 14, 2002) ........................................................................... 24
`
`In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig.
`2017 WL 672820 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2017) .................................................................... 10, 11, 20
`
`In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.
`229 F. Supp. 3d 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ........................................................................................ 24
`
`James v. Bellotti
`733 F.2d 989 (1st Cir. 1984)........................................................................................................ 24
`
`Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co.
`765 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................................... 14
`
`K.H. v. Secretary of Dep’t of Homeland Sec.
`2018 WL 6606248 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2018) .............................................................................. 11
`
`Kamakahi v. Am. Soc’y for Reprod. Med.
`305 F.R.D. 164 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................................................................. 14
`
`Kulesa v. PC Cleaner, Inc.
`2014 WL 12581769 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2014) ............................................................................ 13
`
`Larson v. AT&T Mobility LLC
`2009 WL 10689759 (D.N.J. Jan. 16, 2009)............................................................................ 21, 22
`
`v
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 7 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co.
`308 F.R.D. 231 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................................................. 18
`
`Makekau v. State
`943 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2019)
`cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2740 (2020) ............................................................................................ 25
`
`Martin v. Monsanto Co.
`2017 WL 1115167 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2017) .............................................................................. 20
`
`Mendez v. C-Two Grp., Inc.
`2017 WL 1133371 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2017) ............................................................................. 12
`
`Mendoza v. Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd.
`2017 WL 342059 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2017) ................................................................................. 14
`
`Mergens v. Sloan Valve Co.
`2017 WL 9486153 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2017) ............................................................................. 18
`
`Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corp.
`2016 WL 1535057 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2016) .............................................................................. 20
`
`Nat’l Rural Telecoms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc.
`221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ................................................................................................. 12
`
`Pulaski & Middleman, LLC v. Google, Inc.
`802 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2015) ....................................................................................................... 20
`
`Ries v. Arizona Bevs. USA LLC
`287 F.R.D. 523 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ................................................................................................. 18
`
`Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC
`944 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2019) ..................................................................................................... 20
`
`S.E.C. v. Capital Consultants, LLC
`397 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2005) ....................................................................................................... 13
`
`Spann v. J.C. Penney Corp.
`314 F.R.D. 312 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ................................................................................................. 15
`
`Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc.
`916 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1990) .......................................................................................................... 21
`
`Staton v. Boeing Co.
`327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) ....................................................................................................... 18
`
`vi
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 8 of 35
`
`
`
`Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo
`136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) .......................................................................................................... 14, 19
`
`Wahl v. Yahoo! INC.
`2018 WL 6002323 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2018) ............................................................................. 21
`
`Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am., LLC
`617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................... 20
`
`Wright v. Linkus Enters., Inc.
`259 F.R.D. 468 (E.D. Cal. 2009) ........................................................................................... 21, 22
`
` Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404 ...............................................................................................................................3
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1651 .............................................................................................................................. 21
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1715 ....................................................................................................................... viii, 9
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) advisory committee’s note (1966)............................................................... 14
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) advisory committee’s note (2018) ............................................................. 12, 17
`
`Federal Trade Commission, com Disclosures: How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital
`Advertising ....................................................................................................................................7
`
` Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`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 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 9 of 35
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 10, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
`the matter may be heard by the Honorable Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court,
`located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, Plaintiffs Andrew Dohrmann, Joseph
`Brougher, and Monica Chandler will and hereby do move, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure, for entry of the proposed Preliminary Approval Order, and request that the Court set
`the following schedule for settlement proceedings:
`
`Event
`Class Action Fairness Act notice to state and
`federal officials, under 28 U.S.C. § 1715
`Settlement Website activated
`
`Deadline
`Within 10 days after filing of this motion
`
`Within 7 days after preliminary approval
`
`Notice campaign to begin
`
`Within 14 days after preliminary approval
`
`Notice to be substantially completed
`
`45 days after preliminary approval
`
`Plaintiffs to move for final approval of the
`settlement
`Plaintiffs to move for attorneys’ fees, expenses,
`and service awards
`Deadline for submission of objections and
`requests for exclusion
`Deadline to file a claim
`
`At least 21 days before the deadline for
`submitting objections
`At least 21 days before the deadline for
`submitting objections
`90 days after preliminary approval
`
`135 days after preliminary approval
`
`Plaintiffs to respond to any objections
`
`100 days after preliminary approval
`
`Final Approval Hearing
`
`At least 120 days after preliminary approval
`
`
`
`Within 60 days after the Effective Date
`
`Date on which settlement funds will be
`distributed to claimants
`
`The Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the memorandum of points and authorities, the
`Joint Declaration of Daniel C. Girard and Norman E. Siegel (“Joint Decl.”), the Declaration of Hon.
