Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01463/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01463-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

CHUCK BROWNING,

individually and on behalf of 

all persons similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

YAHOO! INC.; 

CONSUMERINFO.COM, INC.; and 

EXPERIAN NORTH AMERICA, 

INC.;

Defendants. 

Case No. C04-01463 HRL 

ORDER CERTIFYING TENTATIVE 

SETTLEMENT CLASS, 

PRELIMINARILY APPROVING 

PROPOSED AMENDED 

SETTLEMENT, APPROVING AND 

DIRECTING THE NOTICE PLAN, 

APPOINTING CLASS COUNSEL, 

AND APPOINTING SETTLEMENT 

ADMINISTRATOR 

The parties and their respective counsel have entered into an Amended Settlement 

Agreement to settle and dismiss the above-captioned litigation on a class-action basis, 

subject to the Court’s approval, and have filed a Joint Motion For Certification of 

Tentative Settlement Class, Preliminary Approval of Proposed Amended Settlement, 

Approval and Direction of the Notice Plan, Appointment of Class Counsel, and 

Appointment Of Settlement Administrator and a supporting memorandum. 

The parties’ Amended Settlement Agreement supersedes their original agreement 

dated February 14, 2006, which has no further force and effect; and the parties’ first 

preliminary-approval motion, filed on February 28, 2006, has now been withdrawn. On 

May 8, 2006, this Court held a hearing on that first preliminary-approval motion. This 

Court thereafter issued three interim orders, on May 19, July 6, and August 10, 2006. 

This Court also issued an order on August 10, 2006, denying the plaintiffs in a separate 

class action leave to intervene in this case. On March 16, June 9, and July 21, 2006, the 

parties made joint filings to supplement their original settlement and in response to the 

*E-filed 12/27/06*

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 1 of 21
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

Court’s first and second interim orders. In its Second Interim Order of July 6, 2006, this 

Court determined that it was satisfied with the response it had received to its questions 

with respect to the class definition. Second Interim Order On Joint Mot. For Certification 

Of Tentative Settlement Class & Prelim. Approval Of Proposed Settlement, Etc., Docket 

No. 126 at 2:3-4. In its Third Interim Order of August 10, 2006, this Court determined 

that its questions about the scope of the release were also satisfied by new proposed 

wording, and the Court invited the parties to submit a new motion for preliminary 

approval of their amended settlement. Third Interim Order On Joint Mot. For 

Certification Of Tentative Settlement Class & Prelim. Approval Of Proposed Settlement, 

Etc., Docket No. 130 at 2:12-13. 

After careful consideration of the parties’ Amended Settlement Agreement and 

their present Joint Motion and accompanying exhibits, the Court grants the motion. 

Certification of Tentative Settlement Class

The parties have jointly moved the Court to resolve this case as a tentative 

settlement class. In order to certify a settlement class, the requirements of Rule 23 must 

generally be satisfied. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 

1998) (citing Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 613 (1997)). However, in 

assessing the Rule 23 requirements, the Court may consider that there will be no trial. 

Amchem, 521 U.S. at 620 (“Confronted with a request for settlement-only class 

certification, a district court need not inquire whether the case, if tried, would present 

intractable management problems . . . for the proposal is that there be no trial.”). 

Although this Court has not yet considered class certification, the federal district 

court in Helms v. ConsumerInfo.com, Inc., No. CV-03-HS-1439-M (N.D. Ala.), has 

issued a decision in a proposed class action brought by the same attorneys on behalf of 

substantially the same group of people as here against ConsumerInfo.com, Inc. 

(“ConsumerInfo”), one of the defendants in this case. The Helms court found that all of 

the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) were met, Helms v. 

ConsumerInfo.com, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 561, 564-66 (N.D. Ala. 2005), and that the 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 2 of 21
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 

3 

predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) was also met, id.

at 566-67. The court denied class certification, however, because it concluded that class 

litigation would not be a superior method of adjudication when damages, if aggregated 

by the class procedure, could be “‘grossly disproportionate to the conduct at issue,’” id.

at 568 (quoting Klay v. Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241, 1271 (11th Cir. 2004)). The Helms

court concluded that a class trial would lead to unfair and undesirable results “[g]iven 

that Defendant does not offer fraudulent services, considering that Plaintiff has exhibited 

little if any actual damages, and with an eye to the likelihood that class damages would 

be disproportionately large when compared to Defendant’s actual conduct.” Id. at 569-

70. Following the denial of class certification in Helms, the same counsel amended the 

complaint in Browning to add ConsumerInfo and Experian North America, Inc. as 

defendants in the Browning case. 

This Court holds that the requirements of Rule 23(a) are met. The tentative 

settlement class, which is estimated to include an approximate minimum of 10 million 

individuals, meets the numerosity requirement, as joinder of all members would be 

impractical. The commonality requirement of Rule 23(a) is also met, because there are 

questions of law or fact common to the class, and the typicality requirement is met 

because the named plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class. 

