FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 1 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

PUBLIC

In the Matter of: 

Docket No. 9408 

Intuit Inc., a corporation. 

RESPONDENT INTUIT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OR LIMIT 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S EVIDENCE OF CONSUMER COMPLAINTS 

Intuit respectfully moves to exclude exhibits and preclude testimony related to 

complaints collected by the FTC’s Consumer Sentinel Network as irrelevant and unreliable 

hearsay. Specifically, Intuit moves to exclude GX502, GX503, GX504, and any testimony from 

Diana Shiller or other witnesses testifying on behalf of Complaint Counsel (CC) regarding the 

contents of any of those exhibits. 

The 739 hearsay complaints found in these three exhibits have little to no probative 

value. Indeed, CC previously conceded that 343 of them are irrelevant and withdrew them from 

their initial disclosures. The remaining 396 represent only 0.0005 percent of the 86.4 million 

TurboTax customers who filed a tax return from TY 2015 to TY 2021. RX1018 ¶68. And for a 

host of reasons—reasons broken down by category in appendices attached to this motion—the 

complaints do not suggest that Intuit’s advertisements were deceptive. Any evidentiary value the 

complaints have, moreover, is further diminished by the fact that CC made no effort to verify or 

otherwise substantiate them. The complaints therefore bear no indicia of reliability. To the 

contrary, many are demonstrably inaccurate, do not reflect consumers’ actual experiences, and/or 

otherwise do not indicate that the complainants were deceived. Most of the complaints do not 

even relate to CC’s allegations. Because CC have not attempted to establish that the complaints 

1 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 2 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

are “reliable,” and because many are plainly “[i]rrelevant” and “immaterial” to CC’s claim here, 

16 C.F.R. §3.43(b), they should be excluded. 

I. BACKGROUND 

CC’s reliance on Sentinel complaints has been a moving target. CC’s initial disclosures 

included a list of 1,435 consumers whose “complaints were obtained by searching the Federal 

Trade Commission’s Consumer Sentinel database for complaints ... about ‘TurboTax’ or ‘Turbo 

Tax’ that contained the word ‘free.’” Woodman Decl. ¶3. Just two weeks after providing that 

list, CC replaced it with one containing only 571 supposed complaints drawn from Sentinel. Id. 

¶4. CC removed over 343 of those names four months later, App’x A, narrowing the list to 

approximately 228 complaints. Woodman Decl. ¶5. Five days after that, CC added a 

supplemental set of 168 complaints. Id. ¶6. CC’s exhibit list, however, includes the 343 

complaints that were previously removed from the disclosures—suggesting that CC may rely on 

those complaints anew. See GX502-504. 

During discussions with Intuit’s counsel, CC acknowledged that they had done nothing to 

verify the accuracy or authenticity of any of the complaints. Woodman Decl. ¶7; see also 

GX161 at 353:14-354:13; Ex. 1 at 189:7-11. Intuit thus performed its own investigation, issuing 

deposition subpoenas for 54 of the purported complainants. Woodman Decl. ¶8. Ultimately, 15 

depositions were scheduled, but 5 of those 15 complainants did not appear (App’x I). Of the 

remaining 39 subpoenaed complainants, 19 were removed when CC revised its disclosures, and 

Intuit withdrew an additional 20 subpoenas after determining that deposition testimony was not 

even necessary to establish the complaints were unreliable or irrelevant. Woodman Decl. ¶¶9-

10. 

Intuit also subpoenaed 316 additional complainants identified in CC’s final disclosures, 

requesting documents in support of their complaints. Id. ¶11. Of those 316 consumers, most 

2 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 3 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

(242) never responded, and an additional 13 were unreachable due to insufficient contact 

PUBLIC

information. Id. Of the 61 consumers who responded, only 23 possessed and produced 

materials. Id. These responses identified 13 consumers (or more than 20 percent of the 

responders) who represented that they had not complained at all or that their complaint was 

irrelevant to CC’s allegations. Id. 

Undeterred, CC have included 739 complaints on their exhibit list—including, again, 343 

complaints that CC recognized were irrelevant and had already removed from their initial 

disclosures. CC have also indicated that they do not intend to call any of the complainants as 

witnesses, demonstrating that CC—despite bearing the burden of establishing admissibility at the 

evidentiary hearing, see, e.g., Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175-176 (1987)—do not 

intend to offer any additional evidence to attempt to establish reliability, relevance, or 

materiality. 

II. ARGUMENT 

Under the Commission’s rules, unreliable, irrelevant, or immaterial evidence must be 

excluded. 16 C.F.R. §3.43(b). And hearsay is admissible only where it “is relevant, material, 

and bears satisfactory indicia of reliability so that its use is fair.” Id. None of the exhibits that 

are the subject of this motion is relevant or sufficiently reliable to be admissible. 

A. Most Of The Complaints Are Irrelevant 

Most of the Sentinel complaints at issue here are inadmissible because they are not 

relevant to CC’s allegations. CC themselves recognized that 343 of the complaints were not 

relevant and removed them from CC’s initial disclosures. App’x A. On that basis alone, those 

343 complaints must be excluded. 

Even setting aside CC’s concession, those complaints (and others) are on their face 

unrelated to any aspect of the alleged deception. For example, the exhibits at issue contain 

3 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 4 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

complaints that concern: the amount of the complainant’s tax refund,1 delays in receiving 

refunds,2

 the purported deletion of TurboTax customer accounts,3 issues accessing data on 

adjusted gross income,4 issues importing tax data into paid products,5 rideshare and other nonincome-related discounts,6

 and TurboTax Canada.7 In fact, 24 complaints that CC has not 

withdrawn from their disclosures are from individuals who never even started (let alone finished) 

their taxes using any TurboTax product. App’x B. 

Moreover, multiple complainants confirmed that their complaints had nothing to do with 

TurboTax’s advertising. GX138 at 40:11-41:2; GX125 at 26:13-28:15, 29:1-30:7; GX128 at 

16:23-17:4, 28:4-12, 28:21-29:1; GX136 at 35:25-36:20; 72:8-73:1. For example, two 

complainants (Ms. Joshi and Ms. Boldini) moved to quash their subpoenas on the ground that 

their complaints were “unrelated to this case.”8

 And another provided a declaration stating: “[I] 

have no issues or concerns with Intuit’s advertising. ... My complaint was not about advertising 

for the TurboTax product. I was not misled—through ads or otherwise—about whether I would 

qualify for TurboTax Free Edition.” RX344 (emphasis added). Still other complainants 

similarly testified that their complaints were irrelevant to CC’s claims: one confirmed that his 

1

 GX502 (Sentinel Ref. Nos. 130495007, 70018493, 86911706, 104961507). 

2

 GX502 (Ref. Nos. 106878141, 139087290, 83945875, 138450005, 134354638, 120586711). 

3

 GX502 (Ref. Nos. 125229543, 122996444, 95594624). 

4

 GX502 (Ref. No. 114925174). 

5

 GX502 (Ref. No. 83852520). 

6

 App’x E. 

7

 GX502 (Ref. Nos. 106735263, 149051812, 146359706). 

8

 GX502 (Ref. No. 107039236) (Boldini); GX504 (Ref. No. 150243514) (Joshi). 

4 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 5 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

complaint was about QuickBooks only, GX134 at 10:19-24, 14:9-14; a second admitted that he 

PUBLIC

had only ever used TurboTax Desktop products to file his taxes, GX130 at 37:15-19; 38:16-39:9; 

a third admitted that his complaint was about the increased price of TurboTax Deluxe, not that he 

was misled by TurboTax advertising, GX137 at 74:14-75:2; and a fourth confirmed that his 

complaint did not state he was deceived by any Intuit advertising, GX122 at 24:12-15. These 

responses starkly confirm the irrelevance of the complaints CC now seek to admit. 

Furthermore, several complaints are focused on the IRS’s Free File Program, which is not 

at issue here. App’x F; see also GX136 at 19:11-18 (consumer confirming in deposition that his 

complaint was about the IRS Free File program, not Intuit’s advertising); GX125 at 59:18-60:13 

(similar). Particularly since CC have asserted privilege to shield their communications with the 

IRS, it would be manifestly unfair for CC to be able to use the IRS Program as a sword against 

Intuit. 

CC relies on these irrelevant complaints to artificially inflate the number of consumers 

who have complained about TurboTax’s free advertising. That so many complaints have already 

been shown to be irrelevant undermines the entire set of complaints. And once the wholly 

irrelevant complaints are removed, the remaining potentially relevant complaints represent a 

miniscule, “immaterial” percentage of TurboTax’s customer base. 16 C.F.R. §3.43(b). The 

complaint exhibits should therefore be excluded in their entirety. At a minimum, the irrelevant 

complaints identified in the appendices should be excluded because they have no probative 

value. 

B. The Complaints Are Unreliable Hearsay 

In addition to being irrelevant, the exhibits are hearsay because they are out-of-court 

statements CC offer “to prove the truth of the matter[s] asserted.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). 

Specifically, CC intend to use these complaints to prove deception. Woodman Decl. ¶12. The 

5 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 6 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

hearsay rule has specifically been applied to statements in consumer complaints. See Williams v. 

Remington Arms Co., 2008 WL 222496, at *8-9 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2008). 

Relevant factors in determining whether hearsay evidence “bears satisfactory indicia of 

reliability so that its use is fair,” 16 C.F.R. §3.43(b), include “the context in which the hearsay 

material was created, whether the statement was sworn to, and whether it is corroborated or 

contradicted by other forms of direct evidence,” FTC Rules of Practice, 74 Fed. Reg. 1804, 1816 

(Jan. 13, 2009). Courts also consider “whether the declarant is available to testify,” and 

“whether the party objecting to the hearsay statements subpoenas the declarant.” Glassman v. 

Azar, 2019 WL 2917990, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 8, 2019) (citing Calhoun v. Bailar, 626 F.2d 145, 

149 (9th Cir. 1980)). And with respect to consumer complaints in particular, courts examine 

whether the complainants “reported roughly similar experiences,” whether they had “motive to 

lie,” and whether there is risk the reported experiences were the result of “faulty perception, 

memory, or meaning.” FTC v. Figgie Int’l, Inc., 994 F.2d 595, 608 (9th Cir. 1993). All of these 

various factors indicate that the Sentinel complaints are unreliable. 

Context: The context in which the complaints were created demonstrates their 

unreliability. On their face, there are no indications that the statements contained in the 

complaints were made with any degree of precision or care. Several complainants, for example, 

merely pasted a hyperlink to a ProPublica article, without any substantive complaint detailing 

their individual experiences.9

 And other complaints expressly mention ProPublica reporting or 

litigation against Intuit (including this litigation) as the impetus for the complaint. App’x G. 

Among the limited number of depositions Intuit was able to conduct, in fact, two consumers 

admitted being inspired to complain by ProPublica’s (mistaken) reporting. See GX128 at 51:14-

9

 GX502 (Ref. Nos. 107952295, 108309026, 115309837, 132053746, 115307158). 

6 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 7 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

52:11; GX138 at 46:23-47:16. Complaints that merely parrot reporting or litigation allegations 

PUBLIC

that Intuit vehemently disputes—without any personalized factual content—reflect “faulty 

perception” and are not reliable. Figgie, 994 F.2d at 608. 

In addition, Intuit already resolved the claims of dozens of complainants who were 

parties to a mass-arbitration settlement. App’x C. Those complainants were potentially biased 

in light of their arbitration claims, and they ultimately released all claims without establishing 

that Intuit had engaged in any wrongdoing. It would be blatantly unfair for CC to rely on their 

complaints in these circumstances. 

Making matters worse, CC performed virtually no investigation into the validity of the 

complaints to confirm the consumers’ identities, each one’s status as an actual TurboTax 

customer, or the accuracy of all the statements in the complaints. To the contrary, CC’s 

investigator Diana Shiller confirmed that she attempted to contact only twelve complainants and 

ultimately spoke to only two. See RX278-280; Ex. 1 at 115:16-116:5. A representative for the 

Bureau of Consumer Protection similarly confirmed that the Bureau did not perform any 

independent investigation of the validity of the complaints. GX161 at 353:14-354:13. 

Several complaints, however, require no investigation, as they are deficient on their 

face—providing missing or incomplete names, no address, or clearly fake phone numbers. 