`Edward A. Infante (Ret.) (“Infante Decl.”), the Declaration of Gina Intrepido-Bowden (“JND Decl.”),
`the record in this action, the argument of counsel, and any other matters the Court may consider.
`
`viii
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`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 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 10 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`Plaintiffs seek preliminary approval of a $40,000,000 settlement with Defendant Intuit Inc. to
`compensate taxpayers who were eligible to file a federal return for free under the IRS Free File
`Program but were charged a fee by Intuit on its TurboTax online website. All class members are
`eligible to participate by completing a simple claim form, which requires only that claimants attest
`that they understood they could file for free under the Free File Program but nevertheless paid a fee to
`use TurboTax. Class Counsel estimate the recoveries provided, considering customary claim rates,
`will return a substantial percentage of the fees paid by participating class members when they first
`filed their taxes using TurboTax. No portion of the settlement consideration will revert to Intuit. The
`settlement also requires Intuit to conform its marketing practices related to its Free Edition product to
`the FTC’s online marketing guidelines and to disclose the Free File Program—along with a
`taxpayer’s qualifications to file for free—on the TurboTax website. The proposed notice to the class
`prominently discloses that people with incomes of $69,000 or less can file for free and provides a link
`to the IRS Free File portal. The settlement is a fair, reasonable and adequate resolution of sharply
`disputed claims and should be preliminarily approved to allow notice to issue to the class.
`After this Court denied Intuit’s motion to compel arbitration, the Ninth Circuit reversed in a
`split decision and denied Plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing. On remand, Plaintiff Dohrmann lodged
`with the AAA an arbitration petition seeking among other relief a comprehensive injunction against
`the Intuit “free to fee” practices at issue in this litigation. Concurrently, the parties continued
`settlement discussions that began in January 2020 and continued on an ongoing basis. These
`negotiations included two mediations with Hon. Edward A. Infante (Ret.), one on June 22 and most
`recently on November 11, 2020, resulting in a final agreement. The settlement is the product of a
`deliberate, considered settlement process, carried on over almost a year, with the benefit of this
`Court’s rulings and oversight, lengthy discussions, and the sustained efforts of a highly experienced
`mediator.
`The parties reached their agreement with a thorough understanding of the evidence, claims, and
`defenses, drawn from Class Counsel’s review of over 100,000 pages of internal Intuit documents,
`
`1
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 11 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`interviews with dozens of consumers, consultation with independent experts and industry
`professionals, Class Counsel’s preparation of a motion for final injunctive relief and class certification,
`input from an experienced mediator, and ongoing exchanges of factual and legal arguments with
`defense counsel. The settlement before the Court avoids the significant risks of continuing
`prosecution, complies with this District’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, and
`meets all the criteria for preliminary approval under Rule 23. To ensure the preservation of the status
`quo and an orderly opt-out process, the parties request that the Court issue an injunction under the All
`Writs Act preventing class members from pursuing independent proceedings, including arbitrations,
`until they have validly excluded themselves from the class, at which time the injunction as against
`them will be lifted and they will be free to resume the pursuit of those claims. The circumstances
`calling for this exercise of the Court’s authority and the supporting authorities are discussed in Section
`VIII below.
`Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court enter the proposed order to authorize notice to the
`class and other relief and to schedule further settlement proceedings.
`STATEMENT OF ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
`II.
`Should the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B), preliminarily approve the parties’
`settlement and order notice to the proposed class?
`III. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`The Joint Declaration of Daniel C. Girard and Norman E. Siegel in Support of Plaintiffs’
`Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement (“Joint Decl.”) details the factual and procedural
`history of this case, the claims, counsel’s investigation and settlement negotiations, the risks and
`uncertainties presented in this litigation, and other factors showing the Settlement is fair, reasonable,
`and adequate.1 As described in the Joint Declaration and below, the Settlement before the Court is the
`product of a considered negotiation process begun in January 2020, informed by briefing on two key
`motions, exchanges of factual and legal arguments with defense counsel, review of over 100,000
`documents, and Judge Infante’s able assistance as mediator.
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, capitalized terms have the meaning as defined in the Settlement Agreement
`(“SA”), filed herewith.
`
`2
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 12 of 35
`
`
`
`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’ Allegations
`A.
`Plaintiffs filed related actions against Intuit beginning in May 2019. On June 14, 2019, the
`Court ordered six related actions2 consolidated into this litigation. Dkt. No. 42. On August 20, 2019,
`the Court appointed the undersigned as interim co-lead class counsel. Dkt. No. 72. On September 13,
`2019, Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleging that Intuit engaged in unfair
`and deceptive practices as part of a “free-to-fee” business strategy. Dkt. No. 80 (“Compl.”). An
`overview of these complaint allegations is provided below.