This Court further holds that the named plaintiff, Chuck Browning, is an adequate 

class representative under Rule 23(a)(4). In determining that Browning is an adequate 

representative, the Court has considered: (1) whether the representative plaintiff and his 

counsel have any conflict of interest with other class members; and (2) whether the 

representative plaintiff and his counsel will prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of 

the class. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. 

The Court finds that Browning and Class Counsel do not have conflicts of interest 

with other class members that would defeat adequacy of representation in the context of 

the proposed settlement class and the notice to be provided. Each settlement class 

member will benefit from the remedial website changes, and each is eligible to receive the 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 3 of 21
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 

4 

same in-kind relief, which permits the class member to choose either a credit score or 60 

days of credit monitoring. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1021 (adequacy was met when the 

settlement was “narrowly circumscribed” and each class member was treated identically; 

“[g]iven these careful precautions and safeguards, no improper conflict of interest 

existed”). 

Furthermore, Browning and Class Counsel have shown appropriate vigor in 

prosecution of the class claims. Browning’s counsel declared that he conducted the initial 

factual investigation and engaged in significant discovery in Helms, including document 

requests and production, interrogatories, and the taking and defending of depositions. It is 

represented that in the course of discovery ConsumerInfo produced millions of emails and 

many thousands of pages of documents, and shipped more than 100,000 recordings of 

phone calls from overseas to the United States. Furthermore, the parties have also 

conducted discovery in Browning, including responses to interrogatories, and the 

production of documents, as well as engaging in motion practice. The parties stipulated 

that all of the discovery conducted in Helms would be treated as if it had also been 

conducted in Browning. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022 (finding “counsel’s prosecution of 

the case sufficiently vigorous to satisfy any Rule 23(a)(4) concerns”). Accordingly, the 

Court is satisfied that Browning and Class Counsel are adequate representatives of the 

tentative settlement class under Rule 23(a)(4). 

With respect to Rule 23(b)(3), the requirements of predominance and superiority 

are intended to cover cases “‘in which a class action would achieve economies of time, 

effort, and expense, and promote . . . uniformity of decision as to persons similarly 

situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about other undesirable 

results.’” Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615. The Court holds that, for the tentative settlement 

class, common questions predominate over individualized issues. 

This Court also holds that the tentative settlement class is superior to individual 

lawsuits. The concern of the Helms court that aggregation of claims for trial could bring 

about the undesirable result of damages disproportionate to Defendants’ conduct simply is 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 4 of 21
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 

5 

not applicable here in the context of the proposed settlement class, where the relief is 

agreed upon and no trial will occur. See Amchem, 521 U.S. at 619-20. Consequently, the 

Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are met by the proposed settlement 

class action. 

Based on the foregoing paragraphs, the Court finds that the requirements for 

certification of a tentative settlement class are satisfied. 

For the sole purpose of determining: (i) whether this Court should finally approve 

the proposed settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (ii) whether the Court 

should dismiss the litigation with prejudice, the Court hereby certifies a tentative 

settlement class composed of Settlement Class Members, under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(e), as follows: 

1. Settlement Class Members: “Settlement Class Member” or “Settlement 

Class” shall mean and refer to all natural persons in the United States who, between 

June 17, 1998 and the date on which the Court grants preliminary approval of this 

proposed Amended Settlement Agreement, entered into an agreement over the Internet 

with ConsumerInfo or any Experian Entity to purchase any Credit Check or Credit Check 

Monitoring (which were formerly known as CreditCheck® Monitoring Service), Credit 

Manager (including Yahoo! Credit Manager), Triple Alert, or Triple Advantage creditmonitoring product (and/or any credit score sold on a website also selling any of the 

foregoing credit-monitoring products) and paid ConsumerInfo or any Experian Entity for 

that credit-monitoring product (and/or such a credit score) but did not later obtain 

complete refunds from any source of the full amount paid for that credit-monitoring 

product (and/or credit score). “Settlement Class Member” or “Settlement Class,” 

however, shall not include the Exclusions from the Settlement Class. 

a. “Experian Entity” or “Experian Entities” shall refer to Experian 

North America, Inc. and to any company that is a subsidiary, parent, corporate affiliate, or 

division of Experian North America, Inc., and shall also include Credit Expert, L.L.C. 

b. Exclusions from the Settlement Class: “Exclusions from the 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 5 of 21
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 

6 

Settlement Class” shall include: Defendants’ officers, directors, and employees; 

Defendants’ attorneys; Plaintiff’s attorneys; Magistrate Judge Lloyd and the members of 

his immediate family; anyone who enrolled in credit monitoring pursuant to a free trial 

offer but never became a paying member of the credit-monitoring program; anyone who 

was a named plaintiff (as opposed to a putative class member) in a lawsuit pending 

against any of the Defendants as of the date of the order preliminarily approving this 

Amended Settlement Agreement; and all persons who timely and validly request 

exclusion from the Class. 

