Exhibit 1

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 1 of 112
AMENDED EXPERT REPORT OF HAL PORET IN MATTER OF

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.

REPORT PREPARED FOR:

Cause of Action Institute; and

Law Office of S.J. Christine Yang

PREPARED BY:

Hal Poret

142 Hunter Ave

Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591

July 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 2 of 112
Page 2 of 47

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page #

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE ------------------------------------------------- 3

STUDY AUTHORSHIP AND QUALIFICATIONS---------------------------- 4

STUDY DESIGN------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS -------------------------------------------------- 27

METHODOLOGY---------------------------------------------------------------------- 28

THE RELEVANT UNIVERSE OF INTEREST ------------------------- 28

SAMPLING PLAN------------------------------------------------------------ 33

DATA PROCESSING -------------------------------------------------------- 36

INTERVIEWING PROCEDURES----------------------------------------- 36

DOUBLE-BLIND INTERVIEWING -------------------------------------- 37

INTERVIEWING PERIOD-------------------------------------------------- 37

QUALITY CONTROL ------------------------------------------------------- 37

DETAILED FINDINGS --------------------------------------------------------------- 40

THE FOLLOWING APPENDICES ARE PROVIDED SEPARATELY:

APPENDIX A: CURRICULUM VITAE OF STUDY’S AUTHOR

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX C: SCREENSHOTS OF SURVEY 

APPENDIX D: SURVEY DATA FILE 

APPENDIX E: IMAGES USED IN SURVEY 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 3 of 112
Page | 3

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Defendant D-Link Systems, Inc. (DLS) markets and sells wireless routers and other 

products. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a Complaint against DLS

alleging, among other things, that DLS made false or misleading misrepresentations 

regarding the security of wireless routers in marketing such products. For instance, 

FTC alleges that marketing materials for the D-Link N 300 (DIR-615) wireless router 

and D-Link N 600 Dual Band (DIR-815) wireless router contained misrepresentations 

pertaining to the security of the devices.

Cause of Action Institute, counsel for DLS, retained me to design and conduct surveys 

to test the extent to which, if at all, the alleged misrepresentations pertaining to security 

of the DLS wireless routers are material to purchase decisions – i.e., whether such 

representations influence consumers’ likelihood of purchasing the routers. This Report

describes the methodology, execution and results of my survey. As discussed below in 

more detail, the surveys showed that the allegedly misleading representations 

pertaining to security are not material to purchase decisions.1

In connection with designing my survey and preparing this Report I reviewed the 

following materials:

• Complaint and Exhibits

• Defendant D-Link Systems, Inc.’s Answer to Complaint

 

1 I understand that the allegedly misleading representations were included in marketing 

materials for a period of years prior to the survey. It is my opinion that survey data from the 

survey conducted in 2018 can be reliably applied to the previous period of time. It is my 

opinion that consumer’s attention to and concern regarding security risks has only increased 

over the intervening time period due to numerous highly publicized security/data breach 

situations that have occurred. Accordingly, if anything, consumers surveyed in 2018 would be 

even more likely to be attentive to security issues and place value on security measures than in 

previous years prior to many of the notable security incidents that have occurred. 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 4 of 112
Page | 4

• FTC’s First Set of Responses and Objections to the Second Set of 

Interrogatories by Defendant D-Link Systems, Inc.

• Court Order Re Motion to Dismiss (September 19, 2017)

• Scheduling Order (October 17, 2017)

• US.DLINK.COM website

I also conducted numerous online searches for wireless routers and reviewed websites 

and advertising for various wireless router products.

My work in connection with this matter is being billed at my hourly rate of $625. 

Payment is not contingent on the outcome of the litigation.

AUTHORSHIP AND QUALIFICATIONS

The surveys discussed herein were designed, supervised, and implemented by Hal L. 

Poret, President at Hal Poret, LLC.

I have personally designed, supervised, and implemented over 1,000 surveys regarding 

the perceptions and opinions of consumers. Over 300 surveys have involved consumer 

perception with respect to advertising, and over 300 have been conducted online. I 

have personally designed numerous studies that have been admitted as evidence in 

legal proceedings and I have been accepted as an expert in survey research on 

numerous occasions by U.S. District Courts, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, 

and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus (NAD).

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 5 of 112
Page | 5

I am a member of the American Association of Public Opinion Research, publisher of 

Public Opinion Quarterly and the Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology; the 

International Trademark Association; and the National Advertising Division of the 

Council of Better Business Bureaus (NAD). I routinely conduct market research surveys 

for a variety of small to large corporations and organizations.

I have frequently spoken at major intellectual property and legal conferences on the 

topic of how to design and conduct surveys that meet legal evidentiary standards for 

reliability, including conferences held by the International Trademark Association 

(INTA), American Intellectual Property Law Association, Practicing Law Institute, 

Managing Intellectual Property, Promotions Marketing Association, American 

Conference Institute, and various bar organizations.

In addition to my survey research experience, I hold bachelors and masters degrees in 

mathematics and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. Additional biographical material, 

including lists of testimony and publications, is provided in Appendix A. 

STUDY DESIGN

Two surveys were conducted to test the extent to which, if at all, the allegedly 

misleading representations regarding the security of DLS devices would influence the 

likelihood of consumers purchasing a DLS router.

One survey tested marketing materials for the D-Link N 300 (DIR-615) wireless router 

included as Exhibit PX 2 to the FTC Complaint (the N 300 Survey).

The second survey tested marketing materials for the D-Link N 600 Dual Band (DIR815) wireless router included as Exhibit PX 4 to the FTC Complaint (the N 600 Survey).

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 6 of 112
Page | 6

These materials were selected to test because they are representative of the various 

ways in which the allegedly misleading representations appear on the challenged DLS

materials. In my opinion, the N 300 (DIR-615) and N 600 (DIR-815) Survey results are 

also applicable to comparably marketed DLS products, such as the DLS router shown in 

Exhibit PX 3 and PX 5 of the Complaint. The representations relating to security in such 

products are substantially similar to the representations in the materials for the N 300

(DIR-615) and N 600 (DIR-815) models tested.

Each survey utilized a classic experimental design consisting of a Test Group and a 

Control (placebo) Group.2 For each survey, the Test Group viewed the actual marketing 

materials containing the allegedly misleading misrepresentations and the Control 

Group viewed an altered version of the materials in which all references to security 

were removed. Accordingly, comparing the results of the Test and Control Groups 

scientifically measures the impact of the representations pertaining to security, if any, as 

that is the only element that differs from one group to the other.

As the surveys were conducted online, all the instructions and questions were 

displayed on respondents’ computer screens and each question appeared on its own 

screen.

 

2 A Control Group in a survey is akin to a placebo group in a classic scientific experiment. 

When a Test Group is given a medication and questioned about its impact, a Control or Placebo 

Group is given a placebo and asked the same questions to assess the extent to which the same 

result ensues. A placebo is a pill that removes the active ingredient at issue but changes nothing 

else. If, for example, 30% of the Test Group responds that the medication helped their 

headache, the Control Group must be consulted to determine the extent to which, if at all, this 

result can be reliably attributed to the effectiveness of the active ingredient. If 25% to 30% of the 

Control Group reports that the medication (placebo) helped their headache, we know that the 

30% Test Group result cannot be attributed to the effectiveness of the test medication, as those 

given the placebo had a very similar result. If, on the other hand, only 10% of the Control 

Group reports a benefit, we know that the 20% difference between the Test result (30%) and the 

Control result (10%) must reflect the genuine impact of the Test medication. The same 

experimental design (comparing Test and Control Groups) is commonly used in package or 

advertising surveys to isolate the impact of an element of the advertising.

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 7 of 112
Page | 7

D-Link N 300 (DIR-615) -- Test Group

A total of 200 unique respondents participated in the D-Link N 300 (DIR-615) Test 

Group. After a series of initial screening questions, all respondents were prompted: 

On the next screens we are going to show you advertising for a wireless router. 

Please take your time to review it as you would if you were considering 

purchasing the advertised product.

To ensure that you have enough time to review the advertising, the continue 

button on each screen will not be enabled until 60 seconds have elapsed. 

When you have finished reviewing the advertising, you will be asked some 

questions. For any question, if you have no opinion or do not know then please 

indicate so. Please do not guess.

Please select “continue” to move on with the survey. 

Respondents in the D-Link N 300 (DIR-615) Test Group saw then were shown both 

pages of the D-Link N 300 (DIR-615) advertising piece included as Exhibit PX-2 to the 

FTC Complaint. First, respondents saw the following instruction and image:2

Please take your time to review the first page of the advertisement.

 

2 This image and all other images have been reduced in size to appear in this report. In the 

actual survey, this image appeared large across respondents’ screens. Screenshots of how the 

survey appeared to respondents are provided in Appendix C of this report and the actual 

images used to program the survey are provided in Appendix E.

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 8 of 112
Page | 8

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 9 of 112
Page | 9

After one minute elapsed, the following instruction appeared on screen beneath the 

advertisement: 

Before continuing with the survey, please indicate whether or not you have 

viewed the advertisement clearly.