App’x K. And numerous complaints are marked: “ADMIN JUDGED INVALID. The consumer 

complaint is incomplete or unintelligible and the consumer cannot be reached, or the consumer 

and the business did not have a marketplace transaction.” App’x J. These complaints have thus 

already been determined to be unreliable—yet CC still apparently intends to rely on them. That 

is unquestionably impermissible. 

7 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 8 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

 

PUBLIC

The importance of CC’s and the Bureau’s failure is underscored by Intuit’s investigation, 

which, again, revealed non-customer complainants, App’x B, as well as consumers who either 

had no memory of their complaints or affirmatively confirmed that they had not written a 

complaint about Intuit, App’x N; see RX354, RX372. One complainant, for example, said the 

complaint was filed under her name by her husband, who “suffered a brain injury and has 

memory problems”; upon learning that, CC maintained that the complaint was “relevant and 

[would] assist the trier of fact in this case.” RX345. 

The unsworn, uncorroborated, and inaccurate nature of the complaints: If more were 

needed to demonstrate the inadmissibility of the Sentinel complaints at issue, none of them is 

sworn or corroborated by documentary evidence. Indeed, when Intuit sought such documentary 

corroboration through subpoenas, it received documents from well under ten percent of the 

subpoenaed individuals (23 of 316), suggesting that the balance of complaints cannot be 

corroborated. See App’x L-M (non-responding complainants).10 

For many of the complainants, moreover, Intuit uncovered information that outright 

undermined the complaints. For example, one complainant Intuit deposed did not even pay to 

use TurboTax the year that he complained of having to pay. GX136 at 21:19-22:1; 73:2. Other 

deposed complainants had never even started their taxes in Free Edition, suggesting that they had 

always intended to use a paid product. See, e.g., RX146, RX207. 

These concerns are underscored by an analysis conducted by independent coders at the 

direction of Tuck School of Business Professor Peter Golder. That analysis revealed “substantial 

heterogeneity in the complaint types,” RX1018 ¶78—not the “roughly similar experiences” 

10 The 23 complaints by individuals who responded to the document subpoenas should still be 

excluded for the other reasons provided in this motion. 

8 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 9 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

characteristic of reliability, Figgie, 994 F.2d at 608. The independent analysis indicated, for 

example, that more than 20 percent of the complainants who “expected to file for free” never 

even mentioned TurboTax advertising as the source of that expectation. RX1018 ¶78; App’x D. 

And of all 396 complaints from CC’s final disclosures, nearly 40 percent referenced add-on 

products that are not advertised as free to begin with. RX1018 ¶79; App’x H. Overall, 70 

percent of the 396 complaints either omitted references to “Free” or “Advertising” altogether or 

included additional information casting doubt on the complaint’s reliability (e.g., the 

complainants referred to litigation, or were repeat or prior customers). RX1018 ¶80. 

Witness availability and Intuit’s effort to subpoena the declarants: Yet another reason 

to exclude the complaints is that CC has not attempted to establish that any of these complainants 

is unavailable to testify, which would allow Intuit to cross-examine them and test their 

assertions. Although Intuit diligently attempted to depose a subset of the complainants during 

the abbreviated discovery period, it could not reasonably have deposed all. And, as noted, the 

deposition testimony Intuit was able to obtain raised substantial questions about the accuracy of 

the relevant complaints. In light of that already-identified unreliability, it would be “[un]fair,” 

16 C.F.R. § 3.43(b), to permit CC to introduce cursory, facially imprecise complaints in the place 

of live witnesses, and to deny Intuit the opportunity to cross-examine and probe the validity of 

the assertions. 

III. CONCLUSION 

The Court should grant Intuit’s Motion and exclude all references to these purported 

customer complaints, which constitute irrelevant, unreliable hearsay that CC has made no 

attempt to substantiate. 

9 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 10 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

 

PUBLIC

Dated: February 10, 2023 

Jonathan E. Paikin 

Jennifer Milici 

Derek A. Woodman 

Andres C. Salinas 

Molly Dillaway 

2100 Pennsylvania Ave NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

Telephone: (202) 663-6000 

Facsimile: (202) 663-6363 

Jonathan.Paikin@wilmerhale.com 

Jennifer.Milici@wilmerhale.com 

Derek.Woodman@wilmerhale.com 

 Respectfully submitted, 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 

AND DORR LLP 

/s/ David Z. Gringer 

David Z. Gringer 

7 World Trade Center 

250 Greenwich St. 

New York, NY 10007 

Telephone: (212) 230-8800 

Facsimile: (212) 230-8888 

David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com 

Attorneys for Respondent Intuit Inc. 

10 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 11 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

PUBLIC

In the Matter of: 

Docket No. 9408 Intuit Inc., a corporation. 

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 

ADDITIONAL PROVISION 4 OF THE SCHEDULING ORDER 

Pursuant to Additional Provision No. 4 of the April 27, 2022 Scheduling Order, as 

adopted in the September 12, 2022 First Revised Scheduling Order, Respondent Intuit Inc. 

respectfully submits this Statement representing that Counsel for Respondent has conferred with 

Complaint Counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by this motion. The parties 

corresponded by email on February 8 and 9, 2023 concerning this motion but were unable to 

reach an agreement. 

Dated: February 10, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 

AND DORR LLP 

Jonathan E. Paikin 

Jennifer Milici 

/s/ David Z. Gringer 

David Z. Gringer 

7 World Trade Center 

Derek A. Woodman 250 Greenwich St. 

2001 Pennsylvania Ave NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

Telephone: (202) 663-6000 

Facsimile: (202) 663-6363 

Jonathan.Paikin@wilmerhale.com 

Jennifer.Milici@wilmerhale.com 

Derek.Woodman@wilmerhale.com 

New York, NY 10007 

Telephone: (212) 230-8800 

Facsimile: (212) 230-8888 

David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com 

Attorneys for Respondent Intuit Inc. 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 12 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

PUBLIC

In the Matter of: 

Docket No. 9408 Intuit Inc., a corporation. 

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON RESPONDENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE 

Upon consideration of Respondent’s motion in limine to exclude or limit Complaint 

Counsel’s evidence of consumer complaints, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the exhibits marked as GX502, GX503, and GX504 

shall not be introduced as evidence in the evidentiary hearing in this matter. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no witness will be permitted to testify concerning the 

contents of GX502, GX503, or GX504 at the evidentiary hearing in this matter. 

ORDERED: ___________________________ 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: ______________________ 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 13 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

PUBLIC

In the Matter of: 

Docket No. 9408 Intuit Inc., a corporation. 

DECLARATION OF DEREK WOODMAN IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OR LIMIT COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S 

EVIDENCE OF CONSUMER COMPLAINTS 

I, Derek A. Woodman, declare as follows: 

1. I am a counsel at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door LLP. I represent Intuit 

Inc. in the above-captioned proceeding. 

2. I submit this declaration in support Intuit’s motion in limine to exclude or limit 

Complaint Counsel’s evidence of consumer complaints. 

3. On April 21, 2022, pursuant to Rule 3.31(b) of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice, Complaint Counsel served on Intuit their initial disclosures. Complaint Counsel 

represented to Intuit that Appendix B of those initial disclosures “identifie[d] consumers of 

whom Complaint Counsel is aware who may have discoverable and relevant information, 

including consumers whose complaints were obtained by searching the Federal Trade 

Commission’s Consumer Sentinel database for complaints dated between January 1, 2019, and 

April 15, 2022, about ‘TurboTax’ or ‘TurboTax’ that contained the word ‘free.’” 

4. On May 6, 2022, Complaint Counsel replaced their Appendix B with a revised 

Consumer Sentinel Contact list and an accompanying set of 571 consumer complaints. 

1 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 14 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

 

PUBLIC

5. On September 14, 2022, Complaint Counsel served on Intuit a Revised Consumer 

Sentinel Contact list containing only 228 of the 571 complaints previously served on May 6. 

6. On September 19, 2022, Complaint Counsel served on Intuit a supplemental 

Consumer Contact List and an accompanying set of 168 consumer complaints. 

7. During discussions with counsel for Intuit, Complaint Counsel acknowledged that 

they had not attempted to verify the accuracy or authenticity of any of the complaints. 

8. During fact discovery, Intuit issued deposition subpoenas to 54 of the 

complainants identified in the Consumer Sentinel Contact List served by Complaint Counsel on 

May 6. 

9. Ultimately, depositions were scheduled for of 15 of those 54 consumer 

complainants. For 5 of the scheduled depositions, however, the consumer did not appear. The 

other 10 depositions took place as scheduled. 

10. Of the remaining 39 complainants subpoenaed for depositions, 19 were removed 

when Complaint Counsel revised the Consumer Sentinel Contact List on September 14. Intuit 

withdrew an additional 20 subpoenas after determining that deposition testimony was not 

necessary. 

11. In addition, Intuit issued subpoenas to 316 other complainants identified in the 

Consumer Sentinel Contact lists, requesting documents in support of their complaints or 

otherwise relevant to CC’s allegations. Of those 316 consumers, 242 never responded, and an 

additional 13 were unreachable due to insufficient contact information. Of the 61 consumers 

who responded, only 23 produced any documents, and 13 consumers represented that they had 

not complained at all or that their complaint was irrelevant to CC’s allegations. 

2 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 15 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

12. On February 9, 2023, when conferring about Complaint Counsel’s motion in 

PUBLIC

limine to exclude evidence of consumer satisfaction, Complaint Counsel reiterated that they 

intend to introduce consumer complaint evidence as evidence of deception. 

13. Attached as Appendix A is a list of the complaints that were withdrawn from 

Complain Counsel’s initial disclosures. This list was compiled based on a comparison of the 

Sentinel Contact list served on May 6, 2022 with the Revised Consumer Sentinel Consumer 

Contact list served on September 14, 2022. 

14. Attached as Appendix B is a list of complaints by consumers who did not file 

their taxes using TurboTax. This list is derived from RX817 (INTUIT-FTC-PART3-

000608568), which identifies the complainants for whom there is no record of an associated 

TurboTax AuthID during Tax Years 2014-2021, such that Intuit could not confirm they were 

TurboTax customers during that time. 

15. Attached as Appendix C is a list of complaints by consumers who filed arbitration 

demands against Intuit. This list was based on a comparison of GX502-504 to the names 

contained in RX383 (Exhibit A to the “Confidential Master Settlement Administration 

Agreement,” between Intuit and Keller Lenkner, dated February 23, 2022). 

16. Attached as Appendix D is a list of complaints that do not mention TurboTax 

advertising, based on backup data to RX1018 (January 13, 2023 Expert Report of Peter Golder, 

“Complaint Independent Coding Results.xlsx” dataset, type5). 

17. Attached as Appendix E is a list of complaints referencing non-income related 

discounts, based on backup data to RX1018 (January 13, 2023 Expert Report of Peter Golder, 

“Complaint Independent Coding Results.xlsx” dataset, type4). 

3 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 16 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

18. Attached as Appendix F is a list of complaints referencing the IRS Free File 

PUBLIC

program, based on backup data to RX1018 (January 13, 2023 Expert Report of Peter Golder, 

“Complaint Independent Coding Results.xlsx” dataset, type8). 

19. Attached as Appendix G is a list of complaints referencing ProPublica reporting, 

the FTC investigation, and/or this lawsuit, based on backup data to RX1018 (January 13, 2023 

Expert Report of Peter Golder, “Complaint Independent Coding Results.xlsx” dataset, type7). 

20. Attached as Appendix H is a list of complaints referencing add-on products that 

are not advertised as free, based on backup data to RX1018 (January 13, 2023 Expert Report of 

Peter Golder, “Complaint Independent Coding Results.xlsx” dataset, type9). 

21. Attached as Appendix I is a list compiled by counsel for Intuit of complaints by 

individuals who failed to appear for noticed depositions noticed by Intuit. 

22. Attached as Appendix J is a list of complaints marked “Admin Judged Invalid,” 

based on a review of the “Complaint Info Complaint Disposition” field in the FTC Sentinel 

complaints, GX502-504. 

23. Attached as Appendix K is a list of complaints with deficient or no contact 

information, based on a review of the “Consumer First Name,” “Consumer Last Name,” 

“Consumer Address,” and “Consumer Phone” fields in the FTC Sentinel complaints, GX502-

504. 