2. Settlement Class Representative: Chuck Browning is designated as the 

settlement class representative for the tentative settlement class. 

3. Class Counsel: Having considered the work counsel has done in 

identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; counsel’s experience in 

handling class actions, other complex litigation, and claims of the type asserted in the 

action; counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and the resources counsel will commit 

to representing the class, the following attorneys are appointed Class Counsel under Rule 

23(g)(1)(B) and (C): 

E. Clayton Lowe, Jr., Esq. 

Peter A. Grammas, Esq. 

Lowe & Grammas LLP 

Liberty Park 

1952 Urban Center Parkway 

Birmingham, Alabama 35242. 

The foregoing certification of a tentative settlement class is conditional and without 

prejudice to Defendants’ rights to later oppose class certification for trial purposes if the 

proposed settlement is terminated or not finally approved. 

Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement

Under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will approve a 

class-action settlement if it is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). 

This Court’s approval will “involve[] a two-step process in which the Court first 

determines whether a proposed class action settlement deserves preliminary approval and 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 6 of 21
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 

7 

then, after notice is given to class members, whether final approval is warranted.” Nat’l 

Rural Telecomm. Coop. v. DirecTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 525 (C.D. Cal. 2004). At this 

first step of preliminary approval, the Court must conduct a prima facie review of the 

relief and notice provided by the Amended Settlement Agreement, before the Court 

orders notice sent to the tentative Settlement Class Members. See DAVID F. HERR,

ANNOTATED MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION § 21.632 (4th ed. 2005). 

Turning to the specific terms of the settlement, the Court notes that Defendants 

have agreed to offer Settlement Class Members two forms of relief: remedial and inkind. For remedial relief, as specifically described in subsections IV(C) and (D) of the 

Amended Settlement Agreement, ConsumerInfo and the Experian Entities have agreed to 

remove from those websites particular language that Plaintiff alleged placed Defendants 

within the definition of a “credit repair organization” and subject to the requirements of 

the Credit Repair Organizations Act (“CROA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1679. (The Court is advised 

that Defendant Yahoo! no longer offers Yahoo! Credit Manager, the product at issue in 

this case.) For in-kind relief, ConsumerInfo has agreed to offer Settlement Class 

Members a choice of either a credit score or 60 days of credit monitoring. 

Defendants have agreed to offer the remedial relief set forth in the Amended 

Settlement Agreement, even though Defendants deny that they fall within the definition 

of a “credit repair organization” under CROA, deny all of the claims alleged, and deny 

that Plaintiff’s claims could ever be certified as a class action for trial purposes. The 

Helms district court held Defendant ConsumerInfo was a “credit repair organization” 

within the meaning of CROA. But, recognizing that its decision was one of first 

impression, the court certified it for interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. Helms 

v. ConsumerInfo.com, Inc., 436 F. Supp. 2d 1220, 1238 (N.D. Ala. 2005). The Eleventh 

Circuit accepted the interlocutory appeal, but subsequently stayed it at the parties’ 

request (on account of ongoing settlement negotiations). Helms v. ConsumerInfo.com, 

Inc., No. 05-13335-W (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2006). This court’s final approval of the 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 7 of 21
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 

8 

Browning settlement would result in the dismissal of the Helms appeal, so we would not 

learn what the Eleventh Circuit’s view would have been on the Helms decision. 

In another recent CROA case, a Georgia district court denied plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment against a different defendant, holding that issues of genuine material 

fact precluded finding that defendant to be a credit repair organization as a matter of law. 

Hillis v. Equifax Consumer Servs., Inc., No. 1:04-cv-3400-TCB, 2006 WL 2434078, at 

*28 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that an issue of fact existed as to whether 

defendants sold their products “‘for the express or implied purpose’ of improving a 

consumer’s credit record, credit history, or credit rating within the meaning of the 

CROA”). 

In sum, this Court finds that the strength of this fundamental point of Plaintiff’s 

case — whether CROA applies — is uncertain. Moreover, despite the open question 

regarding whether Defendants would fall within CROA’s definition of a “credit repair 

organization,” ConsumerInfo and the Experian Entities have agreed to delete or modify 

particular language (specifically delineated in the Amended Settlement Agreement), 

which Plaintiff had alleged made each Defendant a “credit repair organization” and 

subject to CROA. Upon implementation of that relief, the parties believe that neither 

ConsumerInfo nor the Experian Entities will fall within the statutory definition of a 

“Credit Repair Organization” under the CROA. Defendant Yahoo! Inc. no longer offers 

Yahoo! Credit Manager. On balance, the Court finds the remedial relief to be fair, 

reasonable, and adequate. 