• I viewed the advertisement clearly

• I am unable to view the advertisement clearly

Respondents viewed the advertisement for a minimum of one minute and confirmed 

they viewed the advertisement clearly before continuing with the survey. These are 

standard quality procedures to ensure respondents view the advertising successfully 

and for an amount of time that allows them to meaningfully participate in the survey. 

On the next screen, respondents in the D-Link N 300 (DIR-615) Test Group were shown 

the following instruction and image: 

Now please take your time to review the second page of the advertisement.

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 10 of 112
Page | 10

After one minute elapsed, the following instruction appeared beneath the image: 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 11 of 112
Page | 11

Before continuing with the survey, please indicate whether or not you have 

viewed the advertisement clearly.

• I viewed the advertisement clearly

• I am unable to view the advertisement clearly

Respondents viewed this advertisement for a minimum of one minute and confirmed 

they viewed the advertisement clearly before continuing. 

This procedure ensured that respondents had to spend at least 60 seconds on each page 

of the advertising, for a minimum total time of 120 seconds. This ensured that 

respondents had more than adequate opportunity to notice and review any content 

relating to security.

On the next screen, all respondents were instructed: 

For the next questions, please assume that you have decided to purchase a 

wireless router and are considering whether or not to purchase the one you were 

just shown advertising for.

Respondents were then asked: 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 12 of 112
Page | 12

Using the scale below, please select how likely or unlikely you would be to purchase 

the wireless router that you were just shown advertising for?

(Please select one response)3

• Extremely likely 

• Very likely 

• Somewhat likely 

• Neither likely nor unlikely 

• Somewhat unlikely

• Very unlikely

• Extremely unlikely

• Don’t know 

This question measured respondents’ level of purchase consideration (likelihood of 

purchase) based on the advertising, so that the result could be compared to the 

corresponding result for the Control Group that viewed the advertising without any of 

the content relating to security.

Next, respondents who selected any answer other than “Don’t know,” were asked: 

What makes you say that you would be [the answer selected in response to the 

previous question was inserted into the question text here] to purchase the wireless 

router that you were just shown advertising for?

Please be as specific as possible.

Respondents could type in any answer or select, “Don’t know.” 

These respondents were then also asked: 

 

3 To avoid result bias due to response option order the order in which the scale appeared, 

rotated, so that half of all respondents saw the scale in the order shown here, while half saw the 

scale in reverse order with “Extremely unlikely,” listed first. “Don’t know,” always appeared 

last.

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 13 of 112
Page | 13

Please list any features or aspects of the wireless router that makes you [the same 

text that was inserted into the previous question was inserted again here] to purchase 

it?

You may use as many or few of the boxes below as you need.

Respondents could enter up to ten different reasons or select, “No opinion/Don’t 

know.” 

This concluded the survey for all respondents in the D-Link N 300 (DIR-615) Test 

Group. 

D-Link N 600 Dual Band (DIR-815) -- Test Group

A separate Test Group of 200 respondents participated in the D-Link N 600 Dual Band 

(DIR-815) Test Group. These respondents took a survey identical to that taken by the DLink N 300 (DIR-615) Test Group with sole exception that they were shown the three 

pages of the D-Link N 600 Dual Band advertisement shown as Exhibit PX-4 in the FTC 

Complaint in lieu of the advertising shown to the D-Link N 300 (DIR-615) Test Group. 

First, respondents in the D-Link N 600 Dual Band (DIR-815) Test Group saw: 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 14 of 112
Page | 14

Followed by: 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 15 of 112
Page | 15

And finally: 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 16 of 112
Page | 16

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 17 of 112
Page | 17

These three images were presented in a manner identical to how the images were 

presented in the D-Link N 300 (DIR-615) Test Group – i.e. respondents viewed each 

image for a minimum of one minute and confirmed they viewed each advertisement 

clearly before continuing. As noted already, this ensured that respondents had more 

than adequate opportunity to notice and review any content relating to security.

Control Groups

A total of 400 unique respondents participated in corresponding Control Groups for 

each survey: 200 in the D-Link N 300 (DIR-615) Control Group, and 200 in the D-Link N

600 Dual Band (DIR-815) Control Group. The Control Groups’ function is to measure 

respondents’ likelihood of purchasing the product after reviewing advertising that does 

not contain any of the allegedly misleading content relating to security. The Control 

Groups saw advertising in which the alleged misrepresentations pertaining to security 

features were removed. This allows the results of the Test and Control Groups to be 

compared to determine if there is any difference in results that could be reliably 

attributed to the alleged misrepresentations of security features, which appear only in 

the Test Group stimulus.

Respondents in the Control Groups took a survey identical to that as the respondents in 

the corresponding Test Groups with the sole exception that Control Group respondents

saw control images in place of the corresponding test images. The Control images were 

presented in an identical format and manner as the corresponding Test images in the 

Test Groups. 

D-Link N 300 (DIR-615) Control Group respondents saw two control images in place of 

the two images seen by their Test Group counterparts. First, Control Group respondents 

saw the following image in which the entire “Easy to Secure” section that appeared at 

the bottom of the Test Group advertisement was removed: 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 18 of 112
Page | 18

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 19 of 112
Page | 19

Control Group respondents were then shown the next image in which the “Security”

section under the “Technical Specifications” heading was entirely removed, along with 

any other text referring to security or protection:

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 20 of 112
Page | 20

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 21 of 112
Page | 21

Meanwhile, D-Link N 600 Dual Band (DIR-815) Control Group respondents saw the 

same first image as their Test Group counterparts: 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 22 of 112
Page | 22

Then the following two control images were shown in place of the second and third 

images seen by their Test Group counterparts. First, the following control image was 

shown in which the entire “Advanced Network Security” section in the top right corner 

of the corresponding test image was removed, along with any other text referring to 

security or protection: 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 23 of 112
Page | 23

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 24 of 112
Page | 24

Next, respondents saw the following image in which the word “protected” was 

eliminated under the “Security” heading, so that it read, “Wi-Fi Access” instead of “WiFi Protected Access:”

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 25 of 112
Page | 25

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 26 of 112
Page | 26

The altered Control images were fair and appropriate controls in that the only elements 

that differed from the Test Group images were the allegedly misleading security 

features. 

Screenshots of the survey will be provided in Appendix C.

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 27 of 112
Page | 27

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

This section details certain key survey findings. Other survey results are discussed 

further in the Detailed Findings section below.

• In both the N 300 (DIR-615) and N 600 (DIR-815) Surveys, the percentage of Test 

Group respondents who are likely to purchase the advertised router did not 

exceed the Control Group result, even though the Control Group advertising had 

every reference to security/protection eliminated. This demonstrates that the 

allegedly misleading representations relating to security do not materially 

impact consumer purchase decisions. 

• Security/protection features were not identified by consumers in the open-ended 

answers, as a key driver in their decision to purchase or not purchase the 

advertised router.

See Detailed Findings section below for additional information on results. The full data 

will be provided in its original electronic form in Appendix D.

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 28 of 112
Page | 28

METHODOLOGY

THE RELEVANT UNIVERSE OF INTEREST

The appropriate sample universe for the survey consisted of U.S. consumers age 18 and 

older who have purchased a wireless router in the past twelve months or are likely to 

purchase one in the next twelve months. Such actual and prospective purchasers of 

wireless routers are the proper subjects for the survey because they are of an 

appropriate consumers mindset to realistically simulate consideration of a wireless 

router purchase.4

The following screening questions were employed to ensure the final survey sample 

was comprised of respondents from the appropriate sample universe.

First, after initial demographic questions, all potential respondents were asked: 

Which of the following types of products, if any, have you purchased in the past 

12 months?

(Select all that apply or “none of these.”)

 

4 While I understand that the Complaint pertains to marketing of wireless routers over a period 

of time extending significantly further into the past than one year, the “past 12 months” time 

period was still standard and appropriate. The goal was not to interview past purchasers about 

purchases that occurred too long ago to reliably question them about. The objective was to 

create an experiment in which consideration of a purchase is simulated, to test whether the 

content relating to security has an impact on likelihood of purchase. This requires not remote 

past purchasers, but those who have either purchased more recently or are likely to purchase, 

so that the survey’s simulation of a purchase scenario is reasonably timely and relevant to them, 

and they can participate in the survey with a mindset representative of a true prospective 

purchaser.

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 29 of 112
Page | 29

The following table displays the randomized list of options available from which 

respondents could select as many as applied to them and the proportion of final 

respondents who selected each: 

Purchased in Past 12 Months

D-Link N 300

(DIR-615)

Survey

(N=400)

D-Link N 600

Dual Band

(DIR-815) Survey

(N=400)

N % N %

Wireless router 345 86.3% 357 89.3%

Electronic toothbrush 144 36.0% 158 39.5%

IP camera 29 7.3% 36 9.0%

Radon detector 13 3.3% 13 3.3%

C.Y.R.P. monitor5 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

None of these 39 9.8% 28 7.0%

Offering a variety of answer choices served to mask the intention of the survey, so that 

respondents would not know which option or options would cause them to qualify for 

the survey.

All potential respondents were also asked: 

Which of the following types of products, if any, are you likely to purchase in the 

next 12 months?

(Select all that apply or “none of these.”)

 

5 “C.Y.R.P. monitor” is a fictional option that was included for quality control purposes. 