24. Attached as Appendix L is a list compiled by counsel for Intuit of complaints by 

consumers who failed to respond to documentary subpoenas. 

25. Attached as Appendix M is a list compiled by counsel for Intuit of complaints by 

consumers who received documentary subpoenas and were deemed to be unreachable because 

their residential addresses or email addresses were identified as undeliverable. 

4 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 17 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

26. Attached as Appendix N is a list compiled by counsel for Intuit of complaints by 

consumers who stated in communications with counsel that they had no memory of their 

complaints or confirmed they had not written a complaint regarding TurboTax. 

27. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct excerpt of the transcript of the 

deposition of Diana Shiller taken by Intuit as part of this proceeding on January 9, 2023. 

28. Attached is a true and correct excerpt of GX122, the transcript of the deposition 

of consumer Justin Deryke taken by Intuit as part of this proceeding on September 14, 2022. 

29. Attached is a true and correct excerpt of GX125, the transcript of the deposition 

of consumer Caitlyn Beck taken by Intuit as part of this proceeding on October 13, 2022. 

30. Attached is a true and correct excerpt of GX128, the transcript of the deposition 

of consumer Connor Benbrook taken by Intuit as part of this proceeding on October 25, 2022. 

31. Attached is a true and correct excerpt of GX130, the transcript of the deposition 

of consumer Michael Tew taken by Intuit as part of this proceeding on November 3, 2022. 

32. Attached is a true and correct excerpt of GX134, the transcript of the deposition 

of consumer Dennis Hobson taken by Intuit as part of this proceeding on September 15, 2022. 

33. Attached is a true and correct excerpt of GX136, the transcript of the deposition 

of consumer Adam Schulte taken by Intuit as part of this proceeding on September 20, 2022. 

34. Attached is a true and correct excerpt of GX137, the transcript of the deposition 

of consumer Benjamin DuKatz taken by Intuit as part of this proceeding on September 29, 2022. 

35. Attached is a true and correct excerpt of GX138, the transcript of the deposition 

of consumer Andrew Adamson taken by Intuit as part of this proceeding on October 6, 2022. 

5 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 18 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

36. Attached is a true and correct excerpt of GX161, the transcript of the deposition 

PUBLIC

of the Bureau of Consumer Protection (through William Maxson), taken by Intuit as part of this 

proceeding on December 8, 2022. 

37. Attached is a true and correct copy of RX146, consumer Sherry Bodi’s TurboTax 

Filing History Chart for Tax Years 2014-2021. 

38. Attached is a true and correct copy of RX207, consumer Michael Tew’s 

TurboTax Filing History Chart for Tax Years 2014-2021. 

39. Attached are true and correct copies of RX278, RX279, and RX280, which are 

spreadsheets identified by Complaint Counsel as Diana Shiller’s Call Logs. 

40. Attached is a true and correct copy of RX344, the Declaration of Faisal Parvez, 

dated October 21, 2022. 

41. Attached is a true and correct copy of RX345, an email thread between Phoebe 

Silos, Roberto Anguizola, and consumer Diane Harlow, dated October 21, 2022. 

42. Attached is a true and correct copy of RX354, an email thread between Phoebe 

Silos and consumer David Duggan, copying Roberto Anguizola, dated October 28, 2022. 

43. Attached is a true and correct copy of RX372, the Declaration of Margaret 

Dillaway regarding the consumer complaint submitted by Christine Ahmed. 

44. Attached is a true and correct copy of RX383 (INTUIT-FTC-PART3-

000002560), Exhibit A to the “Confidential Master Settlement Administration Agreement,” 

between Intuit and Keller Lenkner, dated February 23, 2022. 

45. Attached is a true and correct copy of RX817, which identifies the complainants 

for whom there is no record of an associated TurboTax AuthID during Tax Years 2014-2021 

6 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 19 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC

46. Attached is a true and correct excerpt of RX1018, the Expert Report of Professor 

Peter N. Golder, Ph.D., dated January 13, 2023, as well as the backup data file to that report 

entitled “Complaint Independent Coding Results.xlsx.” 

47. Provided with this motion are true and correct courtesy copies of Complaint 

Counsel’s GX502-504. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on this 10th day of February, 2023. 

 By: /s/ Derek Woodman

 DEREK WOODMAN 

 Wilmer Cutler Pickering

 Hale and Dorr LLP 

2100 Pennsylvania Ave NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

Telephone: (202) 663-6000 

Derek.Woodman@wilmerhale.com 

7 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 20 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

APPENDIX A - N

(Submitted In Camera)
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 21 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

EXHIBIT 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

2 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

3 ___________________________

 : 

4 In the Matter of: :

 :

5 Intuit Inc., a corporation : Docket No. 9408

 : 

6 ___________________________: 

7 

8 Monday, January 9, 2023 

9

10 Deposition of DIANA SHILLER, 

11 taken Remotely Via Zoom videoconference with the 

12 witness participating from the Offices of the 

13 Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

14 NW, Washington, DC, beginning at 9:19 a.m.,

15 Eastern Standard Time, before Ryan K. Black, a 

16 Registered Professional Reporter, Certified 

17 Livenote Reporter and Notary Public in and for 

18 the District of Columbia. 

19 

20

21 

22 

23 

24 

25

Page 1 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 22 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 23 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 

2 UNITED STATES FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

 BY: ROBERTO ANGUIZOLA, ESQ. - Via Zoom 

3 REBECCA PLETT, ESQ. - Via Zoom

 JAMES EVANS, ESQ. - Via Zoom 

4 SARAH TONNESEN, ESQ. - Via Zoom

 600 Pennsylvania avenue, NW 

5 Washington, DC 20580

 202.326.2222 

6 ranguizola@ftc.gov

 rplett@ftc.gov 

7 james.evans@ftc.gov

 stonnesen@ftc.gov 

8

 Representing - U.S. Federal Trade Commission 

9 

10 WILMER HALE LLP

 BY: JENNIFER MILICI, ESQ. - Via Zoom 

11 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

 Washington, DC 20006 

12 202.663.6000

 jennifer.milici@wilmerhale.com 

13 

14 WILMER HALE LLP

 BY: PHOEBE SILOS, ESQ. - Via Zoom 

15 7 World Trade Center

 250 Greenwich Street 

16 New York, New York 10007

 212.230.8800 

17 phoebe.silos@wilmerhale.com 

18 Representing - Intuit 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Page 2 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 
1 Q. Do you read the complaints and then 

2 determine what they mean? 

3 A. I review the complaints and I summarized 

4 what the consumers were reporting.

5 Q. So you are summarizing the data that 

6 you're reading, correct? 

7 A. Yes. 

8 Q. Are you applying any particular 

9 expertise when you're reading those complaints,

10 beyond reading? 

11 A. No. 

12 Q. Is there any kind of specialized 

13 training that you are bringing to bear when you 

14 are reading those complaints?

15 A. No. 

16 Q. And most of the complaints that you 

17 referenced in your declaration, those are not 

18 consumers that you spoke to, correct? 

19 A. The 60 consumer complaints that I

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 24 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

20 summarized, I did not call those 60 consumers. 

21 Q. And the declaration refers to 571 

22 consumers with complaints about TurboTax. Did 

23 you call -- how many of those 571 did you call? 

24 A. I'm not sure, because the list that I

25 was provided might have had some of those 

Page 115 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

PUBLIC
1 consumers in that group. 

2 Q. Okay. But you didn't undertake an 

3 assignment of reach out to everybody who filed a 

4 complaint, correct?

5 A. No. 

6 MS. MILICI: Okay. I want to talk now 

7 about the declaration itself, so let's admit 

8 that. That's Tab 1. 

9 (Exhibit No. RX-276, Ms. Shiller's

10 Declaration, was introduced electronically.) 

11 MS. MILICI: Okay. That will take a 

12 minute because it's a bigger document. 

13 MS. SILOS: Yeah. It's loading. Sorry 

14 about that.

15 MS. MILICI: No problem. 

16 MS. SILOS: Okay. It should be 

17 displayed now. 

18 BY MS. MILICI: 

19 Q. Okay. So for the record, this was

20 previously marked GX-342. It's in the system as 

21 RX-276, but we can talk about it as GX-342. And 

22 it's your declaration that was submitted in 

23 support of complaint counsel's motion for summary 

24 decision. Do you recognize this document?

25 A. Can you give me a second? It's a very 

Page 116 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 25 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC
1 that we mentioned earlier today, that was 

2 mentioned in a number of consumer complaints, 

3 correct? 

4 A. I don't remember if, out of the 60

5 complaints that I read, the article was 

6 mentioned. 

7 Q. Okay. So just -- so you didn't call the 

8 consumers -- any of those 60 consumers. Did you 

9 do anything else to verify that their complaint

10 was accurate? 

11 A. For the list of 60 consumers, no. 

12 Q. For the broader list of 571, did you do 

13 anything else to confirm their complaint? 

14 A. I did call some of those consumers, as

15 mentioned previously. And I did go to the 

16 TurboTax website and software to see if that 

17 would -- if my experience was similar to those 

18 consumers' experiences. And I did review the ads 

19 that were run through that period of time.

20 Q. When you say you went to the website to 

21 confirm whether their experiences were accurate, 

22 which consumer complaints are you referring to? 

23 A. The ones prior to 2021, the consumers 

24 that I called.

25 Q. Okay. So not the con -- so you're 

Page 189 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 26 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 27 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

5

10

15

20

25

 <%11516,Signature%>

PUBLIC

1 C E R T I F I C A T E 

2 

3 I do hereby certify that I am a Notary 

4 Public in good standing, that the aforesaid

 testimony was taken before me, pursuant to 

6 notice, at the time and place indicated; that 

7 said deponent was by me duly sworn to tell the 

8 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

9 truth; that the testimony of said deponent was

 correctly recorded in machine shorthand by me and 

11 thereafter transcribed under my supervision with 

12 computer-aided transcription; that the deposition 

13 is a true and correct record of the testimony 

14 given by the witness; and that I am neither of

 counsel nor kin to any party in said action, nor 

16 interested in the outcome thereof. 

17 

18 WITNESS my hand and official seal this 

19 12th day of January, 2023. 

21 

22 

23 Notary Public 

24 

Page 228 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 28 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

PUBLIC

2

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 

3

 In the Matter of 

4

 Intuit, Inc., a corporation, 

5

 Respondent. 

6

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 

7 

8 

9 

10 Remote deposition of JUSTIN T. DERYKE, taken 

11 pursuant to Notice, was held via videoconference, 

12 commencing September 14, 2022, at 9:07 a.m., on the 

13 above date, before Amanda McCredo, a Court Reporter and 

14 Notary Public in the State of New York. 

15

 - - -

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Page 1 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

CC-00001155
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 29 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

5

10

15

20

25

PUBLIC

1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 

2 Appearing on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission: 

3 JAMES EVANS, ESQ,

 REBECCA PLETT, ESQ. 

4 Federal Trade Commission

 702 D Street Southwest

 Washington, DC 20002

 james.evans@ftc.gov 

6 rplett@ftc.gov

 202.326.2222 

7 

8 

9 Appearing on behalf of Intuit, Inc.:

 SPENCER TODD, ESQ.

 WilmerHale LLP 

11 7 World Trade Center

 250 Greenwich Street 

12 New York, New York 10007

 spencer.todd@wilmerhale.com 

13 212.230.8800 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Page 2 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

CC-00001156
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 30 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

5

10

15

20

25

1 dashboard to access the discount. 

2 Q Okay. 

3 But just to confirm, the different website 

4 that you're referring to is the Lyft dashboard,

 correct? 

6 A Yes. 

7 Q Your complaint to the Better Business 

8 Bureau doesn't say anything about TurboTax's 

9 advertising on media or television or anything about

 its commercial products? 

11 A No, not specifically. 

12 Q And your complaint doesn't say that you 

13 were deceived by any of their advertisements, 

14 correct?

 A No. 

16 Q Do you see on the fourth page of this same 

17 document, RX 116, the box that says "complaint 

18 info/complaint disposition"? 

19 A Yes.

 Q And you see where it says, quote, 

21 "Resolved. The complainant verified the complaint 

22 was resolved to his or her satisfaction"? 

