IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`IN RE: T-MOBILE CUSTOMER DATA
`SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`MDL No. 3019
`
`Master Case No. 4:21-md-03019-BCW
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL AND TO
`DIRECT NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TO THE CLASS
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 158 Filed 07/22/22 Page 1 of 43
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`V. 
`VI. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 2 
`THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND BENEFITS
`PLAN ................................................................................................................................ 5 
`A. 
`The Settlement Class............................................................................................. 5 
`B. 
`Benefits of the Settlement ..................................................................................... 6 
`1. 
`Cash Payments .......................................................................................... 6 
`2. 
`Identity Defense Services and Restoration Services ................................. 7 
`3. 
`Information Security Spending ................................................................. 8 
`Provision of Notice to the Settlement Class ......................................................... 8 
`C. 
`Opt-Out and Objection Procedures ....................................................................... 9 
`D. 
`Release Provisions .............................................................................................. 11 
`E. 
`LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................................. 12 
`THE SETTLEMENT APPROVAL PROCESS .............................................................. 13 
`THE SETTLEMENT SATISFIES THE RULE 23(E) FACTORS ................................ 14 
`Plaintiffs and Their Counsel Have Adequately Represented the
`A. 
`Settlement Class .................................................................................................. 15 
`The Settlement Agreement Was Negotiated at Arm’s Length ........................... 16 
`The Relief Provided for the Settlement Class is Fair, Reasonable,
`and Adequate ...................................................................................................... 17 
`1. 
`The Value of Settlement Benefits ........................................................... 17 
`2. 
`The Costs, Risks, and Delay of Trial and Appeal ................................... 18 
`3. 
`The Effectiveness of Administration ...................................................... 19 
`4. 
`The Experience and Views of Counsel ................................................... 21 
`5. 
`The Proposed Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards ............................... 22 
`The Proposal Treats Settlement Class Members Equitably ................................ 23 
`D. 
`VII.  CLASS CERTIFICATION FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES IS
`APPROPRIATE .............................................................................................................. 24 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`
`i
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 158 Filed 07/22/22 Page 2 of 43
`
`

`

`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`The Rule 23(a) Requirements Are Satisfied ....................................................... 25 
`1. 
`Numerosity .............................................................................................. 25 
`2. 
`Commonality........................................................................................... 25 
`3. 
`Typicality ................................................................................................ 26 
`4. 
`Adequacy of Representation ................................................................... 27 
`The Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements Are Satisfied .................................................. 28 
`1. 
`Predominance .......................................................................................... 29 
`2. 
`Superiority............................................................................................... 30 
`VIII.  APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL AND CLASS
`REPRESENTATIVES .................................................................................................... 31 
`THE PROPOSED NOTICE PLAN SHOULD BE APPROVED ................................... 32 
`RELATED ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE STAYED
`OR ENJOINED UNLESS CLASS MEMBERS OPT OUT OF THE
`SETTLEMENT CLASS ................................................................................................. 33 
`PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR INTERMEDIATE DEADLINES AND
`FINAL APPROVAL HEARING .................................................................................... 35 
`XII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 36 
`
`
`IX. 
`X. 
`
`XI. 
`
`ii
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 158 Filed 07/22/22 Page 3 of 43
`
`

`

`Cases 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Alpern v. UtiliCorp United, Inc.,
`84 F.3d 1525 (8th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................... 27
`
`Amchem Prods. Inc. v. Windsor,
`521 U.S. 591 (1997) ...................................................................................................... 24, 27, 29
`
`Amgen, Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds,
`568 U.S. 455 (2013) .................................................................................................................. 29
`
`Armstrong v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Milwaukee,
`616 F.2d 305 (7th Cir. 1980) .................................................................................................... 21
`
`Ashley v. Reg’l Transp. Dist.,
`No. 05-cv-01567, 2008 WL 384579 (D. Colo. Feb. 11, 2008) ................................................. 16
`
`Bellows v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc.,
`No. 07-CV-01413, 2008 WL 5458986 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2008) ........................................... 13
`
`Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
`727 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................... 30
`
`Carnegie v. Household Int’l., Inc.,
`376 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................... 31
`
`Carpe v. Aquila, Inc.,
`224 F.R.D. 454 (W.D. Mo. 2004) ....................................................................................... 25, 27
`
`Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc.,
`450 U.S. 79 (1981) .................................................................................................................... 19
`
`Cohn v. Nelson,
`375 F. Supp. 2d 844 (E.D. Mo. 2005)....................................................................................... 12
`
`Comcast Corp. v. Behrend,
`569 U.S. 27 (2013) .................................................................................................................... 25
`
`Cromeans v. Morgan Keegan & Co.,
`303 F.R.D. 543 (W.D. Mo. 2014) ............................................................................................. 25
`
`DeBoer v. Mellon Mortg. Co.,
`64 F.3d 1171 (8th Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................... 27
`
`Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin,
`417 U.S. 156 (1974) .................................................................................................................. 32
`
`iii
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 158 Filed 07/22/22 Page 4 of 43
`
`