Respondents who selected this option were determined to be selecting answers indiscriminately 

or paying insufficient attention to the survey and were excluded. This ensured that only those 

who were paying attention and genuinely selecting products they had purchased could 

participate in the survey.

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 30 of 112
Page | 30

The following table displays the randomized list of options available from which 

respondents could select as many as applied to them and the proportion of final 

respondents who selected each: 

Likely to Purchase in Next 12 Months

D-Link N 300

(DIR-615) 

Survey

(N=400)

D-Link N 600

Dual Band 

(DIR-815) Survey

(N=400)

N % N %

Wireless router 135 33.8% 131 32.8%

Electronic toothbrush 118 29.5% 140 35.0%

IP camera 70 17.5% 67 16.8%

Radon detector 33 8.3% 24 6.0%

C.Y.R.P. monitor6 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

None of these 173 43.3% 156 39.0%

Respondents who selected “wireless router” in response to one or both of these 

questions continued with the survey. Those who did not were terminated.

Respondents who selected “wireless router” in response to either of these questions 

were then asked: 

Which of the following best describes your role, if any, in the decision about 

which wireless router to purchase?

(Select one response)

The following table displays the randomized list of options available from which 

respondents could select and the proportion of final respondents who selected each: 

 

6 As explained earlier, those who selected the fictional “C.Y.R.P. monitor” choice were excluded.

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 31 of 112
Page | 31

Role in Purchase Decision Regarding Wireless Router

D-Link N 300

(DIR-615) 

Survey

(N=400)

D-Link N 600

Dual Band 

(DIR-815) Survey

(N=400)

N % N %

I am the primary or sole decision-maker 304 76.0% 315 78.8%

I share in the decision with someone else in my 

household 96 24.0% 85 21.3%

I am not involved in the decision 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Don’t know 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Respondents who at least share in the decision about which wireless router to purchase 

were considered part of the relevant sample universe and qualified to participate in the 

main survey. 

Prior to continuing to the main survey, these respondents were asked the following 

question for classification purposes: 

In which of the following ways, if any, have you shopped for, or would you 

consider shopping for a wireless router?

(Select all that apply)

The following table displays the randomized list of options available from which 

respondents could select and the proportion of final respondents who selected each: 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 32 of 112
Page | 32

Where Shopped/Would Shop for Wireless Router

D-Link N 300

(DIR-615) 

Survey

(N=400)

D-Link N 600

Dual Band 

(DIR-815) Survey

(N=400)

N % N %

Online 308 77.0% 313 78.3%

In a store 324 81.0% 307 76.8%

Other 10 2.5% 17 4.3%

Upon completion of the main survey, all respondents were also asked the following

questions for classification purposes: 

Do you or does anyone in your household work for any of the following?

(Select all that apply or none)

The following table displays results to this question: 

Related Field

D-Link N 300

(DIR-615)

Survey

(N=400)

D-Link N 600

Dual Band 

(DIR-815) Survey

(N=400)

N % N %

For a company that makes or sells wireless 

routers 5 1.3% 14 3.5%

For a company that makes or sells IP cameras 6 1.5% 3 0.8%

For a federal government agency 3 0.8% 2 0.5%

In market research 5 1.3% 2 0.5%

In advertising 3 0.8% 0 0.0%

None of these 384 96.0% 380 95.0%

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 33 of 112
Page | 33

Excluding the negligible number of respondents who indicated that they or someone in 

their household works in a related field would not impact the results of my analysis or 

my conclusions. 

Next, respondents were asked: 

Which of the following brands of wireless router, if any, have you purchased in 

the past 5 years? 

(Select all that apply)

The following table displays the randomized list of response options available to 

respondents and the proportion of final respondents who selected each: 

Brands Purchased

D-Link N 300

(DIR-615)

Survey

(N=400)

D-Link N 600

Dual Band 

(DIR-815) Survey

(N=400)

N % N %

Netgear 193 48.3% 174 43.5%

Linksys 158 39.5% 138 34.5%

D-Link 79 19.8% 91 22.8%

Tp-Link 57 14.3% 56 14.0%

Asus 30 7.5% 37 9.3%

TrendNet 2 0.5% 1 0.3%

None of these 50 12.5% 60 15.0%

This concluded the screening and classification questions for all respondents. 

The actual wording of the screening questions used is shown in Appendix B. 

SAMPLING PLAN

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 34 of 112
Page | 34

The sampling plan involved a random selection of consumers who are part of an online 

panel. 

Online surveys are well-accepted in the field of survey research as a standard, reliable 

methodology. Indeed, online surveys are now the most common method of conducting 

market research among consumers. Businesses and other organizations routinely make 

decisions of importance based on the results of online survey research among 

consumers, and online surveys have been accepted in evidence in numerous U.S. 

District Court cases. I have personally designed and executed numerous internet 

surveys that have been accepted by courts. 

The sample of panelists used in the survey was provided by Survey Sampling 

International (SSI), a leading supplier of online sample for surveys. SSI has a large and 

diverse panel consisting of millions of Americans and is highly regarded as a reputable 

source of respondents for online surveys within the field of market research. SSI 

utilizes appropriate industry procedures for ensuring the integrity and quality of its 

panels. Quality and authentication of their panelists are maintained on an ongoing 

basis through such procedures as digital fingerprinting and matching against thirdparty databases, among others. 

SSI also ensures data integrity through their continued review of their panelists’ 

behavior on their own and through the assistance of their clients, by employing the 

following tactics to flag panelists who compromise the quality of their panels: 

- Timestamps to flag respondents who take surveys too quickly, indicating they are 

not paying sufficient attention 

- Identifying those who consistently tic items straight down or across grid-format 

questions, indicating a respondent is clicking without actually considering each 

item

- Quality control questions to identify panelists’ inattention

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 35 of 112
Page | 35

- Real-time database analyses to stop fraudulent respondents

A sampling plan was carefully structured in order to represent the demographics of 

wireless router consumers. 

During the initial field period I calculated the rate of qualification within each 

individual age and gender group. I then calibrated these individual incidence rates 

against U.S. Census data by age and gender and set revised age and gender quotas for 

the final sample size of 200 per Test and Control Group in each survey. The following 

table displays the final proportion of sample achieved by age and gender for each 

survey Group: 

Final Number of Respondents in Each Survey Group

N=200 per Group N %

Male 18 – 34 22 11.0%

Male 35 – 54 417 20.5%

Male 55 and older 32 16.0%

Female 18 – 34 25 12.5%

Female 35 – 54 42 21.0%

Female 55 and older 388 19.0%

This methodology for producing a representative sample of the relevant category (here, 

wireless router consumers) is standard and well-accepted. 

 

7 The D-Link N 600 Dual Band Test Group included 40 males age 35 to 54, instead of 41. 

8 The D-Link N 600 Dual Band Test Group included 39 females age 55 and older, instead of 38. 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 36 of 112
Page | 36

Survey invitations were sent across the U.S. in geographic proportion to Census data. 

The following table displays the final proportion of sample achieved by region in each 

survey: 

Final Number of Respondents by Region in Each Survey

D-Link N 300 (DIR-615)

Survey

(N=400)

D-Link N 600

Dual Band (DIR-815) 

Survey

(N=400)

Midwest 19.0% 16.0%

Northeast 18.5% 22.0%

South 16.0% 15.5%

West 25.3% 21.8%

Southeast 21.3% 24.8%

DATA PROCESSING

Data was collected by Focus Vision, a company specializing in web survey 

programming and data collection and processing, and made available to Hal Poret, LLC 

through an electronic portal on an ongoing basis. The data set showing each 

respondent’s answers to all questions will be provided in electronic form.9 

INTERVIEWING PROCEDURES

The online survey was programmed and hosted by Focus Vision. My staff and I 

thoroughly tested the programmed survey prior to any potential respondents receiving 

the invitation to participate in the survey. 

 

9 See Appendix D of this report.

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 37 of 112
Page | 37

DOUBLE-BLIND INTERVIEWING

The study was administered under “double-blind” conditions. That is, not only were 

the respondents kept uninformed as to the purpose and sponsorship of the study, but 

the services involved in providing the sample and administering the online interviews 

(Focus Vision and SSI) were similarly “blind” with respect to the study’s purpose and 

sponsorship. 

INTERVIEWING PERIOD

Interviewing for the Survey was conducted from March 29, 2018 through April 23, 2018. 

QUALITY CONTROL

Several measures were implemented to ensure a high level of quality control and 

validation with respect to respondents taking the survey. 

Upon initially entering the survey, all respondents were required to pass a test to verify 

that each respondent is a live person. The test employed in this survey is a CAPTCHA10

program that generates a task that humans can pass but current computer programs 

cannot. CAPTCHA is a well-known and widely-used tool in online survey research. 

Upon successfully passing the CAPTCHA test, respondents were then asked to enter 

their year of birth and then their gender. This information was checked against the 

sample provider’s (SSI’s) demographics on record for each respondent and any 

respondent providing an incorrect or inconsistent birth year and/or gender was unable 

to continue to the main survey. 

 

10 CAPTCHA is an acronym for “Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell computers 

and Humans Apart.”