23 A Yes. 

24 Q Was your complaint in fact resolved?

 A Yes. 

Page 24 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

PUBLIC CC-00001178
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 31 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

5

10

15

20

25

 <%28363,Signature%>

1

19

 C E R T I F I C A T E 

PUBLIC

2 

3 I, AMANDA McCREDO, a Shorthand Reporter 

4 and Notary Public of the State of New York, do

 hereby certify: 

6 That the witness whose examination is 

7 hereinbefore set forth was duly sworn, and that 

8 such examination is a true record of the 

9 testimony given by such witness.

 I further certify that I am not related to any 

11 of the parties to this action by blood or 

12 marriage, and that I am in no way interested in 

13 the outcome of this matter. 

14 

16 

17 

18 

21 

22 

23 

24 

AMANDA McCREDO 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

Page 30 

CC-00001184
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 32 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

PUBLIC

2

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 

3

 In the Matter of 

4

 Intuit, Inc., a corporation, 

5

 Respondent. 

6

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 

7 

8 

9 

10 Remote deposition of CAITLYN BECK, taken 

11 pursuant to Notice, was held via videoconference, 

12 commencing October 13, 2022, at 8:32 a.m., on the above 

13 date, before Amanda McCredo, a Court Reporter and 

14 Notary Public in the State of New York. 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Page 1 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

CC-00001355
1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 

2 Appearing on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission: 

3 ROBERTO ANGUIZOLA, ESQ.

 Federal Trade Commission 

4 702 D Street Southwest

 Washington, DC 20002 

5 ranguizola@ftc.gov

 202.326.2222 

6 

7 

8 Appearing on behalf of Intuit, Inc.: 

9 DEREK WOODMAN, ESQ.

 WilmerHale LLP 

10 7 World Trade Center

 250 Greenwich Street 

11 New York, New York 10007

 derek.woodman@wilmerhale.com 

12 212.230.8800 

13 

14 ALSO PRESENT: 

15 JAKE FRECH - Federal Trade Commission 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Page 2 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 33 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC CC-00001356
1 to be incorrect? 

2 A I mean, in tax year 2019, I don't believe I 

3 had an abandoned return -- I might have just stopped 

4 using TurboTax for that -- because I did file my

5 taxes that year. 

6 Q Just to clarify, this is only TurboTax. So 

7 if you would have filed your taxes through someone 

8 else, it wouldn't be reflected here. 

9 A Okay.

10 Q So other than that, this appears accurate? 

11 A Yes. 

12 Q Let's walk through this briefly. 

13 In tax year 2015, which would be the 

14 calendar year 2016, you started your taxes in

15 TurboTax Free Edition. 

16 Do you see that? 

17 A Yes. 

18 Q But you ultimately filed using the product 

19 TurboTax offered through the IRS Free File program;

20 is that right? 

21 A Yes, it looks to be so. 

22 Q So you were able to find the TurboTax Free 

23 File offering in tax year 2015? 

24 A Yes.

25 Q And you found the Free File offering after 

Page 26 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 34 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC CC-00001380
1 starting your return in the TurboTax commercial 

2 product, is that right? 

3 A Yes. I guess. So it's from 2015, so, I 

4 mean, we're talking about seven years ago.

5 Q How did you find the Free File product in 

6 tax year 2015? 

7 A I honestly don't know. Chances are it was 

8 more than likely through Google searches. I'm 

9 really not sure. Searches are probably a best bet.

10 Q Do you remember how you arrived at the 

11 TurboTax website in tax year 2015? 

12 A No. 

13 Q In tax year 2016, you started and finished 

14 your taxes using TurboTax Free Edition, right?

15 A Yes. 

16 Q Why did you decide to use TurboTax in tax 

17 year 2016? 

18 A Because it was still free and they had my 

19 prior tax records.

20 Q Did your -- did you consider using any 

21 other brand of tax prep software? 

22 A No, because I didn't really know of any 

23 other brands. 

24 Q And were you satisfied with the product

25 that TurboTax provided? 

Page 27 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 35 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC CC-00001381
1 A Yes. 

2 Q In tax year 2017, you again started and 

3 finished filing your tax return in TurboTax Free 

4 Edition; is that right?

5 A Yes. 

6 Q Why did you decide to use TurboTax again in 

7 that year? 

8 A Again, because it was free and they had my 

9 prior tax records.

10 Q And you were satisfied with the TurboTax 

11 product offered? 

12 A Yes. 

13 Q And did you consider using any other brand 

14 of tax prep software?

15 A No. Again, I didn't know of any others. 

16 Q In tax year 2018, you started using --

17 starting used Free Edition, but ultimately upgraded 

18 and filed your taxes using TurboTax Deluxe; is that 

19 right?

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 36 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

20 A Yes. 

21 Q So why did you decide to use TurboTax in 

22 tax year 2018? 

23 A Because I was still continuing under the 

24 impression that it was free and they also had my

25 prior tax returns on record. 

Page 28 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

PUBLIC CC-00001382
1 Q So when you went to the TurboTax website in 

2 2018, had you already used TurboTax in the three 

3 prior years; is that right? 

4 A Yes.

5 Q And you decided to use it again that year; 

6 is that right? 

7 A Yes. 

8 Q Your decision to use TurboTax in 2018, 

9 then, was not based on any TurboTax ads?

10 A I mean, it was probably -- it was 

11 supplemented by TurboTax ads certainly, but it was 

12 also because I had never had -- I had never been 

13 charged for it before, so... 

14 Q And what do you mean that it was --

15 MR. ANGUIZOLA: Derek, can we go off the 

16 record for one second? 

17 MR. WOODMAN: Yes. 

18 We are off the record. 

19 (Recess taken.)

20 BY MR. WOODMAN: 

21 Q So, we're back on the record. I just want 

22 to clarify my previous line of questioning. We were 

23 discussing your tax filing in tax year 2018. I may 

24 have referred instead to "2018."

25 So, to restate my question, why did you 

Page 29 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 37 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC CC-00001383
1 decide to use TurboTax in tax year 2018? 

2 A Yeah. It was because it was still -- to my 

3 understanding, it was free and they had my prior tax 

4 records.

5 Q So you chose to use TurboTax in tax year 

6 2018 because you used it the three prior years? 

7 A Yes. 

8 Q And was your decision to use TurboTax in 

9 tax year 2018 based on any TurboTax ads?

10 A It was supplemented by -- I think it was 

11 reinforced by the ads that I was seeing where it 

12 would -- it was still, like, the prevalence of the 

13 free messaging because I knew that it was still 

14 important to me to have a free offering for filing.

15 Q Did you consider using any other brand of 

16 tax prep software? 

17 A No, not really at the time because I had 

18 never been charged using TurboTax before and hadn't 

19 encountered any issues with it until then.

20 Q And just to summarize, why did you decide 

21 to use TurboTax every year between tax year 2015 and 

22 tax year 2018? 

23 A Because it was free and it was the most 

24 well known. It was kind of the only one I knew of.

25 Q And you said you were satisfied with the 

Page 30 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 38 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC CC-00001384
1 date.) 

2 BY MR. WOODMAN: 

3 Q Directing you to what's been marked as 

4 Respondent's Exhibit 164. Let me know when you have

 that up. 

6 A Yes, yes. 

7 Q Do you recognize this document? 

8 A Yes. 

9 Q What is it?

 A This is the final copy of the declaration 

11 that I made to the FTC. 

12 Q If you can please turn to Exhibit C, which 

13 starts on page 10. 

14 A Yes.

 Q What is Exhibit C? 

16 A This is a copy of the complaint that I made 

17 to the Better Business Bureau. 

18 Q So looking at your original complaint at 

5

10

15

19 the top of the page, "Apparently I didn't use the

20 correct TurboTax Freedom as opposed to TurboTax 

21 Free, which feels massively misleading." And you 

22 also wrote "Nothing ever showed up stating I was 

23 using the wrong free version of TurboTax or I had a 

24 version I needed to use because of my low income."

25 A Yes. 

Page 59 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 39 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC 3
1 Q So your complaint was about Intuit's 

2 failure to disclose the program it offered through 

3 the IRS Free File program; is that right? 

4 A Kind of. There were multiple issues that

5 occurred, but definitely -- it wasn't that they 

6 failed to disclose; it felt like it was buried. It 

7 felt like people were led away from the thing that 

8 was actually free for something that sounded almost 

9 identical but ended up paid.

10 Q So your complaint was about them, in your 

11 words -- or to paraphrase your words, misdirecting 

12 people from the IRS Free File program? 

13 A Yes. 

14 MR. ANGUIZOLA: Objection. That

15 mischaracterizes the complaint. 

16 BY MR. WOODMAN: 

17 Q Can you restate your answer, please? 

18 A I'm sorry, can you reiterate your question 

19 really quick?

20 Q We can move on. I think you stated what 

21 your complaint was about. 

22 So you also wrote that you were confused by 

23 needing to pay to file an amendment, right? 

24 A Yes.

25 Q Your original complaint does not mention 

Page 60 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 40 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC CC-00001414
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 41 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

5

10

15

20

25

 <%28363,Signature%>

1

21 

 C E R T I F I C A T E 

PUBLIC

2 

3 I, AMANDA McCREDO, a Shorthand Reporter 

4 and Notary Public of the State of New York, do

 hereby certify: 

6 That the witness whose examination is 

7 hereinbefore set forth was duly sworn, and that 

8 such examination is a true record of the 

9 testimony given by such witness.

 I further certify that I am not related to any 

11 of the parties to this action by blood or 

12 marriage, and that I am in no way interested in 

13 the outcome of this matter. 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

22

23 

24 

AMANDA McCREDO 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

Page 80 

CC-00001434
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 42 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

GX128

(Submitted In Camera) 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 43 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

GX130

(Submitted In Camera) 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 44 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

GX134

(Submitted In Camera) 
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

2 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

3 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

4 

5 In the Matter of 

6 Intuit, Inc., Docket No. 9408 

7 a corporation, 

8 Respondent. 

9 ________________________________ 

10

11 

12 The Virtual Deposition of ADAM BRIAN SCHULTE 

13 Taken Via Remote Zoom Videoconference 

14 Commencing at 2:02 p.m.

15 Tuesday, September 20, 2022 

16 Stenographically reported by: 

17 Joanne Marie Bugg, CSR-2592, RPR, RMR, CRR 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Job No. 5464124 

Page 1 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 45 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

20

25

PUBLIC CC-00001934
1 APPEARANCES: 

2 REBECCA PLETT 

3 ROBERTO ANGUIZOLA 

4 Federal Trade Commission 

5 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

6 Washington, DC 20580 

7 202.256.0452 

8 rplett@ftc.gov 

9 ranguizola@ftc.gov

10 Appearing on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission. 

11 

12 ELEANOR DAVIS 

13 WilmerHale LLP 

14 7 World Trade Center 

15 250 Greenwich Street 

16 New York, New York 10007 

17 212.230.8800 

18 eleanor.davis@wilmerhale.com 

19 Appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 

20

21 ALSO PRESENT: 

22 Jake Frech - paralegal 

23 

24 

25

Page 2 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 46 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC CC-00001935
1 A. Yes. The biggest thing here is that many of these 

2 people would unknowingly qualify for a free refund with 

3 the IRS Free File program that is run through TurboTax 

4 itself.

5 Q. Okay. Thank you. So having reread that, would it be 

6 fair to say that the biggest part of your complaint was 

7 about Free File? 

8 A. Well, I would say that that was probably 50 percent. 

9 But, yeah, I mean, the Free File certainly was a large

10 portion of that overall complaint. 

11 Q. Great. 

12 A. Or maybe I should say more like two-thirds to 

13 three-quarters. Because there was another underlying 

14 thing that kind of made me feel like lead to file this

15 complaint. 

16 Q. All right. Is your complaint about Free File what 

17 primarily prompted you to make your complaint? 

18 A. Yes. 

19 Q. And did you make this complaint after you finished

20 filing your taxes for tax year 2019? 

21 A. I did. 

22 Q. And in tax year 2019, how did you file your taxes? 

23 A. I had started doing my -- well, I used the IRS Free 

24 File program to submit that and, you know, so when it

25 was all said and done Free File, I had started with the 

Page 19 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 47 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC CC-00001952
1 other office within the TurboTax entity itself. But 

2 they gave me or provided me a phone number to call. 