`

`Gordon v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-01415-CMA-SKC, 2019 WL 6972701 (D. Colo. Dec. 16, 2019) ..................... 18, 19
`
`Huyer v. Buckley,
`849 F.3d 395 (8th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................... 22
`
`In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.,
`327 F.R.D. 299 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ....................................................................................... passim
`
`In re Baldwin-United Corp. (Single Premium Deferred Annuities Ins. Litig.),
`770 F.2d 328 (2d Cir. 1985)...................................................................................................... 34
`
`In re BankAmerica Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`210 F.R.D. 694 (E.D. Mo. 2002) .............................................................................................. 21
`
`In re Brinker Data Incident Litig.,
`No. 3:18-cv-686-TJC-MCR, 2021 WL 1405508 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2021) ........................... 18
`
`In re CenturyLink Sales Pracs. & Sec. Litig.,
`No. CV 17-2832, 2020 WL 869980 (D. Minn. Feb. 21, 2020) .......................................... 34, 35
`
`In re Equifax Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`No. 1:17-MD-2800-TWT, 2020 WL 256132 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 17, 2020) ................................. 17
`
`In re Equifax Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`999 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................ 24
`
`In re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995)........................................................................................................ 12
`
`In re Glenn W. Turner Enters. Litig.,
`521 F.2d 775 (3d Cir. 1975)...................................................................................................... 35
`
`In re Hannaford Bros. Co. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`293 F.R.D. 21 (D. Me. 2013) .................................................................................................... 18
`
`In re Life Time Fitness, Inc. Telephone Consumer Prot. Act (TCPA) Litig.,
`847 F.3d 619 (8th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................... 22
`
`In re Marriott Int’l, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`No. 19-MD-2879, 2022 WL 1396522 (D. Md. May 3, 2022) .................................................. 18
`
`In re Premera Blue Cross Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`No. 3:15-md-2633-SI, 2019 WL 3410382 (D. Or. July 29, 2019) ........................................... 31
`
`In re School Asbestos Litig., No.,
`83-0268, 1991 WL 61156 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 1991) ................................................................. 34
`
`iv
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 158 Filed 07/22/22 Page 5 of 43
`
`

`

`In re Sonic Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`No. 1:17-md-2807, 2019 WL 3773737 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 12, 2019) .................................. 18, 19
`
`In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig.,
`357 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (D. Kan. 2018) ....................................................................................... 22
`
`In re TJX Cos. Retail Sec. Breach Litig.,
`246 F.R.D. 389 (D. Mass. 2007) ............................................................................................... 18
`
`In re Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litig.,
`2017 WL 2178306 (D. Minn. May 17, 2017) ........................................................................... 24
`
`In re U.S. Bancorp. Litig.,
`291 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 1002) ...................................................................................................... 22
`
`In re Uponor, Inc., F1807 Plumbing Fittings Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`716 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................ 12, 21
`
`Keil v. Lopez,
`862 F.3d 685 (8th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................... 24
`
`Liles v. Del Campo,
`350 F.3d 742 (8th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................................. 13, 34
`
`Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. N. Little Rock Sch. Dist.,
`451 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................... 21
`
`Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1,
`921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) ............................................................................................ 12, 22
`
`Marcus v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue,
`209 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (D. Kan. 2002) ....................................................................................... 16
`
`Marshall v. Nat’l Football League,
`787 F.3d 502 (8th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................. 12, 24
`
`McGlenn v. Driveline Retail Merch., Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-2097, 2021 WL 165121 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 19, 2021) .................................................... 18
`
`Paxton v. Union Nat’l Bank,
`688 F.2d 552 (8th Cir. 1982) .................................................................................................... 25
`
`Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Co.,
`200 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................. 12
`
`Pollard v. Remington Arms Co., LLC,
`896 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 24
`
`v
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 158 Filed 07/22/22 Page 6 of 43
`
`