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 38 of 112
Page | 38

Additionally, respondents were then asked to select their age range. Respondents who 

selected an age range inconsistent with their year of birth were unable to continue with 

the survey. 

These combined steps ensured that the survey was being taken by an actual live person 

and that each person was paying a certain level of attention to the survey questions and 

taking a certain level of care in entering responses.

All respondents were also asked to select any web browsers or search engines they have 

used in the past three months. Respondents could select as many as applied to them 

from a list of ten options, including, “other,” “not sure” and one fictitious name: 

Hagelin. Respondents who selected “Hagelin” were unable to continue. Additionally, 

respondents who answered that they have used all seven of the actual web browsers 

and search engines included on the response list, were identified as “yea-sayers” and 

unable to continue with the survey.11

The following question was also asked and permitted additional screening out of 

respondents who were paying insufficient attention or clicking responses 

indiscriminately: 

For quality assurance, please type the word "west" in the blank next to the 

"Other" box below and then click to continue.

• Strongly agree

• Agree

• Neutral

• Disagree

• Strongly disagree

• Other ________ 

 

11 “Yea-sayers” in surveys are typically defined as respondents who answer affirmatively to 

questions, regardless of their belief. 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 39 of 112
Page | 39

Respondents who selected “other” and typed a response in the blank continued with 

the survey. A review was conducted of all open-ended answers, including responses to 

this question and respondents who failed to follow instructions for this question, or 

gave other non-responsive or nonsense answers to open-ended questions were removed 

from the final data.

Respondents were then also asked to carefully read these instructions: 

* Please take the survey in one session without interruption.

* Please keep your browser maximized for the entire survey.

* While taking the survey, please do not consult any other websites or other 

electronic or written materials.

* Please answer all questions on your own without consulting any other person.

* If you normally wear eye glasses or contact lenses when viewing a computer 

screen, please wear them for the survey.

Two options were provided in response to these instructions: 1) I understand and agree 

to the above instructions, and 2) I do not understand or do not agree to the above 

instructions. Only respondents who understood and agreed to the instructions then 

continued to the main section of the survey. 

Additionally, the survey program was set up in such a way as to restrict respondents 

from taking the survey via mobile phones. This contributed to ensuring respondents 

could easily and clearly view the images displayed in the surveys as well as each 

question and corresponding response options. 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 40 of 112
Page | 40

DETAILED FINDINGS

I. D-Link N 300 (DIR-615) – Results 

The D-Link N 300 (DIR-615) Survey results to the key question are displayed in the 

following table: 

D-Link N 300 (DIR-615) – Test v Control 

Q305: Using the scale below, please select how likely or unlikely you would be to 

purchase the wireless router that you were just shown advertising for?

N 300 Test Group

(N=200)

N 300 Control Group

(N=200)

Likely Top 3 (NET) 72.0%

144

77.5%

155

Likely Top 2 (NET) 42.5%

85

49.5%

99

Extremely likely 18.5%

37

18.0%

36

Very likely 24.0%

48

31.5%

63

Somewhat likely 29.5%

59

28.0%

56

Neither likely nor unlikely 13.0%

26

9.5%

19

Somewhat unlikely 5.5%

11

5.0%

10

Very unlikely 4.5%

9

3.0%

6

Extremely unlikely 4.5%

9

3.5%

7

Unlikely Bottom 2 (NET) 9.0%

18

6.5%

13

Unlikely Bottom 3 (NET) 14.5%

29

11.5%

23

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 41 of 112
Page | 41

Don’t know 0.5%

1

1.5%

3

As this table shows, the proportion of the Test Group that answered they would be 

likely to purchase the wireless router they saw advertised (with the allegedly 

misleading representations) does not exceed the proportion of Control Group 

respondents who answered they are likely to purchase the wireless router after viewing 

the altered advertising without the representations relating to security. The failure of 

the Test Group rate of likelihood of purchase to exceed the Control Group rate 

demonstrates that the advertising content relating to security does not materially 

impact the likelihood of purchase. 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 42 of 112
Page | 42

II. D-Link N 600 Dual Band (DIR-815) – Results 

The D-Link N 600 Dual Band (DIR-815) Survey results to the key question are displayed 

in the following table: 

D-Link N 600 Dual Band – Test v Control 

Q305: Using the scale below, please select how likely or unlikely you would be to 

purchase the wireless router that you were just shown advertising for?

N 600 Test Group

(N=200)

N 600 Control Group

(N=200)

Likely Top 3 (NET) 78.0%

156

80.5%

161

Likely Top 2 (NET) 54.0%

108

53.5%

107

Extremely likely 22.5%

45

23.0%

46

Very likely 31.5%

63

30.5%

61

Somewhat likely 24.0%

48

27.0%

54

Neither likely nor unlikely 9.5%

19

8.0%

16

Somewhat unlikely 3.5%

7

6.0%

12

Very unlikely 3.5%

7

1.5%

3

Extremely unlikely 5.0%

10

3.5%

7

Unlikely Bottom 2 (NET) 8.5%

17

5.0%

10

Unlikely Bottom 3 (NET) 12.0%

24

11.0%

22

Don’t know 0.5%

1

0.5%

1

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 43 of 112
Page | 43

As this table shows, the proportion of the Test Group that answered they would be 

likely to purchase the wireless router they saw advertised (with the allegedly 

misleading representations) does not exceed the proportion of Control Group 

respondents who answered they are likely to purchase the wireless router after viewing 

the altered advertising without the representations relating to security. The failure of 

the Test Group rate of likelihood of purchase to exceed the Control Group rate 

demonstrates that the advertising content relating to security does not materially 

impact the likelihood of purchase.

III. Open-Ended Analysis 

The comparison of the closed-ended Test and Control Group results discussed above is 

the most objective and scientific way to determine the impact of the representations 

relating to security, because that is the only difference between the two groups. 

Nevertheless, it is also of interest to examine respondents’ open-ended answers as to 

what aspects of the router they considered in answering the questions.

The following tables illustrates a coded summary of the open-ended answers provided 

by each Group when asked for the reasons why they gave their answer regarding 

purchase of the N 300 (DIR 615) router: 

Q310: N 300 (DIR 615) Router (purchase 

considerations) TEST CONTROL

N=200 per Group N % N %

Good/I like it/good features/it's what I need 26 13.00% 34 17.00%

Signal strength/range/no dead spots 23 11.50% 25 12.50%

Speed/Fast/wide broadband/dual band/bandwidth 22 11.00% 22 11.00%

Technology/power/performance/latest 

technology/out-of-date technology 17 8.50% 10 5.00%

Price (depends on price)/1-year warranty 15 7.50% 19 9.50%

Brand/D-Link/familiar with brand/not familiar with 

brand 15 7.50% 14 7.00%

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 44 of 112
Page | 44

Don’t know enough/need more info/need to 

compare

14 7.00% 17 8.50%

I need one/I don't need one 14 7.00% 9 4.50%

Security/protection/firewall 14 7.00% 5 2.50%

Interface/capacity/# of devices/# of ports 12 6.00% 7 3.50%

Easy/Setup wizard 9 4.50% 11 5.50%

Compatibility 7 3.50% 16 8.00%

Reviews/reputation 4 2.00% 3 1.50%

Design/size/appearance 4 2.00% 5 2.50%

Parental controls/settings 4 2.00% 3 1.50%

Quality/dependable/capable 2 1.00% 10 5.00%

Antennas 1 0.50% 6 3.00%

Other 1 0.50% 0 0.00%

N v. G (meaning not specified) 1 0.50% 3 1.50%

As this table shows, only 7.0% of Test Group respondents mentioned anything about 

security or protection (or firewall) in their answer. In the Control Group, 2.5% of 

respondents gave answers relating to security or protection, which reflects a level of 

background survey noise – i.e., tendency to give answers that could not have been 

caused by the advertising content, such as pre-existing beliefs, assumptions, or 

guessing. The Test Group result of mentioning security only exceeds the Control Group 

result by 4.5%. 

Q310: N 600 (DIR-815) Router (purchase 

considerations) TEST CONTROL

N=200 per Group N % N %

Speed/Fast/wide broadband/dual band/bandwidth 59 29.50% 55 27.50%

Good/I like it/good features/it's what I need 36 18.00% 26 13.00%

Price (depends on price)/1-year warranty 21 10.50% 21 10.50%

Interface/capacity/# of devices/# of ports 14 7.00% 15 7.50%

Signal strength/range/no dead spots 12 6.00% 16 8.00%

Technology/power/performance/latest 

technology/out-of-date technology 12 6.00% 10 5.00%

Brand/D-Link/familiar with brand/not familiar with 

brand 12 6.00% 16 8.00%

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 45 of 112
Page | 45

Security/protection/firewall 11 5.50% 2 1.00%

Quality/dependable/capable 10 5.00% 8 4.00%

I need one/I don't need one 9 4.50% 7 3.50%

Compatibility 9 4.50% 5 2.50%

Don’t know enough/need more info/need to 

compare

8 4.00% 10 5.00%

Design/size/appearance 8 4.00% 2 1.00%

Easy/Setup wizard 6 3.00% 9 4.50%

Reviews/reputation 5 2.50% 3 1.50%

Other 2 1.00% 0 0.00%

Parental controls/settings 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Antennas 0 0.00% 2 1.00%

As this table shows, only 5.5% of Test Group respondents mentioned anything about 

security or protection (or firewall) in their answer. In the Control Group, 1.0% of 

respondents gave answers relating to security or protection. The Test Group result of 

mentioning security again only exceeds the Control Group result by 4.5%. 