3 And after, you know, it took a couple attempts because 

4 trying to catch me when I'm not working, and we

5 basically had a phone conversation where I kind of 

6 stated how I felt about it, and just stated like 

7 ultimately like what it boils down to is I just felt 

8 like it was a lack of transparency on TurboTax's part 

9 that was misleading people. And at the very least I

10 just felt like, you know, putting this complaint like 

11 to get my voice heard, and would TurboTax really change 

12 anything when it's all said and done. Maybe, maybe 

13 not. So I just, you know, I explained that over the 

14 phone call. And after, you know, they said they would

15 do what they can, and I just kind of left it at that, 

16 because at that point I figured like okay. I'd done my 

17 thing. I have voiced my concern, and it is what it is 

18 at that point. 

19 Q. Okay. And you said you had voiced your concern. When

20 you say concern, that wasn't based on -- well, let me 

21 rephrase. Was that a concern based on your own 

22 experience paying? 

23 A. Well, not my experience. Not my personal, because I 

24 luckily had like kept searching and searching, and was

25 able to stumble on the Free File version. So I did not 

Page 21 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 48 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC CC-00001954
1 end up paying. But through seeing other people's 

2 reactions to TurboTax that year, like and even some 

3 acquaintances, or like not acquaintances, but friends 

4 of friends that I know, like overheard that they ended

5 up having to pay, and then come to find out, though, 

6 they actually didn't like after the fact. 

7 So it was like I kind of felt like I was 

8 lucky, because I managed to find that, and didn't have 

9 to pay, but other people were getting tricked into

10 that. At least that's how I felt that, you know, they 

11 were being tricked into pay, even though they didn't 

12 have to. 

13 And so around that time of year, aside from 

14 filing the complaint, I was also, you know, I left the

15 review on the app, like on the Google Play store, 

16 because I have an Android phone, so that's what I use. 

17 And then I've also made Facebook comments 

18 just kind of letting people know before you do your 

19 taxes, check on the IRS Free File, because you might

20 qualify and, you know, just trying to put it on blast 

21 that, hey, you guys might be able to get this for free. 

22 Q. And before this year that we've been discussing, that's 

23 tax year 2019, had you previously prepared and filed 

24 your taxes using TurboTax?

25 A. Yes. 

Page 22 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 49 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC CC-00001955
1 people are going be having to pay, you know, does that 

2 answer the question? I know I kind of --

3 Q. No. Thank you. That was very helpful. Thank you. 

4 And I guess you said you started using the

5 product in was it tax year '19 when you hit pay wall 

6 for the first time? 

7 A. I believe so. Let me -- because I can pull up some of 

8 my documents here, TurboTax 2019 receipts. Yes, it was 

9 TurboTax year -- it was tax year 2019 where I ran into

10 that pay wall. 

11 Q. And when you started preparing your taxes in tax year 

12 2019, did you start in the Free Edition? 

13 A. Yes. I started in the Free Edition. Or hold on. Let me 

14 get my years right. TurboTax tax year 2021, tax year

15 2020 was delivered by -- yeah, okay. The order was in 

16 2020, so that would have -- yep, so 2019 was the year 

17 that I filed with the Free File edition, but I started 

18 in the regular Free Edition with TurboTax, and was 

19 running into the pay wall.

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 50 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

20 Q. Okay. And, Mr. Schulte, if it's easier for you to just 

21 talk about the calendar year like on X day 2020, you 

22 know, I saw this, so I did that, feel free to do that. 

23 Whatever is easiest for you. 

24 A. Yeah, um-hmm.

25 Q. Before you ran into the pay wall in 2020 for tax year 

Page 35 

PUBLIC CC-00001968
1 2019, did you think you'd be able to complete your 

2 taxes for free using TurboTax? 

3 A. Mostly yes. I was suspecting that there was going to be 

4 issues, because the previous year I ran into a similar

5 pay wall. But, hey, I got the promo code for deluxe 

6 for free that year, so I figured, well, maybe I could 

7 do a little bit of Googling around and find a similar 

8 promo code, but to no avail that year. 

9 Q. And in that previous year where you hit pay wall for

10 the first time when you started filing your taxes that 

11 year, did you think you'd be able to complete your 

12 taxes for free using TurboTax? 

13 A. Yes, I certainly did, because the past couple years 

14 prior like, again, it was just as easy as upload the

15 W-2, the form with your student loan interest paid. 

16 Boom. It's all done. And it worked as advertised. 

17 Totally free. You'd still get like the prompts to 

18 upgrade based on this, and but when it's all said and 

19 done when it got to the final page where you click

20 submit, it went through, and I was getting it free. 

21 MS. PLETT: And can we go off the record for 

22 a moment? 

23 MS. DAVIS: Sure. 

24 (Off the record at 2:45 p.m.)

25 (Back on the record at 3:08 p.m.) 

Page 36 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 51 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC CC-00001969
1 think when you mentioned putting yourself in the 

2 mindset of the average consumer, it was in the context 

3 of how you were responding to Intuit's advertising? 

4 A. Oh, yes.

5 Q. So in that respect, would you consider yourself an 

6 average consumer? 

7 A. Yes, I would. 

8 Q. All right. Another thing you mentioned, I believe the 

9 phrase you used was the biggest hinge. Apologize if

10 I'm not quoting that exactly correctly, but I believe 

11 you mentioned that the biggest hinge for you was that 

12 you had previously been able to file for free using 

13 TurboTax. Does that sound right? 

14 A. Yes, yes. Like, again, the first couple years worked

15 just as advertised, works as intended, however you want 

16 to put it. But like I just had my W-2 and the form for 

17 student loan interest, submitted everything, and it was 

18 all done easy peasy. 

19 Q. Would you say that that's why you thought you would be

20 able to file for free? 

21 A. Yes. I mean, having a couple of years where it does 

22 that, and like, yeah, like that would kind of put me in 

23 the mindset of that it should stay that way. And I 

24 understand changes happen but like, you know, I would

25 envision that the change, changes made would be 

Page 72 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 52 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC CC-00002005
1 sufficient to show that. 

2 Q. And before you made your complaint to the Better 

3 Business Bureau in February of 2020, had you ever paid 

4 to file with TurboTax?

5 A. No. Like I said, luckily I was able to find 

6 workarounds. So like the year prior, I got the free 

7 promo code. So at the end of the day, I didn't pay a 

8 cent out of my own pocket. And then the year I filed 

9 the complaint, I managed to get on the IRS Free File

10 TurboTax program, and get that done free. 

11 MS. DAVIS: All right. I think that's 

12 everything from me. 

13 MS. PLETT: There's nothing else for me. 

14 MS. DAVIS: We can go off the record.

15 (The Deposition was concluded at 4:32 p.m. 

16 Signature of the witness was not requested by 

17 counsel for the respective parties hereto.) 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Page 73 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 53 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

20

25

PUBLIC CC-00002006
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 54 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

5

10

15

20

25

 <%26742,Signature%>

PUBLIC

1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY 

2 STATE OF MICHIGAN ) 

3 ) SS 

4 COUNTY OF WAYNE ) 

6 I, JOANNE MARIE BUGG, certify that this 

7 remote deposition was taken before me on the date 

8 hereinbefore set forth; that the foregoing questions 

9 and answers were reported by me stenographically and

 reduced to computer transcription; that this is a true, 

11 full and correct transcript of my stenographic notes so 

12 taken; and that I am not related to, nor of counsel to, 

13 either party nor interested in the event of this cause. 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21

22

23

24

 JOANNE MARIE BUGG, CSR-2592 

Notary Public 

Wayne County, Michigan 

My Commission expires: 2-26-2025 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

Page 74 

CC-00002007
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 55 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

GX137

(Submitted In Camera) 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 56 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

1 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES 

2 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

PUBLIC

3 

4 

5 DOCKET NUMBER: 

6 

7 

9408 

8 IN THE MATTER OF INTUIT, INC., 

9 

10 

11 

1 2 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

13 

14 

15 

1 6 ORAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE 

1 7 DEPOSITION OF ANDREW ADAMSON 

1 8 October 6, 2022 

19 

20 

21 REPORTER BY: Paul Morse 

2 2 Certified Court Reporter 

2 3 and Notary Public 

Page 1 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

CC-00002153
1 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES 

2 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

3 

4 

5 BEFORE: 

6 Paul Morse, Commissioner. 

7 

8 APPEARANCES: 

9 PHOEBE SILOS, ESQUIRE, of WILMERHALE, 

10 LLP, 7 World Trade Center, 250 Greenwich 

11 Street, New York, New York 10007, appearing on 

12 behalf of the Respondent. 

13 REBECCA PLETT, ESQUIRE, of THE FEDERAL 

14 TRADE COMMISSION, 701 D Street SW, 

15 Washington, D.C. 20002, appearing on behalf of 

16 the Government. 

17 ALSO PRESENT: Jacob Frech 

18 * * * * * * 

19 I, Paul Morse, CCR, a Court Reporter of 

20 Mobile, Alabama, acting as Commissioner, 

21 certify that on this date, as provided by the 

22 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 

23 foregoing stipulation of counsel, there came 

Page 5 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 57 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC CC-00002157
1 Q. And how much did you pay in state 

2 filing fees? 

3 A. Zero dollars. 

4 Q. And did you purchase any add-on 

5 products that year? 

6 A. No. 

7 Q. So how much did you spend in total 

8 in tax year 2017? 

9 A. Zero dollars. 

10 Q. All right. And so, again, why did 

11 you decide to use TurboTax in tax year 2018? 

12 A. For the reasons I've previously 

13 stated. It's always been free. It's easy to 

14 use year to year. 

15 Q. Yeah. And again, it wasn't 

16 because you saw any advertisement. Right? 

17 A. That's correct. 

18 Q. All right. And you sent us 

19 several e-mails that you were sent -- e-mail 

20 advertisements that you were sent by TurboTax 

21 over the years. And I just want to make 

22 something clear for the record. Did any of 

23 those e-mail advertisements affect your 

Page 40 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 58 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC CC-00002192
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 59 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

1 decision to use TurboTax? 

2 A. No. 

3 Q. And in tax year 2018, what product 

4 did you start in? 

5 A. Free Edition. 

6 Q. And what product did you finish 

7 in? 

8 A. Deluxe. 

9 Q. All right. Do you ever -- do you 

10 remember ever writing a complaint about 

11 TurboTax? 

12 A. 

13 Q. 

14 complaint? 

15 A. 

Yes. 

Where did you write this 

I believe with the BBB and then 

16 the FTC's complaint portal. 

17 Q. And then by the BBB do you mean 

18 the Better Business Bureau? 

19 A. That's correct. 

20 Q. Okay. And do you remember when 

21 you wrote this complaint? 

22 A. Sometime in the spring of 2019, 

23 thereabouts. 

Page 41 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

CC-00002193
1 A. Not to the best of my knowledge, 

2 no. 

3 Q. And do you understand that the 

4 deadline to file your taxes every year is in 

5 mid-April? 

6 A. Yes. 

7 Q. And have you ever had to file an 

8 extension to push the deadline to file your 

9 taxes? 

10 A. No. 

11 Q. So now if I could direct your 

12 attention back to RX, I think it's 155, which 

13 is the complaint. So you wrote this complaint 

14 on May 8, 2019. Is that right? 

15 A. Right. 

16 Q. So is it fair to say that you 

17 wrote this complaint several months after you 

18 filed your taxes for tax year 2018? 

19 MS. PLETT: Objection. 

20 A. Yes. 

21 MS. PLETT: That's not what he 

22 said. 

23 Q. Mr. Adamson, did you write this 

Page 46 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 60 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC CC-00002198
1 complaint several months after you wrote -- or 

2 after you filed your taxes for tax year 2018? 

3 A. Yes. 

4 Q. And so this would be several 

5 months after you knew that you had to pay for 

6 TurboTax that year. Right? 

7 A. That's correct. 

8 Q. And so why did you wait about 

9 three months to write the complaint? 

10 A. I had already, I believe, 

11 communicated with TurboTax's customer service 

12 department and wasn't getting anywhere. And 

13 then I believe ProPublica had published an 

14 article about how this exact thing had happened 

15 to several other customers. So at that point 

16 is when I filed my complaint. 