`

`Prater v. Medicredit, Inc.,
`No. 4:14-CV-00159, 2015 WL 4385682 (E.D. Mo. July 13, 2015) ......................................... 34
`
`Rawa v. Monsanto Co.,
`934 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2019) .................................................................................................... 24
`
`Sanderson v. Unilever Supply Chain, Inc.,
`10-cv-00775-FJG, 2011 WL 5822413 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 16, 2011) .......................................... 21
`
`Schoenbaum v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.,
`4:05-CV-01108, 2009 WL 4782082 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 8, 2009) ................................................. 13
`
`Smith v. Triad of Alabama, LLC,
`No. 1:14-CV-324-WKW, 2017 WL 1044692 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 17, 2017) ............................... 18
`
`Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc.,
`916 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1990)........................................................................................................ 34
`
`Stephens v. U.S. Airways Group, Inc.,
`102 F. Supp. 3d 222 (D.D.C. 2015) .......................................................................................... 12
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`564 U.S. 338 (2011) ...................................................................................................... 26, 29, 30
`
`White v. Nat’l Football League,
`41 F.3d 402 (8th Cir.1994) ....................................................................................................... 34
`
`Statutes 
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1651 ........................................................................................................................... 34
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 ............................................................................................................ 23
`
`Rules 
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Other Authorities 
`
`2 Joseph M. McLaughlin, McLaughlin on Class Actions § 6:24 (8th ed. 2011) .......................... 22
`
`7AA Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1779 (3d ed. 2005) ...................................................................... 30
`
`Newberg on Class Actions §§ 3.05, 3:60 (6th ed.) ................................................................. 24, 25
`
`Newberg on Class Actions §§ 11.25, 11.41 (4th ed.) ............................................................. 12, 13
`
`
`
`vi
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 158 Filed 07/22/22 Page 7 of 43
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Settlement Class Representatives and T-Mobile have reached a settlement that will
`
`create a non-reversionary settlement fund of $350 million to provide substantial relief to
`
`Settlement Class Members, including: (i) monetary reimbursement of up to $25,000 for Out-of-
`
`Pocket Losses resulting from the Data Breach, including up to five hours of time spent responding
`
`to the Data Breach or up to fifteen hours of time spent addressing related Out-of-Pocket Losses,
`
`compensated at the higher of $25 per hour or a claimant’s documented hourly wage, if the claimant
`
`missed work; (ii) an alternative cash payment (in lieu of Out-of-Pocket Losses and Lost Time) of
`
`$25, or $100 for Class Members who resided in California at the time of the Data Breach (to
`
`account for the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018); (iii) a two-year subscription to
`
`comprehensive Identity Defense Services providing monitoring and identity theft protection
`
`through Pango’s Identity Defense Complete Plan; (iv) Restoration Services for all Settlement Class
`
`Members, regardless of whether they make any other claim for relief; as well as the costs of notice
`
`and administration, Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, and Service Awards for the Settlement Class
`
`Representatives. In addition to this historic direct relief to the Settlement Class, T-Mobile has also
`
`agreed to maintain an incremental spend commitment of at least $150 million for data security and
`
`related technology for 2022 and 2023 to improve its network and data security and address
`
`vulnerabilities that resulted in the Data Breach. In short, the Settlement Agreement addresses the
`
`central allegations of this litigation and achieves the primary relief sought by Plaintiffs.1
`
`Considering the substantial and meaningful cash and non-monetary benefits conferred
`
`upon Settlement Class Members, valued at well over $500 million, and the significant risks faced
`
`through continued litigation, the terms of the Settlement are “fair, reasonable, and adequate” in
`
`
`1 While T-Mobile denies Plaintiffs’ allegations, it has agreed to the Settlement Agreement and
`does not oppose this Motion.
`
`1
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 158 Filed 07/22/22 Page 8 of 43
`
`