The following tables illustrates the summary of coded open-ended answers provided by 

each Group when asked to list any features or aspects that make the respondent either 

likely or unlikely to purchase the router:

Q320: N 300 (DIR 615) Router (Features listed) TEST CONTROL

N=200 per Group N % N %

Speed/Fast/wide broadband/dual band/bandwidth 67 33.50% 56 28.00%

Signal strength/range/no dead spots 59 29.50% 49 24.50%

Easy/Setup wizard 35 17.50% 39 19.50%

Security/protection/firewall 26 13.00% 7 3.50%

Design/size/appearance 23 11.50% 26 13.00%

Quality/dependable/capable 21 10.50% 15 7.50%

Interface/capacity/# of devices/# of ports 15 7.50% 21 10.50%

Compatibility 15 7.50% 24 12.00%

Parental controls/settings 14 7.00% 10 5.00%

Wi-Fi/Wireless 13 6.50% 12 6.00%

Brand/D-Link/familiar with brand/not familiar with brand 12 6.00% 13 6.50%

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 46 of 112
Page | 46

Price (depends on price)/1-year warranty 10 5.00% 6 3.00%

Other 8 4.00% 9 4.50%

Antennas 8 4.00% 17 8.50%

Good/I like it/good features/it's what I need 7 3.50% 9 4.50%

Reviews/reputation 6 3.00% 1 0.50%

N v. G (meaning not specified) 6 3.00% 5 2.50%

Technology/power/performance/latest technology/out-ofdate technology 5 2.50% 10 5.00%

Don't know enough/need more info/need to compare 1 0.50% 0 0.00%

I need one/I don't need one 1 0.50% 1 0.50%

Standards 0 0.00% 5 2.50%

As this table shows, even when probed further to comment on specific features, only 

13.0% of Test Group respondents mentioned anything about security or protection (or 

firewall) in their answer. In the Control Group, 3.5% of respondents gave answers 

relating to security or protection. The Test Group result of mentioning security only 

exceeds the Control Group result by 9.5%. 

Q320: N 600 (DIR-815) Router (Features listed) TEST CONTROL

N=200 per Group N % N %

Speed/Fast/wide broadband/dual band/bandwidth 130 65.00% 119 59.50%

Signal strength/range/no dead spots 37 18.50% 34 17.00%

Interface/capacity/# of devices/# of ports 32 16.00% 31 15.50%

Easy/Setup wizard 24 12.00% 24 12.00%

Design/size/appearance 24 12.00% 23 11.50%

Security/protection/firewall 23 11.50% 5 2.50%

Brand/D-Link/familiar with brand/not familiar with brand 18 9.00% 13 6.50%

Compatibility 13 6.50% 15 7.50%

Quality/dependable/capable 13 6.50% 6 3.00%

Price (depends on price)/1-year warranty 12 6.00% 11 5.50%

Good/I like it/good features/it's what I need 11 5.50% 13 6.50%

Other 10 5.00% 12 6.00%

Wi-Fi/Wireless 7 3.50% 12 6.00%

Technology/power/performance/latest technology/out-ofdate technology 6 3.00% 16 8.00%

Antennas 5 2.50% 5 2.50%

N v. G (meaning not specified) 5 2.50% 1 0.50%

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 47 of 112
Page | 47

Reviews/reputation 2 1.00% 2 1.00%

I need one/I don't need one 2 1.00% 1 0.50%

Standards 0 0.00% 3 1.50%

Don't know enough/need more info/need to compare 0 0.00% 2 1.00%

Parental controls/settings 0 0.00% 1 0.50%

As this table shows, even when probed further to comment on specific features, only 

11.5% of Test Group respondents mentioned anything about security or protection (or 

firewall) in their answer. In the Control Group, 2.5% of respondents gave answers 

relating to security or protection. The Test Group result of mentioning security only 

exceeds the Control Group result by 9.0%. 

These figures further corroborate the main finding from the closed-ended analysis that 

the advertising content relating to security does not materially impact the likelihood of 

purchase.

CONCLUSION

Based on the survey results, it is my opinion that the alleged misrepresentations relating 

to security do not materially impact the likelihood of purchase of the advertised DLS

routers.

Dated: July 31, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 48 of 112
THE FOLLOWING APPENDICES ARE PROVIDED SEPARATELY:

APPENDIX A: CURRICULUM VITAE OF STUDY’S AUTHOR

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX C: SCREENSHOTS OF SURVEY 

APPENDIX D: SURVEY DATA FILE 

APPENDIX E: IMAGES USED IN SURVEY 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 49 of 112
Appendix A

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 50 of 112
Hal L. Poret (hal.inc42@gmail.com; 914-772-5087)

Education

1998 Harvard Law School, J.D., cum laude

• Editor/Writer – Harvard Law Record

• Research Assistant to Professor Martha Minow

1995 S.U.N.Y. Albany, M.A. in Mathematics, summa cum laude

• Statistics

• Taught calculus/precalculus/statistics

1993 Union College, B.S. in Mathematics with honors, magna cum laude

• Phi Beta Kappa

• Resch Award for Achievement in Mathematical Research

Employment

2016 - President, Hal Poret LLC

• Design, supervise, and analyze consumer surveys, including 

Trademark, Trade Dress, Advertising Perception, Consumer 

Deception, Claims Substantiation studies, Damages, and Corporate 

Market Research Surveys

• Consulting regarding survey design and review of other surveys

• Provided expert testimony at deposition and/or trial regarding survey 

research in over 100 U.S. District Court litigations and proceedings in 

front of TTAB, NAD, FTC and FCC. 

2004 - 2015 Senior Vice President, ORC International

• Designed, supervised, and analyzed consumer surveys in legal and 

corporate market research areas, and provided expert testimony 

regarding survey research in legal cases.

2003 – 2004 Internet Sports Advantage

• Developed and marketed proprietary internet sports product, and 

licensed trademark and intellectual property rights.

1998 – 2003 Attorney, Foley Hoag & Eliot, Boston, MA

• Represented corporations and individuals in trademark, trade dress, 

advertising, product, and related legal disputes. 

• Worked with survey experts in developing and using surveys as 

evidence in trademark, trade dress and advertising disputes. 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 51 of 112
Testimony at Trial or by Deposition Past 4 Years

(Party who retained me shown in bold)

2018 Combe v. Dr. August Wolff

(Deposition) USDC Eastern District of VA

2018 In Re GM Ignition Switch Litigation

(Deposition) USDC Southern District of NY

2018 Zetor v. Ridgeway

(Trial Testimony Deposition) USDC Western District of AR

2018 Superior Consulting v. Shaklee

(Deposition and Hearing) USDC Middle District of FL

2018 Monster Energy Company v. Integrated Supply Network

(Deposition) USDC Central District of CA

2018 Sandoz v. GlaxoSmithkline

(Deposition) USPTO Opposition

2018 JB-Weld v. Gorilla Glue Company

(Deposition) USDC Northern District of GA

2018 Bratton v. The Hershey Company

(Deposition) USDC Western District of MO

2018 Leadership Studies v. Blanchard Training & Development

(Deposition) USDC Southern District of CA

2017 Gulfstream Aerospace v. Gulfstream Unsinkable Boats

(Deposition) USPTO Opposition/Cancellation

2017 Mercado Latino v. Indio

(Deposition) USDC Central District of CA

2017 Delalat v. Nutiva

(Deposition) USDC Northern District of CA

2017 Dashaw v. New Balance

(Deposition) USDC Southern District of CA

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 52 of 112
2017 Bearing Tech v. O’Reilly Automotive 

(Deposition) USDC Western District of MO

2017 Soundview v. Facebook

(Deposition) USDC District of Delaware

2017 Rovi v. Comcast

(Deposition) USDC Southern District of NY

2017 Puma v. Black & Decker

(Trial) New Mexico Circuit Court

2017 Select Comfort v. Personal Comfort

(Trial and Deposition) USDC District of Minn

2017 Alzheimer’s Foundation of America v. Alzheimer’s Association

(Deposition and trial) USDC Southern District of NY

2017 Banc of California v. Farmers & Merchants Bank

(Deposition) USDC Central District of CA

2017 PolyGroup v. Willis Electric

(Deposition) Patent Trial and Appeal Board

2017 In re: NCAA Grant-in-Aid Cap Litigation

(Deposition) USDC Northern District of CA

2017 Mullins v. Premier Nutrition USDC Northern District of CA

(Depositions in Class Cert and Merits phases)

2017 Lion’s Gate v. TD Ameritrade

(Deposition) USDC Central District of CA

2017 Deere & Company v. Fimco dba Schaben

(Deposition and trial) USDC Western District of KY

2017 Adidas & Reebok v. TRB

(Deposition) USDC District of Oregon

2017 Church & Dwight v. SPD USDC Southern District of NY

(Deposition/trial in liability phase; deposition/trial in damages phase)

2017 In re: Coca Cola Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (No. II)

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 53 of 112
(Deposition) USDC Northern District of CA