`As a participant in the IRS’s Free File Program, Intuit agreed to provide free online tax
`preparation and filing services to lower-income individuals and military service members. Compl. ¶¶
`1-5. In the 2018 tax year, Intuit agreed to provide free e-filing to taxpayers who (1) have adjusted
`gross incomes of $34,000 or less, (2) are eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, or (3) are active
`military members with adjusted gross incomes of $66,000 or less. Id. ¶¶ 51-52. Intuit’s Free File
`online tax-return preparation software—what Intuit first called “TurboTax Freedom Edition”—
`allowed eligible taxpayers to prepare and e-file their federal and state tax returns for free. Id. ¶ 59.
`Freedom Edition gave users free access to more than 100 tax forms, allowing eligible taxpayers to file
`returns electronically for no charge if they met one of the three criteria stated above. Id. ¶ 60.
`Intuit advertised free tax-return preparation to draw taxpayers to Intuit’s fee-based preparation
`software, the similarly named TurboTax “Free Edition.” Id. ¶ 59. Intuit paid Google to promote its
`Free Edition site so that common web searches relating to free tax preparation services would bring up
`the Free Edition. Id. ¶ 76. Intuit at the same time engaged in “de-indexing,” inserting software code
`into the Freedom Edition website that suppressed it from web search results. Id. ¶¶ 73-74.
`Intuit’s “Free” marketing materials, including the links generated by its Google AdWords
`
`
`2 Sinohui v. Intuit Inc., No. 19-cv-02546-CRB; Dohrmann v. Intuit Inc., No. 19-cv-02566-CRB;
`Allwein v. Intuit, Inc., No. 19-02567-CRB, Nichols v. Intuit Inc., No. 19-cv-02666-CRB; Kehiaian v.
`Intuit Inc., No. 19-cv-02742-CRB; and Leon v. Intuit Inc., No. 19-cv-02878-CRB. The Court later
`deemed four additional lawsuits related and part of the consolidated action: Cook v. Intuit, Inc., No.
`19-cv-03460-KAW; Ostrovsky v. Intuit, Inc., No. 19-cv-05823-NC; McConnaughey v. Intuit Inc., No.
`5:19-cv-03745-SVK; and Williams v. Intuit, Inc., No. 20-cv-01908-JSC. Dkt. Nos. 51, 60, 91, 149.
`The latter action was transferred from the Eastern District of New York pursuant to stipulation after
`Plaintiffs on February 10, 2020 sought to intervene for purposes of moving to transfer under 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1404. See Williams v. Intuit Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00320-DLI-RER (E.D.N.Y.), ECF Nos. 10, 20.
`3
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-02546-CRB
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02546-CRB Document 162 Filed 11/12/20 Page 13 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`campaign, led to the TurboTax Free Edition website. Id. ¶ 76. Yet that site was not free for many
`taxpayers. Id. ¶ 61. Plaintiffs, while eligible to file for free, paid Intuit to file a return for tax year
`2018. Id. ¶¶ 16-45. TurboTax Free Edition required customers to pay to file most tax returns,
`including returns that would otherwise be eligible for free filing through the Freedom Edition. Id. ¶ 62.
`Plaintiffs contend Intuit did not adequately qualify its widespread offers of free tax preparation
`and filing with the fact that Free Edition is free only for a limited set of taxpayers. Id. ¶ 84. Instead,
`Intuit waited to assess a fee until the last minute, after taxpayers had answered all the questions
`necessary to prepare the return. Id. ¶ 94. Only as they were about to submit the return did Intuit
`disclose that they would be charged. Id. ¶¶ 63, 94. And Intuit did not adequately disclose that they
`could file the same return for free through its Freedom Edition website. Id. ¶¶ 62-64.
`Alleging these practices are unfair, unlawful and deceptive, Plaintiffs brought claims under
`California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and for unjust enrichment. Id. ¶¶ 120-53. Plaintiffs
`sought an injunction and restitution for a class of “[a]ll United States citizens and residents who during
`the applicable limitations period were eligible to file a federal tax return pursuant to the IRS Free File
`Program on Intuit’s TurboTax Freedom Edition website but paid a fee to TurboTax to file such
`return.” Id. ¶ 99.
`Procedural History
`B.
`The parties met in person for the Rule 26(f) conference on September 25, 2019. Joint Decl., ¶
`4. At the case management conference of October 4, 2019, the Court ordered most discovery3 stayed
`in light of Intuit’s impending motion to compel arbitration, filed October 28, 2019. Dkt. Nos. 92, 97.
`Plaintiffs subsequently took discovery