17 Q. And you mentioned this ProPublica 

18 article in your complaint. Right? 

19 A. I believe so, yes. 

20 Q. Do you remember what this article 

21 was about? 

22 A. I believe it was about the 

23 practice of advertising, that it was a 

Page 47 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 61 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC CC-00002199
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 62 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

 <%18378,Signature%>

21 

PUBLIC

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 

2 STATE OF ALABAMA, 

3 BALDWIN COUNTY, 

4 I, Paul Morse, Certified Court Reporter 

5 and Commissioner for the State of Alabama at 

6 Large, do hereby certify that the above and 

7 foregoing proceedings was taken down by me by 

8 stenographic means, and that the content herein 

9 was produced in transcript form by computer aid 

10 under my supervision, and that the foregoing 

11 represents, to the best of my ability, a true 

12 and correct transcript of the proceedings 

13 occurring on said date and at said time. 

14 I further certify that I am neither of 

15 kin nor of counsel to the parties to the action 

16 nor in any manner interested in the result of 

17 said case. 

18 

19 

20 

22

23

 Paul Morse, CCR 

ACCR #588 Expires 9/30/23 

Veritext Legal Solutions 

866 299-5127 

Page 78 

CC-00002230
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 63 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

GX161

(Submitted In Camera) 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 64 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

RX146

(Submitted In Camera) 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 65 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

RX207

(Submitted In Camera) 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 66 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

Respondent Exhibit 

278 

(Submitted In Camera)

Produced as Native File: 

RX 278 - F01-TUT-00069090.xlsx 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 67 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

Respondent Exhibit

279 

(Submitted In Camera)

Produced as Native File: 

RX 279 - F01-TUT-00068643.xlsx 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 68 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

Respondent Exhibit 

280 

(Submitted In Camera)

Produced as Native File: 

RX 280 - F01-TUT-00069124.xlsx 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 69 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

DECLARATION OF FAISAL PARVEZ 

I, Faisal Parvez, declare as follows: 

1. On January 28, 2019, I filled a complaint with the Better Business Bureau of 

California, San Jose related to my experience filing that year's tax return through the Uber for 

TurboTax Self-Employed program. 

2. I filed the complaint because I was unable to use a credit to file my taxes for free 

using the Uber for TurboTax Self-Employed program. When I completed my taxes and proceeded 

to the payments section, TurboTax's website had the full charge listed for the Self-Employed 

product which cost $89.99. I subsequently called Intuit's support line and Intuit was unable to 

resolve the issue. 

3. After filing the complaint, Intuit's Office of the President contacted me and issued 

me a service code. I used the service code to file my Tax Year 2018 return for free. After receiving 

the service code to file my Tax Year 2018 return for free, I considered the matter resolved. 

4. Before filing the complaint, I had been a TurboTax customer for at least six years. 

Since filling the complaint, I have continued to use TurboTax to prepare my taxes. 

5. On October 7, 2022, I received three Subpoenas for the Production of Documentary 

Material, to Testify at an Adjudicative Hearing, and to Testify at a Deposition that Intuit issued. 

6. I understand that the FTC identified me as a consumer who would likely have 

information relevant to the FTC's allegations. My assumption is that it must have done so because 

of the complaint that I filed with the BBB. 

7. I subsequently contacted counsel for Intuit and requested that the subpoenas be 

withdrawn because my complaint was fully resolved and I have no issues or concerns with Intuit's 

advertising. 

1 

PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 70 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

8. My complaint was not about advertising for the TurboTax product. I was not 

misled—through ads or otherwise—about whether I would qualify for TurboTax Free Edition . 

Instead, I understood that I could file my Tax Year 2018 federal return for free using the Uber for 

TurboTax Self-Employed program because I worked for Uber during Tax Year 2018. That was 

correct. I was able to file my Tax Year 2018 federal return for free using the Uber for TurboTax 

Self-Employed program. 

9. Therefore, I request that the FTC remove the me from its list of relevant 

complainants and that my complaint not be used by the FTC in litigation against TurboTax. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on this 21st day of October, 2022, in Sicklerville, New Jersey. 

By: Faisal Parvez 

Faisal Parvez 

2 

PUBLIC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 71 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

RX345

(Submitted In Camera) 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 72 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

RX354

(Submitted In Camera) 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 73 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

RX372

(Submitted In Camera) 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 74 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

Respondent Exhibit 

383

(Submitted In Camera)

Produced as Native File 

INTUIT-FTC-PART3-000002560

[Excerpted from Full Exhibit]
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 75 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

Respondent Exhibit 

817 

(Submitted In Camera)

Produced as Native File 

INTUIT-FTC-PART3-000608568 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 76 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: Lina M. Khan, Chair 

 Rebecca Kelly Slaughter 

 Christine S. Wilson 

Alvaro M. Bedoya 

Docket No. 9408 In the Matter of: 

Intuit Inc., a corporation. 

EXPERT REPORT OF PROFESSOR PETER N. GOLDER, PH.D. 

JANUARY 13, 2023 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 77 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................1 

A. Qualifications .................................................................................................................1 

B. Case Background ...........................................................................................................3 

C. Assignment ....................................................................................................................7 

II. Summary of Opinions .............................................................................................................9 

III. Complaint Counsel’s Theories of Deception and Lock-In Are Inconsistent 

with Marketing Literature and Practice ................................................................................14 

A. TurboTax Customer Reviews Indicate Customers Receive Benefits 

from the Service and Do Not Feel Misled ...................................................................16 

1. TurboTax Customer Reviews Reflect Meeting or 

Exceeding Consumer Expectations ........................................................... 20 

2. TurboTax Customer Reviews and Retention Are 

Inconsistent with Deception ...................................................................... 28 

B. Customers Are Not Locked-In Once They Have Begun Using 

TurboTax Free Edition or Filed in Prior Years Using TurboTax Free 

Edition ..........................................................................................................................30 

1. Many Consumers Try Out Multiple Online Tax Preparation 

Providers in a Given Year ......................................................................... 32 

2. Consumers Regularly Switch Tax Preparation Providers 

Year to Year .............................................................................................. 35 

IV. Low Complaint Rates Are Inconsistent with the Theory of Deception 

Alleged ..................................................................................................................................39 

A. Complaint Counsel and Ms. Shiller’s Analyses of Complaints Are 

Unreliable .....................................................................................................................40 

B. Intuit’s Rate of BBB Complaints Is in Line with a Set of Comparable 

Benchmark Companies ................................................................................................51 

1. Intuit’s Rate of Customer Complaints Is Comparable to 

Benchmark Companies ............................................................................. 53 

2. Intuit’s Rates of Keywords Related to Deceptive 

Advertising or Deceptive Pricing in Complaints Are 

Comparable to Benchmark Companies .................................................... 57 

V. Intuit’s Free Ads Consistently Include Industry Standard Disclosures Across 

Media That Are in Line with Benchmark Companies’ Disclosures and 

Inform Reasonable Consumers About the Qualifications for Free Offers ...........................59 

A. Intuit’s Free Ads Consistently Include Disclosures that the Free Offer 

Is for Simple Returns Only ..........................................................................................61 

i 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 78 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

 

B. Intuit’s Simple Returns Disclosure Effectively Conveys the Existence 

and Category of Eligibility Limitations for Free Offers ..............................................65 

1. Intuit’s Simple Returns Disclosure Indicates Both the 

Existence and Category of Eligibility Restriction and Is 

Consistent with Industry Norms ............................................................... 65 

2. A Full Assessment of Whether an Individual’s Tax Return 

Is Simple or Complex Is Not Feasible in an Advertisement ..................... 72 

C. Intuit’s Disclosure Proximity and Prominence Are in Line with 

Benchmark Companies’ Disclosures ...........................................................................78 

VI. Intuit’s Free Ads Are One Initial Source of Information in the HighInvolvement Consumer Buying Process for Tax Preparation and Would Be 

Unlikely to Deceive Reasonable Consumers ........................................................................85 

A. Reasonable Consumers of Tax Preparation Services Are Typically 

Careful Buyers Who Make Informed Purchase Decisions ..........................................86 

B. Prolonged Information Search Is Common for High-Involvement 

Products Like Tax Preparation .....................................................................................89 

C. Advertising Represents Only One Piece of Information in the 

Consumer Buying Process ...........................................................................................94 

D. Consumers Encounter Many Offers for Free Products or Services and 

Demonstrate Skepticism and an Expectation of Terms and Conditions 

that Describe Accessing or Keeping the Free Offer ..................................................100 

VII. The TurboTax Website Provides Information in a Clear and Timely Manner ...................106 

A. The TurboTax Website Provides Clear Information About the 

TurboTax Product Lineup and Discloses Up Front that Free Edition Is 

Not Appropriate for All Tax Situations .....................................................................106 

1. Homepage ............................................................................................... 108 

2. Simple Returns Pop-up ........................................................................... 112 

3. Free Edition Landing Page ...................................................................... 116 

4. Products & Pricing Page ......................................................................... 118 

B. The TurboTax Website Minimizes the Amount of Time for Consumers 

to Find the Appropriate Product for Their Tax Situation and Provides 

Clear Information Throughout the Process ................................................................123 

1. The TurboTax Website Contains Functionality to Direct 

Customers to the Appropriate Product for Their Tax 

Situation .................................................................................................. 124 

2. Upgrade Screens Inform Customers as Early as Possible of 

a Required Upgrade, Minimizing the Time and Effort 

Customers Spend Before Encountering an Upgrade Screen ................... 129 

3. Even in the Final Stages of the Filing Process, TurboTax 

Provides Clear Pricing Information to Customers One More 

Time Before Purchase ............................................................................. 136 

VIII. Reasonable Consumers Are Not Likely to Be Deceived by Intuit’s Free Ads ...................139 

ii 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 79 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

 

IX. Non-Standard Disclosure Requirements Could Alter TurboTax Free Edition 

TV Advertising and Could Decrease Awareness and Use of Free Tax Filing 

Solutions .............................................................................................................................141 

A. Intuit’s Investment in Advertising Free Edition Likely Increased the 

Number of Taxpayers Filing Their Tax Returns for Free ..........................................143 

B. Reducing the Impact or Amount of TV Advertising for TurboTax Free 

Edition Would Not Lead Many, if Any, Consumers to Pay Less to File 

Their Taxes and Could Lead Many to Pay More to File Their Taxes .......................146 

1. Other Online Tax Preparation Providers ................................................. 147 

2. Other Tax Preparation Filing Options..................................................... 148 

iii 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 80 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

 

I. INTRODUCTION 

A. Qualifications 

1. My name is Peter Golder. I am a professor of marketing at the Tuck School of Business at 

Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. In 2014, I was appointed by Dartmouth’s 

president to be one of seven founding faculty members in Dartmouth’s Society of Fellows. 

From 2015 to 2018, I served as area coordinator of the Tuck School’s marketing faculty 

group. From 2015 to 2020, I was co-editor-in-chief of the academic journal Marketing 

Letters. From 2017 to 2020, I was faculty director of the Tuck School’s First-Year Project 

course and, from 2018 to 2020, I was faculty director of the Tuck School’s global 

experiential courses. In 2020, I was named an Academic Fellow of the Marketing Science 

Institute. I previously served as professor of marketing and coordinator of the marketing 

department doctoral program at the Stern School of Business at New York University in 

New York, New York. 

2. I hold a Ph.D. in Business Administration (Marketing) from the University of Southern 

California and a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Pennsylvania. 

3. My research experience and interests include branding, historical analysis of markets, 

sources of market leadership, product features and customer perceptions associated with 

quality, innovation, market entry strategies, new product development and marketing, and 

global marketing. I have employed a variety of research methods in addressing these topics, 

including the historical research method, surveys, case studies, and econometric analysis. 