The second type of relief is in kind. ConsumerInfo has agreed to offer, without 

charge, to any eligible Settlement Class Member either a credit score or 60 days of credit 

monitoring. The foregoing settlement benefits will be provided in addition to any 

promotional campaign Defendants are now running or plan to run. The Court agrees 

with the parties that Settlement Class Members are likely to be interested in a settlement 

benefit of either a credit score or credit monitoring because the Settlement Class consists 

of consumers who previously sought out and purchased a credit score or credit 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 8 of 21
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 

9 

monitoring on the Internet. That they will have a choice of a benefit is a plus. Thus, 

each Settlement Class Member, with full knowledge, can make his or her own 

assessment of the value of this proposed settlement. 

Furthermore, the in-kind relief is reasonable in amount given the cost of similar 

products offered for sale, and is considerable when aggregated over the more than 10 

million Settlement Class Members. True, some may view it as less attractive than a full 

or partial refund to class members, but it is the court’s recollection that defendants 

adamantly refused to consider a settlement which included a refund.

The parties have also advised that Settlement Class Members who choose the 60-

day credit monitoring as their settlement benefit will be enrolled in that program and, if 

they do not cancel their enrollment after using their benefit code to obtain the 

credit-monitoring benefit but prior to the expiration of the 60-day settlement-benefit 

period, they will be charged for the service at the then-applicable rate, which is currently 

$9.95 per month, for each month that the membership continues. This so-called 

negative-option plan is the way credit monitoring is currently sold on ConsumerInfo’s 

website. Pursuant to a consent order between ConsumerInfo and the FTC, ConsumerInfo 

agreed to certain disclosure requirements imposed by the FTC for negative-option 

marketing. FTC v. ConsumerInfo.com, No. CV SACV05-801 AHS (MLGx), Stip. Final 

J. (C.D. Cal Aug. 15, 2005). 

The parties have also informed this Court about the objections the FTC recently 

made to a negative-option provision contained in another pending class-action settlement. 

Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., No. CGC-04-434884 (Cal. Super. Ct. October 27, 2005). In the 

Netflix case, class members were to be given only one form of settlement benefit, 

whereas in this case Class Members have a choice between two benefits—credit 

monitoring or a credit score. The defendants say here that their disclosures about the 

negative option feature of one of the in-kind settlement benefits satisfies the FTC consent 

decree. This Court makes no such finding (it being for the FTC to say). However, this 

Court is satisfied that the negative option feature is fairly and reasonably disclosed and 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 9 of 21
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 

10 

that the offering of a choice of settlement benefits avoids the potential problem cited in 

the Netflix case. 

Here, the Defendants were not willing to agree to offer the credit monitoring as an 

alternative form of in-kind relief (monitoring which has an approximate retail value 

several times the value of a credit score), unless it was accompanied by this negativeoption provision. Given that a Class Member’s elective choice to take the credit 

monitoring settlement benefit is accompanied by fair and reasonable disclosures about 

the negative option provision, this Court will approve the proposed form of settlement 

benefit. 

The Court has carefully considered the release when determining the fairness of the 

settlement for preliminary-approval purposes, and notes that the parties have revised the 

original settlement agreement in order to avoid vague language and more exactly 

delineate which entities will be released from liability for which types of activities. 

Specifically, the Court finds to be fair and reasonable the following release: 

“Upon the Effective Date, 

1. the Released Defendants shall forever be released and 

discharged from any and all legal or equitable claims (arising 

on or before the Effective Date) that the Named Plaintiff and 

Settlement Class Members had based on any Released Party’s 

violation of the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act; and 

2. the Released Defendants shall forever be released and 

discharged from any and all legal or equitable claims (arising 

on or before the Effective Date) that the Named Plaintiff and 

Settlement Class Members had based on any Released Party’s 

selling, providing or performing (or representing that such 

person can or will sell, provide, or perform) the service of 

improving a consumer’s credit record, history, or rating 

(including providing advice or assistance to the consumer with 

regard to improving the consumer’s credit record, history, or 

rating), where the stated basis of the claim is about 

improvement of a consumer’s credit record, history, or rating; 

and 

3. the Released Marketing Partners or Marketing 

Affiliates shall forever be released and discharged from any 

and all legal or equitable claims (arising on or before the 

Effective Date) that the Named Plaintiff and Settlement Class 

Members had based on any Released Party’s violation of the 

federal Credit Repair Organizations Act, insofar as and to the 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 10 of 21
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 

11 

extent that the Released Marketing Partner or Marketing 

Affiliate advertised, promoted , marketed , provided and/or 

sold the credit scores or the credit-monitoring products 

referred to in the definition of the Settlement Class at Section 

II.Q; and 

4. the Released Marketing Partners or Marketing 

Affiliates shall forever be released and discharged from any 

and all legal or equitable claims (arising on or before the 

Effective Date) that the Named Plaintiff and Settlement Class 

Members had based on any Released Party’s selling, providing 

or performing (or representing that such party can or will sell, 

provide, or perform) the service of improving a consumer’s 

credit record, history, or rating (including the service of 

providing advice or assistance to the consumer with regard to 

improving the consumer’s credit record, history, or rating), 

where the stated basis of the claim is about improvement of a 

consumer’s credit record, history, or rating, insofar as and to 

the extent that the Released Marketing Partner or Marketing 

Affiliate advertised, promoted, marketed, provided, and/or 

sold the credit scores or the credit-monitoring products 

referred to in the definition of the Settlement Class at Section 

II.Q.” 