`

`accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2). Therefore, the Court should
`
`preliminarily approve the proposed Settlement, appoint Class Counsel and the Settlement Class
`
`Representatives, authorize the provision of notice to the Settlement Classes, and set a hearing to
`
`consider final approval of the Settlement. In support of this Motion, Plaintiffs submit the
`
`Settlement Agreement (Ex. 1); the proposed Consumer Benefits Plan (Ex. 2); the declaration of
`
`Class Counsel (Ex. 3); the declaration of Jeanne C. Finegan on behalf of the proposed Settlement
`
`Administrator (Kroll Settlement Administration LLC or “Kroll”), including the Notice Plan (Ex.
`
`4); the proposed Settlement notices (Ex. 5); the proposed Claim Form (Ex. 6); and the declaration
`
`of Gerald Thompson on behalf of Pango, the provider of the Identity Defense Services and
`
`Restoration Services (Ex. 7).
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`With over 100 million customers, T-Mobile is one of the largest consumer brands in the
`
`United States. As part of its business operations, T-Mobile collects and maintains the confidential
`
`personal information of millions of U.S. consumers, including names, Social Security numbers,
`
`driver’s license numbers, phone numbers, unique technical identifiers tethered to customers’
`
`mobile phones, and other identifying information unique to each individual customer.
`
`In their Consolidated Consumer Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”), Plaintiffs allege
`
`that sometime in 2021, one or more cybercriminals exploited T-Mobile’s data security protocols
`
`and gained access to internal servers containing the personally identifiable information (“PII”) of
`
`millions of current, former, and prospective T-Mobile customers (the “Data Breach”). Doc. 128,
`
`Compl. ¶¶ 84-90. After exfiltrating a purported 106 GB of this data, the hacker or hackers offered
`
`to sell a subset of the stolen PII via a dark-web forum. Id. ¶¶ 92-95. On August 16, 2021, T-Mobile
`
`announced the cyberattack, stating (at the time) that account data for more than 50 million current,
`
`former, or prospective customers was compromised in the Data Breach. Id. ¶¶ 6, 98. T-Mobile also
`
`2
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 158 Filed 07/22/22 Page 9 of 43
`
`

`

`disclosed that an unidentified number of phone numbers, IMEI, and IMSI numbers were
`
`compromised. Id. ¶ 103. In November 2021, T-Mobile revealed in an SEC filing that its
`
`“investigation also identified approximately 26.0 million additional individuals” whose “names,
`
`dates of birth and, in many cases, addresses” were compromised, increasing the total number of
`
`individuals whose PII was compromised in the Data Breach to approximately 76.6 million. Id. ¶
`
`104.
`
`During the weeks and months following the Data Breach, Plaintiffs allege that they and
`
`other class members suffered actual and attempted identity theft and fraud, including unauthorized
`
`credit applications filed in their names, unauthorized accounts opened in their names, unauthorized
`
`charges and bank transfers, unauthorized access to financial and other accounts, unauthorized
`
`attempts to change the passwords of such accounts, and increased phishing attempts in the form
`
`of emails, texts, and phone calls, as well as ongoing and imminent increased risk of harm. See id.
`
`¶¶ 8-71; 135-48. Similarly, numerous Plaintiffs and other class members have been notified by
`
`third-party monitoring companies that their PII was located on the dark web as a result of the Data
`
`Breach. Id. ¶¶ 8-71. Plaintiffs further allege that they and other class members were compelled to
`
`spend time and effort as a result of the Data Breach, including researching the Data Breach,
`
`monitoring their accounts and credit reports for unauthorized activity, attempting to remedy
`
`unauthorized activity and identity theft that has already occurred, freezing and unfreezing their
`
`credit, contacting their financial institutions, and taking other protective or remedial measures. Id.
`
`After T-Mobile provided notice of the Data Breach, customers filed dozens of lawsuits
`
`against T-Mobile. On August 23, 2021, a Plaintiff in one of those cases filed a motion before the
`
`Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”), supporting centralization of those actions in
`
`the Western District of Washington. In re T-Mobile Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig. (MDL No.
`
`3
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 158 Filed 07/22/22 Page 10 of 43
`
`