2017 Ducks Unlimited v. Boondux LLC and Caleb Sutton

(Deposition and Trial) USDC Western District of TN

2017 Globefill v. Element Spirits

(Deposition and Trial) USDC Central District of CA

2017 Brickman v. Fitbit

(Deposition) USDC Northern District of CA

2017 Network-1 Technologies v. Alcatel-Lucent et al.

(Deposition) USDC Eastern District of TX

2017 Health Partner Plans v. Reading Health Partners

(Deposition and Injunction hearing) USDC Eastern District of PA

2017 In Re Biogen ‘755 Patent Litigation

(Deposition) USDC District of NJ

2017 Cava Mezze v. Mezze Mediterranean Grill

(Trial) USDC District of MD

2017 Mastrandrea v. Vizio

(Deposition) USDC Central District of CA

2017 Adidas v. Skechers

(Deposition and Injunction hearing) USDC District of OR

2016 Triumph International, Inc. v. Gourmetgiftbaskets.com, Inc.

(Deposition) USDC Central District of CA

2016 Phelan Holdings v. Rare Hospitality Management

(Deposition) USDC Middle District of FL

2016 Intellectual Ventures II v. AT&T Mobility

(Deposition) USDC District of DE

2016 One World Foods v. Stubbs Austin Restaurant Company

(Deposition) USDC Western District of TX

2016 Booking.com B.V. v. Michelle Lee

(Deposition) USDC Eastern District of VA

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 54 of 112
2016 Variety Stores v. Walmart Stores, Inc.

(Trial) USDC Eastern District of NC

2016 American Cruise Lines v. American Queen Steamboat Company

(Deposition) USDC District of DE

2016 Universal Church v. Univ. Life Church

(Deposition) USDC Southern District of NY

2016 U. of Houston v. Houston Col. of Law

(Deposition) USDC Southern District of TX

2016 Navajo Nation v. Urban Outfitters

(Daubert Hearing) USDC District of NM

2016 Beaulieu v. Mohawk Carpet Dist.

(Deposition) USDC Northern District of GA

2016 Efficient Frontiers v. Reserve Media

(Deposition) USDC Central District of CA

2016 McAirlaids v. Medline Industries

(Deposition) USDC Eastern District of VA

2016 Under Armour v. Ass Armor

(Deposition) USDC Southern District of FL

2016 C5 & CoorsTek v. CeramTec

(Deposition and trial) USDC District of Colorado

2016 BBC v. Stander

(Deposition) USDC Central District of CA

2016 Caterpillar v. Tigercat

(Deposition) USPTO Opposition

2016 Premier v. Dish Network

(Deposition) USPTO Opposition

2016 Omaha Steaks v. Greater Omaha

(Rebuttal Testimony) USPTO Opposition

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 55 of 112
2016 EMC v. Pure Storage

(Deposition) USDC District of MA

2016 Top Tobacco v. North Atlantic

(Deposition) USPTO Opposition

2016 Ascension Health v. Ascension Ins.

(Deposition) USDC Eastern District of MO

2016 Quoc Viet v. VV Foods

(Deposition and trial) USDC Central District of CA

2016 Joules v. Macy’s Merchandising Group

(Deposition and trial) USDC Southern District of NY

2015 MMG v. Heimerl & Lammers

(Deposition and trial) USDC District of MN

2015 PRL USA v. Rolex

(Deposition) USDC Southern District of NY

2015 Bison Designs v. Lejon

(Deposition) USDC District of CO

2015 Barrera v. Pharmavite

(Deposition) USDC Central District of CA

2015 Flowers v. Bimbo Bakeries

(Deposition) USDC Middle District of GA

2015 Razor USA v. Vizio

(Deposition) USDC Central District of CA

2015 Allen v. Simalasan

(Deposition) USDC Southern District of CA

2015 BMG Rights Mgmt. v. Cox Enterprises

(Deposition and trial) USDC Eastern District of VA

2015 Verisign v. XYZ.COM LLC

(Deposition) USDC Eastern District of VA

2015 Farmer Boys v. Farm Burger

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 56 of 112
(Deposition) USDC Central District of CA

2015 Ono v. Head Racquet Sports

(Deposition) USDC Central District of CA

2015 Select Comfort v. Tempur Sealy

(Deposition) USDC District of Minn

2015 ExxonMobil v. FX Networks

(Deposition) USDC Southern District of TX

2015 Delta v. Network Associates

(Deposition) USDC Middle District of FL

2015 Brady v. Grendene

(Deposition) USDC Central District of CA

2015 Zippo v. LOEC

(Deposition) USDC Central District of CA

2015 Maier v. ASOS

(Deposition) USDC District of Maryland

2015 Converse In re: Certain Footwear

(Deposition and trial) International Trade Commission

2014 Scholz v. Goudreau

(Deposition) USDC District of Mass

2014 Economy Rent-A-Car v. Economy Car Rentals

(TTAB Testimony) USPTO

2014 Weber v. Sears 

(Deposition) USDC Northern District of IL

2014 Native American Arts v. Stone

(Deposition) USDC Northern District of IL

2014 Gravity Defyer v. Under Armour

(Trial) USDC Central District of CA

2014 Adams v. Target Corporation

(Deposition) USDC Central District of CA

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 57 of 112
2014 PODS v. UHAUL 

(Deposition and trial) USDC Middle District of FL

2014 Flushing v. Green Dot Bank 

(Deposition) USDC Southern District of NY

2014 Amy’s Ice Creams v. Amy’s Kitchen 

(Deposition) USDC Western District of TX

2014 Unity Health v. UnityPoint 

(Deposition) USDC Western District of WI

2014 In re: NCAA Student-athlete litigation 

(Deposition and Trial) USDC Northern District of CA

2014 Spiraledge v. SeaWorld

(Deposition) USDC Southern District of CA

2014 Diageo N.A. v. Mexcor

(Deposition and trial) USDC Southern District of TX

2014 Pam Lab v. Virtus Pharmaceutical 

(Deposition and trial) USDC Southern District of FL

2014 US Soccer Federation v. Players Ass’n

(Arbitration Testimony) Arbitration

2014 Estate of Marilyn Monroe v. AVELA

(Deposition) USDC Southern District of NY

2014 Kelly-Brown v. Winfrey, et al.

(Deposition) USDC Southern District of NY

2014 Virco Mfg v. Hertz & Academia

(Deposition) USDC Central District of CA

2014 In re: Hulu Privacy Litigation

(Deposition) USDC Northern District of CA

2013 Jackson Family Wines v. Diageo USDC Northern District of CA

(Deposition)

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 58 of 112
2013 Bubbles, Inc. v. Sibu, LLC. USDC Eastern District of VA

(Deposition)

2013 Clorox v. Industrias Dalen USDC Northern District of CA

(Deposition)

2013 Active Ride Shop v. Old Navy USDC Central District of CA

(Deposition and trial)

2013 Macy’s Inc. v. Strategic Marks LLC. Northern District of CA

(Deposition)

2013 Karoun Dairies, Inc. v. Karoun Dairies, Inc. Southern District of CA

(Deposition)

2013 Kraft Foods v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Northern District of IL

(Deposition and Trial)

2013 Bayer Healthcare v. Sergeants Pet Care USDC Southern District of NY

(Deposition and Trial)

2013 JJI International v. The Bazar Group, Inc. USDC District of RI

(Deposition)

2013 Fage Dairy USA v. General Mills Northern District of NY

(Deposition)

2013 Gameshow Network v. Cablevision F.C.C.

(Deposition and trial)

2013 Telebrands v. Meyer Marketing USDC Eastern District of CA

(Deposition)

Presentations

What's New in Advertising Law, Claim Support and Self-Regulation?

(ABA Seminar, November 17, 2015)

How Reliable is Your Online Survey

(2015 ASRC Annual Conference, September 29, 2015)

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 59 of 112
What Do Consumers Think? Using Online Surveys to Demonstrate Implied Claims

(ANA Advertising Law and Public Policy Conference, April 1, 2015) 

Cutting Edge Developments in Trademark Surveys (Rocky Mountain Intellectual 

Property & Technology Institute, May 30, 2013)

Using Survey Experts in Trademark Litigation (DRI Intellectual Property Seminar, May 

9, 2013)

Surveys in Trademark and Advertising Litigation (2013 National CLE Conference, 

Snowmass Colorado, January 2013)

Internet Survey Issues (PLI Hot Topics in Advertising Law Conference, March 2012)

Measuring Consumer Confusion Through Online Surveys (2011 Midwest IP Institute) 

(September, 2011)

Online Surveys as Evidence in Trademark Disputes (International Trademark 

Association Annual Conference, May 2011)

Managing Intellectual Property Trademark Roundtable (April 7, 2010)

Recent Trends in Trademark Surveys (Virginia State Bar Intellectual Property 

Conference, October 2009)

Trademark Surveys in US Litigation (presentation for International Trademark 

Association Annual Conference) (May 2009)

How to Conduct Surveys for use in Trademark Disputes (Practicing Law Institute 

Advanced Trademark Law Conference) (May 2009)

Trademark and Advertising Perception Studies for Legal Disputes (Opinion Research 