The Court has also carefully considered the definitions accompanying the releases, 

and the Court finds the following definitions to be fair and reasonable: 

“Released Parties” shall mean Released Defendants and 

Released Marketing Partners or Marketing Affiliates, which 

are being released from specified claims by Section III.H of 

this Amended Settlement Agreement. 

The term Released Parties does not include Fair Isaac 

Corporation, Equifax, Inc., Trans Union LLC, or Truelink, 

Inc. The parties to this Amended Settlement Agreement 

understand that those four entities are defendants in other 

pending lawsuits involving CROA claims, and those entities 

are not affected by the Release in this Amended Settlement 

Agreement. 

“Released Defendants” shall mean ConsumerInfo, Experian 

Entities, and Yahoo!, and their present or former officers, 

directors, employees, attorneys, agents, administrators, 

successors, assigns, subsidiaries, partners, corporate affiliates, 

sister corporations, parents, divisions, and predecessors. 

“Released Marketing Partners or Marketing Affiliates” shall 

mean any entity which, or individual who, during the class 

period, was ConsumerInfo’s or an Experian Entity’s 

marketing partner or marketing affiliate that advertised, 

promoted, marketed, provided, and/or sold the credit scores or 

the credit-monitoring products referred to in the definition of 

the Settlement Class at Section II.Q. 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 11 of 21
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 

12 

“Experian Entity” or “Experian Entities” shall refer to 

Experian North America, Inc. and to any company that is a 

subsidiary, parent, corporate affiliate, or division of Experian 

North America, Inc., and shall also include CreditExpert, 

L.L.C. 

Furthermore, in evaluating the fairness of the settlement and the relief it offers to 

the Class Members, the Court has considered not only the risks to Plaintiff and the 

Settlement Class Members of continued litigation on the merits (including the still-open 

question of whether CROA applies to Defendants), but also the risk that class-action 

status would not be appropriate or could not be maintained throughout a trial. When the 

class-certification issue was decided in Helms, the district court denied class certification. 

Although this Court need not decide whether certification of a class for purposes of a trial 

would be appropriate in this case, this Court earlier in this litigation expressed its 

skepticism about whether a class would be permitted, when Class Counsel has already 

unsuccessfully litigated the class-certification issue on behalf of a substantially similar 

proposed class in Helms. See Order Granting Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to File Second Am. 

Compl., Docket No. 77 at 5:10-12. 

Finally, this case and the Helms case that proceeded at the same time have gone 

past the initial stages of litigation, leaving the parties and the Court well placed to 

evaluate the risks of continued litigation and the benefits of the settlement. See Nat’l 

Rural Telecomm. Coop., 221 F.R.D. at 528 (“A settlement following sufficient discovery 

and genuine arms-length negotiation is presumed fair.”). 

In conclusion, based on the foregoing findings, the terms and procedures set forth 

in the Amended Settlement Agreement are hereby preliminarily approved as fair, 

reasonable, and adequate, subject to further consideration at the Final Fairness Hearing 

described below. 

Approval of Notice

The Court has evaluated the adequacy of the proposed notice program. It is 

extensive, multifaceted, and innovative. It employs email techniques that the Court finds 

to be particularly suitable in this case, where Settlement Class Members’ allegations arise 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 12 of 21
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 

13 

from their visits to Defendants’ Internet websites, demonstrating that the Settlement 

Class Members are familiar and comfortable with email and the Internet. Under the 

terms of the Amended Settlement Agreement, the Email Notice will direct each Class 

Member to the official Settlement Website, where they may access complete notice 

information, as well as other materials concerning this lawsuit. The Court finds that the 

Email Notice will provide key information, but in a clear and concise form that will 

reduce the chances of the emails being blocked by spam filters. For that reason, the 

Email Notice will not include an attachment of the Long-Form notice, since attachments 

often trigger spam filters. Moreover, in the event that an Email Notice sent to a 

Settlement Class Member is bounced back as undeliverable, the Amended Settlement 

Agreement provides for notice by standard mail. The notice program also has 

comprehensive and adequate procedures for identifying the names, email addresses, and 

postal addresses for Class Members, so that individual notice will be directed to all Class 

Members who can be identified through reasonable effort, as required by Rule 

23(c)(2)(B). In addition, the notice program provides for adequate notice to any Class 

Member to whom individual notice cannot be directed, through publication in one daily 

issue and one weekend issue of the national edition of USA Today. The notice program 

also provides a toll-free number that a Class Member can call for more information. 