In 2000, I published a paper on the historical research method in the Journal of Marketing 

Research, one of the leading journals in the marketing discipline, providing a 

comprehensive description of the method and explaining its usefulness for generating 

1 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 81 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

 

 

 

 

Open-ended responses to the Kirk Fair Disclosure Survey also indicated a willingness of 

consumers to conduct additional research and potentially switch tax preparation providers 

when faced with an upgrade screen.96 

67. TurboTax’s high NPS, positive customer reviews, and high customer retention imply that 

customers do not feel misled upon using TurboTax. In other words, Intuit’s consumer data 

demonstrate that most customers feel that the service they receive from TurboTax products 

matches or exceeds their expectations. Given the high-involvement purchase process and 

demonstrably low switching costs, both within-year and between-years, the fact that 

customers choose to stay with Intuit indicates they are simply revealing their true 

preference for TurboTax as a provider. 

IV. LOW COMPLAINT RATES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY OF 

DECEPTION ALLEGED 

68. Another potential source of information regarding whether customers’ expectations were 

met or exceeded is consumer complaints. In this matter, Complaint Counsel have provided 

to date only 396 complaints that they currently allege are relevant to the allegations.97 Even 

if we were to accept that all of these complaints are relevant complaints (which, as I will 

discuss in this section, is an overstatement), this upper bound on complaints would 

represent the views of only 0.0005 percent of the 86.4 million TurboTax customers who 

96 For example, one survey respondent stated that, if faced with an upgrade screen, they would, “search the 

internet and compare the Turbo Tax pay for edition with other tax platforms with comparable features.” See 

Kirk Fair Report, ¶¶ 34-35. 

97 Complaint Counsel’s Supplemental Responses to Intuit’s First and Second Set of Interrogatories, In the matter 

of: Intuit Inc., A Corporation, No. 9408, December 22, 2022 (“Complaint Counsel’s Supplemental Responses to 

First and Second Set of Interrogatories, December 22, 2022”). 

39 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 82 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

 

 

 

filed at least one return from TY 2015 to TY 2021.98 Again, such a minuscule number of 

complaints is inconsistent with Complaint Counsel’s alleged deception. 

Figure 6 

Complaints Identified by Complaint Counsel as a Share of TurboTax Customers Who 

Filed At Least One Return 

TY 2015 – TY 2021 

A. Complaint Counsel and Ms. Shiller’s Analyses of Complaints Are Unreliable 

69. In June, Complaint Counsel and Diana Shiller (an investigator for the FTC) identified a set 

of 571 consumer complaints (“Initial Production”) that they claimed were related to “free” 

TurboTax.99 In September, Complaint Counsel produced 396 complaints (“Revised 

98 From TY 2015 – TY 2021, 86.4 million customers filed their returns with TurboTax. Intuit customer-level data, 

INTUIT-FTC-PART3-000608571-2. See also, INTUIT-FTC-PART3-000603000. 

99 Declaration of Diana F. Shiller, In the matter of: Intuit Inc., a corporation, Docket No. 9408, May 6, 2022 

(“Shiller Declaration”), GX 342, ¶ 220. Ms. Shiller explained that Complaint Counsel had gathered these 

complaints from a variety of sources, including the FTC’s Consumer Sentinel Database, a database which tracks 

consumer complaints reported directly to the FTC, as well as complaints submitted by other government 

agencies (e.g., Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, State Attorneys General, Internal Revenue Service) and 

the BBB. 

40 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 83 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

 

 

 

Production”). The Revised Production included two sets of complaints: 228 complaints 

that were previously produced by Complaint Counsel in the Initial Production and 168 

incremental complaints. Complaint Counsel claimed to have “narrowed the set of 

complaints to those that appear on their face to go to the core of [...] the Complaint.”100 In 

reducing their Initial Production (from 571 to 228 complaints), Complaint Counsel seem 

to admit that more than half of the complaints in their Initial Production were not relevant 

to their allegations. 

70. Ms. Shiller reviewed the subset of complaints that were filed in TY 2021, and defined three 

(not mutually exclusive) types of complaints: (1) “consumers [who] thought they were 

filing for free” (“Free” complaint type); (2) “consumers [who] mentioned they saw 

advertising indicating their tax filing will be free” (“Advertising” complaint type); and (3) 

“consumers [who] paid TurboTax when they thought their tax filing will be free” (“Paid” 

complaint type).101 Ms. Shiller did not describe the purpose of defining these three types, 

but presumably they were an attempt to identify complaints relevant to the allegations. 

71. Ms. Shiller provided the analysis of these complaints independent of each other. However, 

this methodology is flawed and overstates the number of relevant complaints. At the very 

least, a complaint that is not classified as both the “Free” and “Advertising” complaint 

types would not include sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the complaint was related 

100 See Complaint Counsel, CONFIDENTIAL – CC Revised Cat. L Sentinel Complaints, September 14, 2022. See 

Attachment A of Complaint Counsel’s Supplemental Responses to First and Second Set of Interrogatories, 

December 22, 2022 and Complaint Counsel, CONFIDENTIAL – Supplemental Cat. L Sentinel Complaints, 

September 19, 2022. Complaint Counsel’s Reply to Respondent Intuit Inc.’s Supplemental Response to the 

Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is no Genuine Issue for Trial, In the matter of: Intuit Inc., A 

Corporation, No. 9408, September 29, 2022 (“Complaint Counsel’s Reply”), p. 3 and Attachment A. 

101 Shiller Declaration, ¶ 221. 

41 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 84 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to Complaint Counsel’s allegations.102 For example, complainants who thought they should 

be able to file for free but do not mention seeing any TurboTax advertising may have 

developed the impression of their ability to file for free from sources that are not at issue, 

or may just be expressing disappointment that there is a free product and that they cannot 

use it. Similarly, complainants who say they saw an ad but did not think they could file for 

free could not be deceived as alleged by Complaint Counsel. In fact, the Revised 

Production removed more than half of the complaints Ms. Shiller had originally flagged in 

at least one of her three types, illustrating that Ms. Shiller’s methodology is overbroad and 

unreliable for identifying relevant complaints based on their substance.103 

72. Complaint Counsel provided the underlying coding for both Ms. Shiller’s initial 

classification and a revised classification performed by Complaint Counsel and their 

staff.104, 105 I note that neither Ms. Shiller nor Complaint Counsel were blind to the purpose 

of the coding process. It is best practice in matters requiring nuanced, interpretive human 

judgments (e.g., reviewing consumer verbatim text) to use independent (or “blind”) 

102 I note that if one is looking for data that show a consumer was confused by an ad and potentially harmed by 

having to pay Intuit for filing, then one should consider all three Shiller complaint types. Complainants who 

thought they should be able to file for free and mention seeing an ad but were not categorized as “paid 

TurboTax” may have filed for free or may have been initially confused but that confusion cleared up at any 

point before filing. 

103 Of the 60 complaints Ms. Shiller originally reviewed, only 26 (43 percent) remained in the Revised Production. 

104 Complaint Counsel’s Reply, p. 3 (“Upon learning about Intuit’s objections and intentions regarding consumer 

depositions, Complaint Counsel and staff working at Complaint Counsel’s direction rereviewed the 571 

consumer complaints referenced in Ms. Shiller’s declaration.”). 

105 I note that Complaint Counsel slightly modified the language of Ms. Shiller’s complaint types as a part of their 

revised classification. Complaint Counsel made the following adjustments to Ms. Shiller’s complaint types: 1) 

“consumers [who] thought they were filing for free” was changed to “consumers [who] indicated that they 

believed or TurboTax communicated that filing taxes with TurboTax would be free,” 2) “consumers [who] 

mentioned they saw advertising indicating that their tax filing will be free” was changed to “consumers [who] 

mentioned advertising about a free TurboTax option,” and 3) “consumers [who] paid TurboTax” was changed 

to “consumers [who] indicated they were charged for or paid for TurboTax.” See Complaint Counsel’s Reply, 

p. 6. 

42 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 85 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reviewers who are not aware of the hypotheses or goals of the analysis.106 Such a 

methodology combats biases in human judgment. For example, reviewers who are aware 

of the goals or hypotheses may be subject to confirmation bias, a bias that causes humans 

to seek information that confirms their expectations and discard information that is 

inconsistent with expectations.107 

73. Complaint Counsel’s underlying coding covered all of the complaints from TY 2021 that 

were included in both the Revised and Initial Productions (26 complaints).108 Notably, 

Complaint Counsel and Ms. Shiller disagree on the classification of certain complaints.109 

In fact, when looking at the number of complaints flagged as both relating to “Free” and 

“Advertising”, Complaint Counsel and Ms. Shiller reached different results. Ms. Shiller 

106 See “Diamond, Shari Seidman, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 3rd Ed., 2011 (“Reference Manual on 

Scientific Evidence”), p. 374 (“An early handbook for judges recommended that survey interviews be 

“conducted independently of the attorneys in the case.” [...] [A]ny potential bias is minimized by having 

interviewers and respondents blind to the purpose and sponsorship of the survey and by excluding attorneys 

from any part in conducting interviews and tabulating results.”). 

107 Confirmation bias is a phenomenon well documented by economists and psychologists. See Rabin, Matthew 

and J.L. Schrag, “First Impressions Matter: A Model of Confirmatory Bias,” The Quarterly Journal of 

Economics, Vol. 114, No. 1, 1999, pp. 37-82 (“First Impressions Matter: A Model of Confirmatory Bias”) J. L. 

(1999). First impressions matter: A model of confirmatory bias. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(1), 

37-82., p. 38 (“A person suffers from confirmatory bias if he tends to misinterpret ambiguous evidence as 

confirming his current hypotheses about the world”) and p. 46 (“[C]onfirmatory bias occurs when people 

selectively collect or scrutinize evidence.”). 

108 See Appendix E. 

109 For example, Ms. Shiller identified a complaint included in her count of “Free”; but excluded from her count of 

“Advertising.” Complaint Counsel re-coded this complaint as applying to both complaint types, despite no 

mention of advertising or ads by the complainant. See Complaint Counsel’s Reply, Attachment A, pp. 1, 23 

(“1/27/22. [...] I filed my tax return and selected the free version. TurboTax would not let me proceed to file my 

taxes unless I paid $39. I decided to move forward and pay $39 even though I was told up front I didn’t have to 

pay any money. After I clicked the payment to agree to pay $39, they gave me a receipt of payment of $78, of 

which I did not agree to pay. There was no option to cancel that or get my money back. They out right stole my 

money. --- Additional Comments: Refund.”). Complaint Counsel did not provide any explanation as to why 

their re-coding differed from Ms. Shiller’s original coding. 

43 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 86 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

identified only 18 complaints matching both of these types, while Complaint Counsel 

identified 22.110 

74. The inconsistency of Ms. Shiller and Complaint Counsel’s coding, as well as my own 

review of the complaints, demonstrates that classifying these complaints is a challenging 

exercise, in part because many complaints are nuanced and difficult to interpret. Complaint 

Counsel and Ms. Shiller appear to have been looking to classify complaints as relevant to 

the allegations, without a clear (or any) methodology for reliably making that assessment. 

As a result, I developed a coding methodology to review the 396 complaints provided by 

Complaint Counsel. For this review, I employed an independent coding methodology, 

unlike Ms. Shiller and Complaint Counsel’s non-blind review.111 Due to the blind nature 

of an independent coding methodology, this process reflects as much as possible an 

unbiased review of the consumer complaints. Two independent coders reviewed all 

complaints in the Revised Production. The coders reviewed these complaints for the 

following types (“Golder Complaint Types”).112,113 

110 Complaint Counsel’s Reply, Attachment A. 

111 Independent coders are blind-to-the purpose judges who reviewed the consumer complaints provided by 

Complaint Counsel, following the instructions listed in Appendix D. 

112 See Appendix E for additional details about this process. 

113 I also asked the two independent coders to flag complainants who reported that they did not file their taxes with 

TurboTax (i.e., complainants who directly explain that they did not file with TurboTax, or complainants who 

submitted their complaint on behalf of a TurboTax customer but did not file with TurboTax themselves). While 

these complainants may have been confused, they are unlikely to have paid for TurboTax (something identified 

as important according to Ms. Shiller’s methodology). For example, complainant started his 

complaint by writing “Well I signed up under their advertisement for Free EZ filing for taxes, got all my 

information in, and then was told there would be a charge. [...] I didn’t intend to pay them, I had better offers 

elsewhere with more security, and they found more money owed to me in taxes. So Turbo Tax wasn’t good for 

me.” See Complaint Counsel, CONFIDENTIAL – Supplemental Cat. L Sentinel Complaints, September 19, 

2022, pp. 202-205. I do not use this complaint type in my analyses. 