`

`3019), JPML Doc. 1. On September 14, 2021, T-Mobile filed its response to that motion,
`
`supporting centralization in the Western District of Missouri. JPML Doc. 49. On December 3,
`
`2021, the JPML ordered the centralization of those actions in the United States District Court for
`
`the Western District of Missouri for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings before the
`
`Honorable Brian C. Wimes. JPML Doc. 98.
`
`On February 25, 2022, following an application process authorized under Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 23(g), the Court appointed Norman E. Siegel of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Cari
`
`Campen Laufenberg of Keller Rohrback L.L.P., and James J. Pizzirusso of Hausfeld LLP as Co-
`
`Lead Interim Class Counsel, together with Liaison Counsel and an Executive Committee of eight
`
`members,2 authorizing them to litigate all pretrial proceedings and to conduct settlement
`
`negotiations on behalf of Plaintiffs and putative class members. Doc. 102.
`
`On May 11, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on behalf of 64 Plaintiffs from across
`
`the United States. Doc. 128. Plaintiffs’ Complaint asserted the following claims against T-Mobile
`
`on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class, or alternatively on behalf of Plaintiffs and the
`
`Statewide Subclasses: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se; (3) breach of confidence; (4) invasion
`
`of privacy—intrusion upon seclusion; (5) breach of express contract; (6) breach of implied
`
`contract; (7) unjust enrichment; and (8) declaratory judgment; as well as numerous additional
`
`claims on behalf of the respective Statewide Subclasses. Id. ¶¶ 163-1221. On July 1, 2022, T-
`
`Mobile filed a consent motion requesting an extension of time to answer Plaintiffs’ Complaint,
`
`
`2 The Court appointed Alexis Wood of the Law Offices of Ronald Marron as Liaison Counsel.
`Doc. 102 at 3. The Court appointed Maureen M. Brady of McShane & Brady LLC, Amy E. Keller
`of DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, Robert Lopez of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Margaret C.
`MacLean of Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., Kaleigh N.B. Powell of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC,
`Kenya J. Reddy of Morgan & Morgan, Sabita J. Soneji of Tycko and Zavareei LLP, and Rachel
`K. Tack of Zimmerman Reed, LLP as members of the Executive Committee. Id. at 5. Ms. Reddy
`later resigned from her appointment.
`
`4
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 158 Filed 07/22/22 Page 11 of 43
`
`

`

`until and including August 10, 2022, which the Court granted. Docs. 148, 152.
`
`At various times before and after filing the Complaint, the Parties, through counsel,
`
`engaged in discussions regarding potential early mediation of this case. As part of this process, the
`
`Parties exchanged extensive confidential discovery documents and information related to the Data
`
`Breach and the named Plaintiffs in the Complaint, which allowed the Parties to assess the risks of
`
`the case and meaningfully engage in arm’s-length settlement negotiations. Ex. 3, Class Counsel
`
`Declaration (“Class Counsel Decl.”) at ¶ 23. Following several conferences (including an in-
`
`person meeting in Kansas City) the Parties decided to mediate the case with the Honorable Diane
`
`M. Welsh (Ret.) of JAMS, a mediator with a proven track record of resolving complex data breach
`
`class actions, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Judge Welsh conducted pre-mediation calls with each
`
`Party, and the Parties exchanged detailed mediation statements in advance of mediation. Id. ¶ 24.
`
`After vigorous and hard-fought negotiations occurring over two full days on June 7 and 8, 2022,
`
`the Parties reached an agreement in principle and executed a binding term sheet, which reflects the
`
`essential terms of the Settlement now offered for the Court’s consideration in the final Settlement
`
`Agreement. Id.
`
`III. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND BENEFITS PLAN
`
`A.
`
`The Settlement Class
`
`Under the Settlement, the Parties agree to certification of the following Settlement Class,
`
`which includes the California Settlement Subclass:
`
`The approximately 76.6 million U.S. residents identified by T-Mobile whose
`information was compromised in the Data Breach, as reflected in the Class List.
`For the avoidance of doubt, the Settlement Class includes the California Settlement
`Subclass. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) T-Mobile, any entity in which
`T-Mobile has a controlling interest, and T-Mobile’s officers, directors, legal
`representatives, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice, or
`judicial officer presiding over the Action and the members of their immediate
`families and judicial staff; (iii) any individual who timely and validly opts out of
`the Settlement; and (iv) all individuals who on or before the date the Court enters
`
`5
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 158 Filed 07/22/22 Page 12 of 43
`
`