Furthermore, the parties have proposed to use The Garden City Group, Inc., as The 

Browning Settlement Administrator. The Court has reviewed materials about the Garden 

City Group and has concluded it has appropriate expertise in class-action settlements and 

notice programs. Consequently, the Court appoints GCG to be the Browning Settlement 

Administrator, to assist and provide professional guidance in the implementation of the 

settlement and notice programs. 

The Court has also reviewed the form of Email Notice attached to the Amended 

Settlement Agreement as Exhibit B; the Long-Form Notice attached to the Amended 

Settlement Agreement as Exhibit C, (which is to be posted on the Settlement Website and 

mailed to those Class Members receiving notice by standard U.S. mail); and the 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 13 of 21
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 

14 

Publication Notice attached to the Amended Settlement Agreement as Exhibit D. The 

Court has concluded that the notice program concisely and clearly states, in plain, easily 

understood language, the nature of the action; the definition of the class certified; the class 

claims, issues, or defenses; that a Class Member may enter an appearance through counsel 

if the member so desires; that the Court will exclude from the class any Member who 

requests exclusion, stating when and how members may elect to be excluded; and the 

binding effect of a class judgment on Class Members, as required by Rule 23(c)(2)(B). At 

the preliminary fairness hearing on December 12, 2006 the Court pointed out an instance 

of ambiguous language in certain of the notices. On December 15, the parties submitted 

revised language that removed the ambiguity. Here, the Court is referring to the notices, 

as revised. 

The Court approves of the comprehensive notice program developed by the parties. 

Specifically, the Court approves the forms of notice attached to the Amended Settlement 

Agreement as Exhibits B, C, and D. The Court also approves the procedures established 

in the Amended Settlement Agreement for emailing, posting, mailing, and publishing 

such notice, and the procedures for Settlement Class Members to request exclusion from 

the class, which meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court 

finds that notice delivered through email and posted on the Internet — together with the 

supplemental notice to be provided by mail (where necessary) and publication — 

constitutes the best practicable notice under the circumstances of this case and notice in a 

reasonable manner. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) (class-certification notice); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B) (settlement notice). 

The Court orders that the notice program be implemented in the following four 

steps: 

1. First, the Browning Settlement Administrator must construct and maintain a 

website on which copies of the Amended Settlement Agreement, the Long-Form Notice 

(in a form substantially similar to that attached as Exhibit C to the Amended Settlement 

Agreement), and other documents important to the case may be kept. The documents will 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 14 of 21
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 

15 

be available for Settlement Class Members to view and print, but class members will not 

be able to post their own materials on the website. 

The Browning Settlement Administrator must ensure the website is operational by 

January 26, 2007. The Browning Settlement Administrator shall file and serve an 

affidavit with the Court by February 6, 2007 certifying compliance with this subsection. 

2. Second, ConsumerInfo will work in conjunction with The Browning 

Settlement Administrator to cause the approved Email Notice, in a form substantially 

similar to that attached as Exhibit B to the Amended Settlement Agreement, to be sent by 

email to each Settlement Class Member at each member’s last known email address in the 

customer databases of ConsumerInfo (or any other Experian Entity that sold such Class 

Member the credit score or credit monitoring), to the extent such address is available. The 

approved Email Notice will direct recipients to the Settlement Website, 

www.browningsettlement.com, which will display the entire Long-Form Notice (in a form 

substantially similar to that attached as Exhibit C to the Amended Settlement Agreement). 

The Browning Settlement Administrator and ConsumerInfo will cause emails to be 

sent to Settlement Class Members in small clusters over a period of time, because sending 

the emails all at once could trigger spam filters, and the Court specifically approves this 

procedure. The Email Notice must be completed by February 27, 2007. The Browning 

Settlement Administrator shall file and serve an affidavit with the Court by March 9, 

2007 certifying compliance with this subsection. 

3. Third, the Browning Settlement Administrator will monitor the 

transmissions of the email, and if an email is returned to the sender because it could not be 

delivered (“bounced-back”), Defendants and the Browning Settlement Administrator may, 

if they deem it useful, cause the Email Notice to be re-sent. In the event that each Email 

Notice sent to a particular Settlement Class Member is “bounced back,” or no email 

address is located, Defendants and the Browning Settlement Administrator shall cause the 

approved mail notice, in a form substantially similar to that attached as Exhibit C to the 

Amended Settlement Agreement, to be sent via standard U.S. mail, postage prepaid, 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 15 of 21
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 

16 

requesting (at Defendants’ option) either forwarding service or change service, to such 

Settlement Class Member’s last known mailing address. Defendants shall cause the last 

known mailing addresses to be updated by first utilizing data from Experian Information 

Solutions, Inc.’s credit files. Consistent with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1681b(a)(1), the Court orders that Experian Information Solutions, Inc. use its credit 

files to update Defendants’ list of addresses in an effort to achieve the most accurate list of 

addresses possible. This Court’s Order does not, however, authorize Experian 

Information Solutions, Inc. to make any other use of the credit files or the resulting 

mailing list. Thereafter, Defendants shall cause the last known mailing addresses to be 

updated by the Browning Settlement Administrator utilizing the National Change of 

Address (“NCOA”) process as licensed by the U.S. Postal Service. The Court finds that 

the foregoing databases reflect the most accurate current mailing addresses reasonably 

available for the Settlement Class Members. The Browning Settlement Administrator will 

re-mail the Long-Form Notice via standard U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to updated 

addresses of Settlement Class Members to the extent that it receives address change 

notifications from the U.S. Postal Service. The emailing and mailing of notices pursuant 

to this subsection will be completed by March 30, 2007. 