44 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 87 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

75. Shiller Complaint Types. I asked the coders to review the complaints to flag complaints 

based on each of the three Shiller Complaint Types. These types are: 

 “Free” - Complainants who expected that they would be able to file for free;114 

 “Advertising” - Complainants who mentioned they saw advertising indicating their 

tax filing would be free;115 and 

 “Paid” - Complainants who paid TurboTax when they expected that they would be 

able to file for free.116 

76. Potentially Irrelevant Complaint Types. I asked the coders to review the complaints for 

additional content-related types that suggest that these complaints are not related to the 

allegations in this matter. These complainants complained about charges unrelated to the 

tax filing process (e.g., add-ons) or indicated that they expected that they would be able to 

file for free due to reasons unrelated to Intuit’s advertising of TurboTax Free Edition. These 

additional types include: 

 Complainants who expected that they would be able to file for free because they 

were able to file for free with TurboTax in previous years;117 

 Complainants who expected that they would be able to file for free due to a nonincome related discount (e.g., military discount, discount associated with driving 

for Uber/Lyft);118 

 Complainants who expected that they would be able to file for free due to their 

income (i.e., low income);119 

114 The Shiller Declaration states this complaint type as, “consumers [who] thought they were filing for free.” See 

Shiller Declaration, ¶ 221. In my coding instructions, I modified this wording slightly for clarity. 

115 The Shiller Declaration states this complaint type as, “consumers [who] mentioned they saw advertising 

indicating their tax filing will be free.” See Shiller Declaration, ¶ 221. In my coding instructions, I modified this 

wording slightly for clarity. 

116 The Shiller Declaration states this complaint type as, “consumers [who] paid TurboTax when they thought their 

tax filing will be free.” See Shiller Declaration, ¶ 221. In my coding instructions, I modified this wording 

slightly for clarity. 

117 These complaints reflect expectations based on prior experiences, and year-to-year changes may be driven by 

changes in an individual’s tax situation. 

118 These discounts are unrelated to the at-issue free ads. 

119 These complainants may have expected that they would be able to file for free due to their low income, 

reflecting the qualification requirements for the IRS Free File Program, not Intuit’s free offers. 

45 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 88 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Complainants who referred to the IRS Free File Program;120 and 

 Complainants who complained about “extra” charges, including charges for addon products.121 

77. Unique TurboTax Relationship Complaint Types. I asked the coders to review the 

complaints for additional types to identify complainants with unique relationships with 

TurboTax. These complainants did not complain in the regular course of being a new 

customer who engaged with Intuit’s Free Ads and the TurboTax website for the first time. 

These additional types include: 

 Complainants who referred to a ProPublica article, FTC investigation, and/or 

lawsuit;122 

 Complainants who indicated that they are repeat or prior TurboTax customers.123 

78. Figure 7 below illustrates that there is substantial heterogeneity in the complaint types that 

independent coders identified.124 Unsurprisingly, given the flawed and overbroad nature of 

the Shiller methodology, the Shiller Complaint Types reflect the largest portions of 

complaints. Even within the Shiller Complaint Types, Figure 7 shows that more than 20 

percent of the complaints that the independent coders identified as “expected that they 

120 These complaints may be related to the IRS Free File Program, which has qualification requirements based on 

income. 

121 These extra charges are unrelated to whether the actual tax filing was free. 

122 These complainants were likely not complaining in the regular course of their experience as a TurboTax 

customer. 

123 These complainants have prior experience with the TurboTax Suite and therefore are more likely to be familiar 

with the qualification requirements. 

124 For any complaints about which there was disagreement for a particular complaint type, the two independent 

coders discussed their determinations directly, without any guidance from me and jointly recoded the response. 

If the two coders were unable to reach a consensus, additional personnel at Analysis Group, working under my 

direction and guidance, reviewed the complaint and made the final determination. Analysis Group personnel 

were responsible for breaking ties in 18 instances out of the 4,356 (396 complaints × 11 categories) 

classifications that the independent coders reviewed. I reviewed 17 of these 18 instances as well and agree with 

the final determinations in all of these 17 instances. I could not review one complaint for which the two coders 

were unable to reach a consensus because the complaint is written in Spanish. Analysis Group personnel who 

speak Spanish made the final determination for this complaint. 

46 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 89 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

 

 

 

 

 

 

would be able to file for free” were not flagged by the independent coders as mentioning 

TurboTax advertising.125 Again, Ms. Shiller’s flawed methodology would classify these 

complaints as relevant to the allegations, even without any evidence that the individuals 

saw any at-issue advertising. This does not even account for the fact that Complaint 

Counsel did not independently verify the accuracy of any complaint.126 

79. My analysis, which accounts for additional complaint types, demonstrates the need for an 

independent, careful, and nuanced review of these complaints. For example, independent 

coders flagged almost 40 percent of the 396 complaints as relating, at least in part, to 

charges for add-on products that customers can select to purchase when they file their taxes 

(see Figure 7). These add-on products are not advertised as free, and a taxpayer can prepare 

and file their taxes for free and separately purchase an add-on. 

125 For example, complainant wrote “I [filed] my tax return with [sic] turbo tax and it was supposed to 

be free but got hit with unexpected charges[.]” Similarly, a summary of complainant 

complaint reports “Consumer states she received an alert about the Turbo Tax, lawsuit, & wanted to file report, 

consumer filed taxes for 2021 in January 2022, & paid about $100, after being told it would be free of charge.” 

See Complaint Counsel, CONFIDENTIAL – Supplemental Cat. L Sentinel Complaints, September 19, 2022 

2022, pp. 34-37 and pp. 402-405. 

126 The Maxson deposition confirmed that the Bureau of Consumer Protection did not perform any independent 

investigation of the validity of the consumer complaints relied on by Complaint Counsel. Deposition of William 

T. Maxson (as Bureau of Consumer Protection 3.33(c) designee), In the Matter of Intuit Inc., A Corporation, 

Docket No. 9408, December 8, 2022 (“Maxson Deposition”) A Corporation, Docket No. 9408, December 8, 

2022, 353:14-354:13. 

47 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 90 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

 

Figure 7 

Independent Coding of Complaints Illuminates the Overbroad Nature of the Shiller 

Methodology 

80. Overall, independent coders identified 70 percent of complaints as either missing one of 

the “Free” or “Advertising” Shiller Complaint Types or having at least one additional 

Golder Complaint Type (see Figure 8). These results suggest that Complaint Counsel’s 

effort to identify complaints and Ms. Shiller’s flawed methodology are unreliable as they 

are unable to capture the nuance and heterogeneity within the complaints produced. 

48 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 91 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8 

Summary of Independent Coding 

81. Complaint Counsel has also submitted a supplemental and non-blind coding exercise in 

which they determined that almost 60 percent of the complaints in the Revised Production 

are not responsive to either the allegation that “consumers who were not eligible for the 

[Free Edition] version of TurboTax [did] not learn they were ineligible until they had 

already invested significant time and effort [...]”127 or the allegation that “the term ‘simple 

tax returns’ is not understood by many consumers.”128 

82. Regardless of whether one considers all complaints identified by Complaint Counsel or my 

revised and more complete independent coding, the volume of complaints identified by 

Complaint Counsel is minuscule in the context of the tens of millions of TurboTax 

127 Complaint Counsel determined 69 percent of complaints in the Revised Production were not responsive to 

Interrogatory No. 6, which requested the evidentiary basis for this allegation. See Complaint Counsel’s 

Supplemental Responses to First and Second Set of Interrogatories, December 22, 2022, p. 19. 

128 Complaint Counsel determined 78 percent of complaints in the Revised Production were not responsive to 

Interrogatory No. 7, which requested the evidentiary basis for this allegation. See Complaint Counsel’s 

Supplemental Responses to First and Second Set of Interrogatories, December 22, 2022, p. 22. 

49 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 92 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

 

customers. These customers do not represent the experiences or views of most TurboTax 

customers. As discussed at the start of Section IV, the complaints identified by Complaint 

Counsel represent the views of only 0.0005 percent of the 86.4 million TurboTax customers 

who filed at least one return over the period during which the complaints were filed (i.e., 

TY 2015 to TY 2021). If I limit Complaint Counsel’s Revised Production to those 

complaints that independent coders flagged as having both “Free” and “Advertising” 

Shiller Complaint Types and no additional Golder Complaint Types (i.e., no potentially 

irrelevant or unique TurboTax relationship type), these complaints represent the views of 

only 0.0001 percent of the same customer base (see Figure 9). 

Figure 9 

Complaints Identified by Complaint Counsel and Independent Coders as a Share of 

TurboTax Customers Who Filed At Least One Return 

TY 2015 – TY 2021 

50 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 93 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

 

 

 

 

 

83. I understand that Complaint Counsel have suggested that the complaints received are often 

just the “tip of the iceberg” and therefore there may be more complaints.129 But these 

numbers are so small, even a dramatic increase in unreported complaints would not change 

my fundamental view that Complaint Counsel’s theory of widespread deception is 

unfounded. Intuit’s Free Ads were widely disseminated. If the ads created the 

misimpression that TurboTax was “free for them” when it was not, there would very likely 

be a substantially greater number of complaints. To further test that view, below I engaged 

in a detailed benchmarking exercise to contextualize the number of Complaints received. 

B. Intuit’s Rate of BBB Complaints Is in Line with a Set of Comparable 

Benchmark Companies 

84. The existence of a small number of customer complaints is not indicative of deception. 

Customer complaints occur in every industry and are a valuable source of information 

because they “represent critical turning points in the company’s relationship with its 

customers.”130 Complaints represent an opportunity to remedy a problem, and as such, 

companies monitor complaints to identify areas where they could improve customer 

experience.131 

129 Maxson Deposition, 353:6-13. 

130 Knox, George and Rutger van Oest, “Customer Complaints and Recovery Effectiveness: A Customer Base 

Approach,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 78, September 2014, pp. 42-57 (“Customer Complaints and Recovery 

Effectiveness: A Customer Base Approach”), INTUIT-FTC-PART3-000596665, p. 42. 

131 Kotler and Keller (2012), p. 141 (“Listening to customers is crucial to customer relationship management. Some 

companies have created an ongoing mechanism that keeps their marketers permanently plugged in to frontline 

customer feedback.”). 

51 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 94 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

 

 

you buy” with assisted tax preparation products, meaning any taxpayers who choose to 

evaluate a CPA or tax professional as an option will likely be faced not only with higher 

prices, but would be more limited in their ability to evaluate different assisted tax 

preparation options and comparison shop based on price. 

246. Therefore, reducing the impact or amount of Intuit’s advertising of Free Edition could have 

the perverse effect of diverting potential TurboTax customers to other, comparable, DIY 

tax preparation solutions or to more expensive assisted tax preparation solutions, including 

people who could have filed for free using TurboTax. 

Peter N. Golder 

January 13, 2023 

151 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 95 of 96 * PUBLIC *; PUBLIC

Respondent Exhibit 

1018

(Submitted In Camera)

Produced as Native File 

Backup Data to January 13, 2023 Expert Report of Peter Golder 

"Complaint Independent Coding Results.xlsx"
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/14/2023 | Document No. 606919 | PAGE Page 96 of 96 * PUBLIC *; 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

PUBLIC

I hereby certify that on February 14, 2023, I caused the foregoing document to be filed 

electronically using the FTC’s E-Filing system, which will send notification of such filing to: 

April Tabor 

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Suite CC-5610 

Washington, DC 20580 

ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

Washington, DC 20580 

I further certify that on February 14, 2023, I caused the foregoing document to be served 

via email to: 

Roberto Anguizola 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Email: ranguizola@ftc.gov 

Tel: (202) 326-3284 

James Evans 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Email: jevans1@ftc.gov 

Tel: (202) 326-2026 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

April Tabor 

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Suite CC-5610 

Washington, DC 20580 

ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov 

Dated: February 14, 2023 

Rebecca Plett 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Email: rplett@ftc.gov 

Tel: (202) 326-3664 

Sara Tonnesen 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Email: stonnesen@ftc.gov 

Tel: (202) 326-2879 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

Washington, DC 20580 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Derek Woodman 

DEREK WOODMAN 

Counsel for Intuit Inc