`

`the Preliminary Approval Order have either (1) filed or served a written arbitration
`demand or petition against T-Mobile relating to the Data Breach, or (2) provided
`written notice to T-Mobile of their intent to pursue arbitration against T-Mobile
`relating the Data Breach with a description of claims to the address provided in T-
`Mobile’s Terms and Conditions or to T-Mobile’s Counsel.
`
`Ex. 1 ¶ 2.36. The California Subclass includes members of the Settlement Class that were residents
`
`of the State of California on August 1, 2021. Id. ¶ 2.6. The Settlement expressly excludes from the
`
`Settlement Class any T-Mobile customer who has filed or served a written arbitration demand or
`
`petition against T-Mobile relating to the Data Breach, or provided written notice to T-Mobile of
`
`their intent to pursue arbitration against T-Mobile relating the Data Breach with a description of
`
`claims to T-Mobile’s counsel or to the address provided in T-Mobile’s Terms and Conditions,
`
`meaning those individuals who have chosen to pursue arbitration will be able to continue those
`
`proceedings without interference from this Settlement. Id. ¶ 2.36.
`
`B.
`
`Benefits of the Settlement
`
`In exchange for the release of Settlement Class Members’ claims against T-Mobile,
`
`T-Mobile will fund a non-reversionary Settlement Fund in the amount of $350 million to fund the
`
`following benefits, as set out in the Settlement Agreement (Ex. 1) and Proposed Consumer
`
`Benefits Plan (Ex. 2).
`
`1.
`
`Cash Payments
`
`Out-of-Pocket Losses. The Settlement Fund will be used to pay valid claims for Out-of-
`
`Pocket losses incurred on or after August 1, 2021, that are fairly traceable to the Data Breach. Out-
`
`of-Pocket losses include, but are not limited to: (i) unreimbursed costs, expenses, losses or charges
`
`incurred as a result of identity theft or identity fraud, falsified tax returns, or other alleged misuse
`
`of a Settlement Class Member’s personal information; (ii) costs incurred on or after August 1,
`
`2021, associated with placing or removing a credit freeze on a Settlement Class Member’s credit
`
`file with any credit reporting agency; (iii) other miscellaneous expenses incurred on or after August
`
`6
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 158 Filed 07/22/22 Page 13 of 43
`
`

`

`1, 2021, related to any Out-of-Pocket Loss such as notary, fax, postage, copying, mileage, and
`
`long-distance telephone charges; and (iv) costs of credit reports, credit monitoring, or other
`
`products related to detection or remediation of identity theft incurred on or after August 1, 2021,
`
`through the date of the Settlement Class Member’s claim submission. Ex. 2 ¶ 3.
`
`Lost Time. The Settlement Fund will also be used to pay claims for Lost Time. Lost Time
`
`that is not related to a qualifying claim for Out-of-Pocket Losses may be made in 15-minute
`
`increments and supported by a certification for up to 5 hours. In the alternative, Lost Time related
`
`to a qualifying claim for Out-of-Pocket Losses may be made in 15-minute increments and
`
`supported by a certification for up to 15 hours. Settlement Class Members can claim $25 per hour,
`
`or their current hourly rate if higher and supported by documentation. Id. ¶ 4.
`
`Alternative Cash Payments. As an alternative to making a claim for Out-of-Pocket Losses
`
`or Lost Time, Settlement Class Members may request an Alternative Cash Payment of $25, or
`
`$100 for California Settlement Subclass Members. Id. ¶ 5.
`
`2.
`
`Identity Defense Services and Restoration Services
`
`Class members will have the opportunity to enroll in two years of Identity Defense Services
`
`provided by Pango. Ex. 7. The Identity Defense Services include the following features:
`
` Credit Monitoring from TransUnion
`
` Monthly Credit Score from TransUnion
`
` Real Time Inquiry / Authentication Alerts
`
` Dark Web Monitoring
`
` High Risk Transaction Monitoring
`
` USPS Address Change Monitoring & Alerts
`
` Lost Wallet Protection
`
`7
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 158 Filed 07/22/22 Page 14 of 43
`
`

`

` Security Freeze Capability
`
` Customer Support & Victim Assistance
`
` $1,000,000 in identity theft insurance
`
`Id. ¶ 4. Moreover, all Settlement Class Members, regardless of whether they make a claim, will be
`
`entitled to Restoration Services, which provide access to a U.S. based call center to assist in
`
`responding to any identity theft or related fraud. Detailed components of the services offered
`
`through the Settlement are included in Exhibit 7.
`
`3.
`
`Information Security Spending
`
`In addition to the relief set forth above, as part of this Settlement T-Mobile has agreed to
`
`maintain an incremental spend commitment of at least $150 million for data security and related
`
`technology, in the aggregate for years 2022 and 2023 above its previously budgeted baseline. Ex.
`
`1 ¶ 5.1. This commitment is in addition to the $350 million committed to the Settlement Fund.
`
`C.
`
`Provision of Notice to the Settlement Class
`
`The Parties have consulted with Kroll, the proposed Settlement Administrator, to determine
`
`the best practicable method of class notice. See Ex. 4. Subject to the requirements of any orders
`
`entered by the Court, the Parties propose that notice be provided by the Settlement Administrator
`
`as follows:
`
`Within thirty (30) days after the Court