The Browning Settlement Administrator shall file and serve an affidavit with the 

Court by April 12, 2007 certifying compliance with this subsection. The Browning 

Settlement Administrator is directed to preserve the email and postal mail tapes used in 

the notice program. 

4. Fourth, during the period for Email Notices and mail notices specified 

above, Defendants and the Browning Settlement Administrator shall cause the approved 

summary form of publication notice, in a form substantially similar to that attached as 

Exhibit D to the Amended Settlement Agreement, to be published in one daily issue and 

one weekend issue of the national edition of USA Today. The Browning Settlement 

Administrator shall file and serve an affidavit with the Court by April 12, 2007 certifying 

compliance with this subsection. 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 16 of 21
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 

17 

ConsumerInfo shall pay the costs of preparing, printing, emailing, posting, mailing, 

and publishing the approved notice, as described above, but Defendants shall have no 

further obligation to identify or locate Settlement Class Members, or to mail or otherwise 

disseminate the approved notice. 

The Court also finds that defendants have sent a timely notification to the 

appropriate state and federal officials of this proposed settlement under the Class Action 

Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b), in the event that CAFA applies, and have 

also, pursuant to the Court’s direction, promptly provided the Federal Trade Commission 

with a copy of their court papers seeking preliminary approval of the Amended 

Settlement Agreement. 

Procedure for Exclusion, Objection, and Intervention

Settlement Class Members shall have the right to exclude themselves from the 

Settlement Class by sending a written request to “Exclusion Requests - Browning 

Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 91141, Seattle, WA 98111-9241.” The written 

request must contain the original signature of the class member; the class member’s 

name, current postal address, and current telephone number; the last four digits of the 

Class Member’s Social Security number; and a specific statement that the Class Member 

wants to be excluded from the Settlement Class. It must be postmarked by May 

15, 2007. In no event shall persons who purport to opt out of the Settlement as a group, 

aggregate, or class involving more than one claimant be considered valid opt outs. 

Requests for exclusion that do not comply with any of the foregoing requirements will 

not be accepted. 

The Browning Settlement Administrator shall be responsible for obtaining and 

maintaining that post office box, collecting the requests for exclusion, and forwarding 

copies of the same to ConsumerInfo’s counsel and the Court on a weekly basis. The 

Browning Settlement Administrator shall also file an affidavit with the Court by May 28, 

2007 certifying compliance with this subsection, identifying all of the Settlement Class 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 17 of 21
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 

18 

Members who requested exclusion from the class, and attaching all of their written 

requests for exclusion. 

Any Settlement Class Member who does not opt out, but who instead wishes to 

object to the Settlement, may do so by mailing a copy of his or her objection to 

“Objections - Browning Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 91141, Seattle, WA 98111-

9241.” The objection must be mailed and postmarked by May 15, 2007. The objection 

must include the Class Member’s name, current postal address, and current telephone 

number; the last four digits of the Class Member’s Social Security number; and it must 

state the reasons for objecting to the settlement. The Settlement Class Member must also 

identify any written material on which his or her objection is based or on which the Class 

Member intends to rely. Finally, the written objection must contain the original signature 

of the Class Member and indicate whether the class member or his or her lawyer intends 

to appear at the Final Fairness Hearing. Any lawyer who intends to appear at the Final 

Fairness Hearing must enter a written Notice of Appearance of Counsel with the Clerk of 

the Court as provided by paragraph 30 below. 

The Browning Settlement Administrator shall be responsible for obtaining and 

maintaining the post office box, collecting the objections and statements, and forwarding 

copies of the same to ConsumerInfo’s counsel and the Court on a weekly basis. The 

Browning Settlement Administrator shall also file an affidavit with the Court by May 28, 

2007 certifying compliance with this subsection, identifying all of the Settlement Class 

Members who objected, and attaching all of the objections.

Any Settlement Class Member who does not properly and timely submit the 

foregoing written objection, as described above and more specifically in the Long-Form 

Notice, shall be deemed to have waived, and shall be forever foreclosed from raising, any 

objection to such matters, including the right to: (i) appear and object at the Final 

Fairness Hearing; and (ii) appeal the final approval of the proposed settlement, the 

resulting dismissal of this Litigation, or the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to Class 

Counsel. 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 18 of 21
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 

19 

Any Settlement Class Member who desires to intervene as a party in the Litigation 

must file a Motion to Intervene with the Clerk of the Court by May 15, 2007.