Corporation Seminar, June 2008)

Understanding Advertising Perception Surveys (Promotions Marketing Association 

Annual Law Conference) (November 2007)

Designing and Implementing Studies to Substantiate Advertising Claims (American 

Conference Institute Claims Substantiation Conference, October 2007)

Surveys in Trademark and False Advertising Disputes (InfoUSA Webinar, June 2007)

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 60 of 112
Measuring Consumer Perception in False Advertising and Trademark Cases, (multiple 

presentations) (2007)

Potential Errors to Avoid In Designing a Trademark Dilution Survey (American 

Intellectual Property Association paper, April 2007)

Consumer Surveys in Trademark and Advertising Cases (presentation at Promotions 

Marketing Association Annual Law Conference) (December 2006)

Use of Survey Research and Expert Testimony in Trademark Litigation, (International 

Trademark Association Annual Conference, May 2006)

Survey Research as Evidence in Trademark/Trade Dress Disputes (multiple 

presentations) (2006)

Using Surveys to Measure Secondary Meaning of Trade Dress, Legal Education 

Seminar, Boston, April 2006

Publications/Papers

Cutting Edge Developments in Trademark Surveys (Rocky Mountain Intellectual 

Property & Technology Institute, May 2013)

Hot Topics and Recent Developments in Trademark Surveys (paper for May 2013 DRI 

Intellectual Property Conference)

Surveys in Trademark and Advertising Litigation (2013 National CLE Conference, 

Snowmass Colorado, January 2013)

Trademark Litigation Online Consumer Surveys (Practical Law Company Intellectual 

Property and Technology, May 2012)

Hot Topics in Advertising Law 2012 (Contributor to Practising Law Institute 

publication)

A Comparative Empirical Analysis of Online Versus Mall and Phone Methodologies for 

Trademark Surveys, 100 TMR 756 (May-June 2010)

Recent Trends in Trademark Surveys (paper for Virginia State Bar Intellectual Property 

conference, October 2009)

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 61 of 112
Trademark Dilution Revision Act breathes new life into dilution surveys (In Brief PLI 

website, June 2009)

The Mark (Survey Newsletter; three editions 2009)

Hot Topics in Trademark Surveys (paper for Practicing Law Institute Advanced 

Trademark Law Conference) (May 2009)

The Mark (Survey Newsletter, 2008)

Trademark and Advertising Survey Report (Summer 2007)

Avoiding Pitfalls in Dilution Surveys under TDRA (AIPLA Spring Conference, Boston, 

May 2007)

Commentary

Comment on Hotels.com case (on TTABLOG.COM, July 24, 2009)

Comment on Nextel v. Motorola (on TTABLOG.COM, June 19, 2009)

PLI All-Star Briefing Newsletter, “What does the Trademark Dilution Revision Act 

mean for the future of Dilution Surveys?” (June 2009)

Professional Memberships/Affiliations

American Association of Public Opinion Research

International Trademark Association

National Advertising Division of Council of Better Business Bureaus

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 62 of 112
Appendix B

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 63 of 112
Appendix B - Questionnaire

1

PROGRAMMING/SAMPLING

PROGRAMMER: 

• Do not allow respondents taking survey on any mobile phones to enter 

the survey. Only allow desktop, laptop/notebook computers & tablets. 

• Do not permit respondent to return to previous screen once advancing.

• Program any question with its own number on its own screen, unless 

otherwise instructed.

• Program each Question number as ONE field in the data, even if there is 

different text or different images piping in for different cells.

SAMPLING: 

• Add this instruction to the email invitation -- This survey is NOT 

compatible with smartphones, so please use your desktop or laptop 

computer or tablet to complete this survey. Also, please take the survey

when you have time to complete it uninterrupted and without 

distractions.

• Use very general topic on survey invitations. Do not mention anything 

suggesting topic of this survey. 

• Sample for age/gender & geographical in proportion to U.S. census data

• Initial hard quotas by age/gender per census data

• Subsequent final quotas set by incidence in category

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 64 of 112
Appendix B - Questionnaire

2

SCREENER SECTION

BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS

50. Insert Captcha [HIDE “YOU ARE HUMAN” SCREEN]

BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS

Q100. Please select your year of birth. [PROGRAMMER: DROP DOWN 

MENU. TERMINATE IF DOES NOT MATCH PANELIST’S 

PRELOAD.]

ASK IF: HAS NOT TERMINATED

Q105 Are you... [CHECK AGAINST PANEL VARIABLE AND TERMINATE 

IF IT DOES NOT MATCH]

1. Male [PROGRAMMER: FOR PANEL VARIABLE VERIFICATION]

2. Female [PROGRAMMER: FOR PANEL VARIABLE VERIFICATION]

ASK IF: HAS NOT TERMINATED

Q107 Which of these age ranges includes your age? 

[TERMINATE IF UNDER 18 OR IF AGE RANGE NOT POSSIBLE 

BASED ON YEAR OF BIRTH ENTERED IN Q100. NOTE – Each 

respondent can have two possible ages depending on if respondent’s 

birthday has passed.]

1. Under 18 [TERMINATE]

2. 18 to 34

3. 35 to 54

4. 55 or older

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 65 of 112
Appendix B - Questionnaire

3

BASE: ANY NON-TERMINATES

Q109 Which of the following web browsers or search engines, if any, have you 

used in the past 3 months?

Please select all that apply.

[RANDOMIZE]

1. Google Chrome

2. Internet Explorer

3. Microsoft Edge

4. Bing

5. Yahoo

6. Firefox

7. Opera

8. Hagelin 

9. Other [ANCHOR]

10. Not sure [ANCHOR; EXCLUSIVE]

[Terminate if selects 109/8 or if selects all of 109/1-7]

ASK IF: HAS NOT TERMINATED

110. In what state do you live?

[PROGRAMMER: Drop down menu of states plus D.C. Include an 

option for “Other” and terminate if it is selected.]

BASE: ANY NON-TERMINATES

120. Which of the following types of products, if any, have you purchased in 

the past 12 months?

(Select all that apply or “none of these.”)

[RANDOMIZE]

1. Wireless router

2. IP camera

3. Electronic toothbrush

4. Radon detector

5. C.Y.R.P. monitor [TERMINATE]

6. None of these [ANCHOR; EXCLUSIVE]

[TERMINATE IF SELECTS 120=5]

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 66 of 112
Appendix B - Questionnaire

4

BASE: ANY NON-TERMINATES

130. Which of the following types of products, if any, are you likely to

purchase in the next 12 months?

(Select all that apply or “none of these.”)

[SHOW IN SAME ORDER AS 130]

1. Wireless router

2. IP camera

3. Electronic toothbrush

4. Radon detector

5. C.Y.R.P. monitor [TERMINATE]

6. None of these [ANCHOR; EXCLUSIVE]

[MUST SELECT 120=1 AND/OR 130=1 TO CONTINUE; OTHERWISE 

TERMINATE. ALSO TERMINATE IF SELECTS 120=5 AND/OR 130=5 EVEN 

IF 120=1 OR 130=1 ARE ALSO SELECTED.]

BASE: ANY NON-TERMINATES

140. Which of the following best describes your role, if any, in the decision 

about which wireless router to purchase?

(Select one response)

[RANDOMIZE WHETHER SHOWN 1-2-3 OR 3-2-1]

1. I am the primary or sole decision-maker

2. I share in the decision with someone else in my household

3. I am not involved in the decision [TERMINATE]

4. Don’t know [ANCHOR]

[MUST SELECT 140=1-2 TO CONTINUE; OTHERWISE TERMINATE.]

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 67 of 112
Appendix B - Questionnaire

5

ASK IF: HAS NOT TERMINATED

150. In which of the following ways, if any, have you shopped for, or would 

you consider shopping for a wireless router?

(Select all that apply)

[RANDOMIZE 1-2]

1. Online

2. In a store

3. Other [ANCHOR]

ASK IF: HAS NOT TERMINATED

160. For quality assurance, please type the word "west" in the blank next to the 

"Other" box below and then click to continue.

1. Strongly agree

2. Agree

3. Neutral

4. Disagree

5. Strongly disagree

6. Other ________ [DO NOT FORCE TEXT BOX]

[TERMINATE IF SELECTED 160/1-5 OR IF NOTHING IS ENTERED IN r6. IF r6 

SELECTED AND SOMETHING TYPED IN THEN ALLOW TO CONTINUE 

REGARDLESS OF WHAT IS TYPED IN.]

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 68 of 112
Appendix B - Questionnaire

6

ASK IF: HAS NOT TERMINATED

Q170 You have qualified to take this survey. Before continuing, please carefully 

read these instructions:

* Please take the survey in one session without interruption.

* Please keep your browser maximized for the entire survey.

* While taking the survey, please do not consult any other websites or other 

electronic or written materials.

* Please answer all questions on your own without consulting any other 

person.

* If you normally wear eye glasses or contact lenses when viewing a 

computer screen, please wear them for the survey.

1. I understand and agree to the above instructions

2. I do not understand or do not agree to the above 

instructions [TERMINATE]

ASK IF: HAS NOT TERMINATED

190. For this survey you will need to spend a few minutes reviewing 

advertising for a wireless router. Do you agree to spend the time to 

review the advertising and answer our questions about it in one 

uninterrupted session?