Procedure for Governmental Entities Seeking to Be Heard

Defendants have sent a timely notification to the appropriate state and federal 

officials in accordance with CAFA, in the event that CAFA applies, and have also 

provided the FTC with a copy of their motion papers. DEFENDANTS SHALL 

ENSURE THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER IS DELIVERED TO THE SAME 

SERVICE LIST. Any federal or state official seeking to be heard with respect to this 

Amended Settlement Agreement shall mail a written statement to “Federal/State Official 

- Browning Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 91141, Seattle WA 98111-9241” to be 

postmarked by May 15, 2007. The written statement should identify the federal or state 

official’s (or counsel’s) name, current postal address, and current telephone number. It 

should also identify the position taken with respect to the settlement, including any 

written material on which the position is based or on which the official intends to rely 

and any intention to appear at the Final Fairness Hearing. Any lawyer who intends to 

appear at the Final Fairness Hearing must enter a written Notice of Appearance of 

Counsel with the Clerk of the Court as provided below. 

The Browning Settlement Administrator shall be responsible for obtaining and 

maintaining the post office box, collecting the written statements, and forwarding copies 

of the same to ConsumerInfo’s counsel and the Court on a weekly basis. The Browning 

Settlement Administrator shall also file an affidavit with the Court by May 28, 2007

certifying compliance with this subsection, identifying all of the federal or state officials 

who submitted written statements, and attaching all of the statements. 

Final Fairness Hearing

A Final Fairness Hearing shall be held before the undersigned on July 31, 2007, at 

10:00 A.M. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San 

Jose Division, Courtroom 2, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California, on the fairness, 

reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement set forth in the Amended 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 19 of 21
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 

20 

Settlement Agreement and on the request of Class Counsel for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Settlement Class Members who have not excluded themselves from the class but who 

have timely filed a proper written objection and complied with the other requirements set 

forth in the Long-Form Notice and this Order may appear at the Final Fairness Hearing in 

person or by counsel and be heard. The Court will also consider any properly filed 

written objections. Federal or state officials who have timely filed a proper written 

statement and complied with the other requirements set forth in this Order may appear at 

the Final Fairness Hearing in person or by counsel and be heard. The Court will also 

consider any properly filed written statements. 

If any Settlement Class Member intends to be represented by his or her own 

counsel at the Fairness Hearing to make an objection, statement, or file a Motion to 

Intervene, such counsel must file a written notice of appearance with the Clerk of the 

Court by May 15, 2007. If any federal or state official intends to be represented by his or 

her own counsel at the Fairness Hearing to make a statement, such counsel must file a 

written notice of appearance with the Clerk of Court by May 15, 2007. 

Counsel are directed to file any remaining briefs in support of the proposed 

settlement by June 14, 2007. Class Counsel are directed to file any material in support 

of their fee petition by June 14, 2007. 

If final approval of the proposed settlement class action as provided in the 

Amended Settlement Agreement is denied by the Court, or if the Amended Settlement 

Agreement is otherwise terminated for any reason, then, in either of such events: (1) the 

class-certification portions of the Amended Settlement Agreement and the February 14, 

2006 Settlement Agreement shall have no further force and effect with respect to any 

party to the Litigation and shall not be offered in evidence or used in the Litigation or any 

other proceeding; (2) counsel for the parties shall seek to have any Court orders, filings, 

or other entries in the Court’s file that result from this class-action Amended Settlement 

Agreement or from the February 14, 2006 Settlement Agreement set aside, withdrawn, 

and stricken from the record; (3) the class-action Amended Settlement Agreement and 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 20 of 21
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 

21 

the February 14, 2006 Settlement Agreement, and all negotiations, proceedings, and 

documents prepared, and statements made in connection with either of them, shall be 

without prejudice to any party and shall not be deemed or construed to be an admission 

or confession by any party of any fact, matter, or proposition of law; and (4) all parties to 

the Litigation shall stand in the same procedural position as if the Amended Settlement 

Agreement and the February 14, 2006 Settlement Agreement had not been negotiated, 

made, or filed with the Court. 

If the class-action settlement is terminated or not approved, the Amended 

Settlement Agreement and the superseded February, 2006 Settlement Agreement and all 

negotiations and proceedings relating thereto shall be withdrawn without prejudice as to 

the rights of any and all parties thereto, who shall be restored to their respective 

procedural positions existing before the date of any settlement agreement. 

The Court may: (i) approve the Amended Settlement Agreement, with such 

modifications as may be agreed to by Defendants and Plaintiff, without further notice; 

and (ii) adjourn the aforesaid Final Fairness Hearing from time to time, by oral 

announcement at the hearing on July 31, 2007 without further notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 December 27, 2006 

___________________________

Howard R. Lloyd 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Northern District of California 

Case 5:04-cv-01463-HRL Document 137 Filed 12/27/06 Page 21 of 21