1. Yes, I do

2. No, I do not [TERMINATE]

[ONLY QUALIFIED RESPONDENTS SHOULD CONTINUE BEYOND THIS 

POINT]

[EACH RESPONDENT SHOULD BE RANDOMLY ASSIGNED TO ONLY 

ONE CELL AND PRIORITIZED BY NEED TO FILL AGE/GENDER 

QUOTAS]

[PROGRAMMING NOTE: DISPLAY ANY TEXT WITH ITS OWN 

QUESTION NUMBER ON A SCREEN BY ITSELF UNLESS OTHERWISE 

SPECIFIED.]

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 69 of 112
Appendix B - Questionnaire

7

MAIN SURVEY 

ASK: ALL

200. On the next screens we are going to show you advertising for a wireless 

router. Please take your time to review it as you would if you were 

considering purchasing the advertised product.

To ensure that you have enough time to review the advertising, the 

continue button on each screen will not be enabled until 60 seconds have 

elapsed. 

When you have finished reviewing the advertising, you will be asked 

some questions. For any question, if you have no opinion or do not know 

then please indicate so. Please do not guess.

Please select “continue” to move on with the survey. 

ASK: ALL

205. Please take your time to review the first page of the advertisement.

[INSERT IMAGE 1001 FOR CELL 1 OR IMAGE 2001 FOR CELL 2 OR 

IMAGE CELL 3001 FOR CELL 3 OR IMAGE 4001 FOR CELL 4.]

[DO NOT ENABLE CONTINUE BUTTON UNTIL 60 SECONDS HAVE 

ELAPSED. SHOW FOLLOWING INSTRUCTION WHILE CONTINUE 

BUTTON IS DISABLED: You will be able to continue after at least 60 seconds have 

passed. AFTER 60 SECONDS, THEN REPLACE THE ABOVE LINE WITH 

THE FOLLOWING:]

Before continuing with the survey, please indicate whether or not you 

have viewed the advertisement clearly.

1. I viewed the advertisement clearly

2. I am unable to view the advertisement clearly [TERMINATE; DO NOT 

COUNT AS COMPLETE]

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 70 of 112
Appendix B - Questionnaire

8

BASE: ALL QUALIFIED RESPONDENTS

Q210 Now please take your time to review the second page of the 

advertisement.

[INSERT IMAGE 1002 FOR CELL 1 OR IMAGE 2002 FOR CELL 2 OR 

IMAGE 3002 FOR CELL 3 OR IMAGE 4002 FOR CELL 4.]

[DO NOT ENABLE CONTINUE BUTTON UNTIL 60 SECONDS HAVE 

ELAPSED. SHOW FOLLOWING INSTRUCTION WHILE CONTINUE 

BUTTON IS DISABLED: You will be able to continue after at least 60 seconds have 

passed. AFTER 60 SECONDS, THEN REPLACE THE ABOVE LINE WITH 

THE FOLLOWING:]

Before continuing with the survey, please indicate whether or not you 

have viewed the advertisement clearly.

1. I viewed the advertisement clearly

2. I am unable to view the advertisement clearly [TERMINATE; DO NOT 

COUNT AS COMPLETE]

ASK IF: CELLS 3 AND 4 ONLY

220. Now please take your time to review the third page of the advertisement.

[INSERT IMAGE 3003 FOR CELL 3 OR IMAGE 4003 FOR CELL 4.]

[DO NOT ENABLE CONTINUE BUTTON UNTIL 60 SECONDS HAVE 

ELAPSED. SHOW FOLLOWING INSTRUCTION WHILE CONTINUE 

BUTTON IS DISABLED: You will be able to continue after at least 60 seconds have 

passed. AFTER 60 SECONDS, THEN REPLACE THE ABOVE LINE WITH 

THE FOLLOWING:]

Before continuing with the survey, please indicate whether or not you 

have viewed the advertisement clearly.

1. I viewed the advertisement clearly

2. I am unable to view the advertisement clearly [TERMINATE; DO NOT 

COUNT AS COMPLETE]

ASK: ALL

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 71 of 112
Appendix B - Questionnaire

9

Q300 For the next questions, please assume that you have decided to purchase a 

wireless router and are considering whether or not to purchase the one 

you were just shown advertising for.

ASK: ALL

Q305 Using the scale below, please select how likely or unlikely you would be 

to purchase the wireless router that you were just shown advertising for?

[ROTATE WHETHER SCALE SHOWN IN ORDER 1-7 OR 7-1]

(Please select one response)

1. Extremely likely 

2. Very likely 

3. Somewhat likely 

4. Neither likely nor unlikely 

5. Somewhat unlikely

6. Very unlikely

7. Extremely unlikely

8. Don’t know [ANCHOR]

ASK: 300=1 - 7

Q310 What makes you say that you would be ______ [pipe in answer from 305] 

to purchase the wireless router that you were just shown advertising for?

Please be as specific as possible.

[LARGE TEXT BOX FOR ANSWER; INCLUDE “No opinion/Don’t 

know” OPTION. MUST ENTER TEXT OR SELECT NO/DK, BUT DO 

NOT ALLOW BOTH.]

ASK: 300=1 - 7

Q320 Please list any features or aspects of the wireless router that makes you 

______ [pipe in answer from 305] to purchase it?

You may use as many or few of the boxes below as you need.

[TEN SMALL TEXT BOXES FOR ANSWER; INCLUDE “No 

opinion/Don’t know” OPTION. MUST ENTER TEXT IN AT LEAST ONE 

BOX OR SELECT NO/DK, BUT DO NOT ALLOW BOTH.]

POST SURVEY QUESTIONS

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 72 of 112
Appendix B - Questionnaire

10

BASE: ALL CELLS/ALL QUALIFIED RESPONDENTS

400. Thank you, just a few more brief questions.

Do you or does anyone in your household work for any of the following?

(Select all that apply or none)

1. For a company that makes or sells wireless routers

2. For a company that makes or sells IP cameras

3. For a federal government agency

4. In market research

5. In advertising

6. None of these [ANCHOR]

BASE: ALL CELLS/ALL QUALIFIED RESPONDENTS

410. Which of the following brands of wireless router, if any, have you 

purchased in the past 5 years? 

(Select all that apply)

[RANDOMIZE]

1. D-Link

2. Linksys

3. Netgear

4. Asus

5. Tp-Link

6. TrendNet

7. None of these [Anchor]

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 73 of 112
Appendix C

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 74 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

1

SCREENER SECTION

BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS

50.

BASE: ALL RESPONDENTS

Q100.

ASK IF: HAS NOT TERMINATED

Q105

ASK IF: HAS NOT TERMINATED

Q107

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 75 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

2

1. Under 18 [TERMINATE]

2. 18 to 34

3. 35 to 54

4. 55 or older

BASE: ANY NON-TERMINATES

Q109

ASK IF: HAS NOT TERMINATED

110.

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 76 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

3

BASE: ANY NON-TERMINATES

120. Which of the following types of products, if any, have you purchased in 

the past 12 months?

(Select all that apply or “none of these.”)

[RANDOMIZE]

1. Wireless router

2. IP camera

3. Electronic toothbrush

4. Radon detector

5. C.Y.R.P. monitor [TERMINATE]

6. None of these [ANCHOR; EXCLUSIVE]

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 77 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

4

BASE: ANY NON-TERMINATES

130. Which of the following types of products, if any, are you likely to

purchase in the next 12 months?

(Select all that apply or “none of these.”)

[SHOW IN SAME ORDER AS 130]

1. Wireless router

2. IP camera

3. Electronic toothbrush

4. Radon detector

5. C.Y.R.P. monitor [TERMINATE]

6. None of these [ANCHOR; EXCLUSIVE]

[MUST SELECT 120=1 AND/OR 130=1 TO CONTINUE; OTHERWISE 

TERMINATE. ALSO TERMINATE IF SELECTS 120=5 AND/OR 130=5 EVEN 

IF 120=1 OR 130=1 ARE ALSO SELECTED.]

BASE: ANY NON-TERMINATES

140.

[MUST SELECT 140=1-2 TO CONTINUE; OTHERWISE TERMINATE.]

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 78 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

5

ASK IF: HAS NOT TERMINATED

150.

ASK IF: HAS NOT TERMINATED

160.

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 79 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

6

ASK IF: HAS NOT TERMINATED

Q170

ASK IF: HAS NOT TERMINATED

190.

[ONLY QUALIFIED RESPONDENTS SHOULD CONTINUE BEYOND THIS 

POINT]

[EACH RESPONDENT SHOULD BE RANDOMLY ASSIGNED TO ONLY 

ONE CELL AND PRIORITIZED BY NEED TO FILL AGE/GENDER 

QUOTAS]

[PROGRAMMING NOTE: DISPLAY ANY TEXT WITH ITS OWN 

QUESTION NUMBER ON A SCREEN BY ITSELF UNLESS OTHERWISE 

SPECIFIED.]

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 80 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

7

MAIN SURVEY 

ASK: ALL

200. 

ASK: ALL

205. Please take your time to review the first page of the advertisement.

[INSERT IMAGE 1001 FOR CELL 1 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 81 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

8

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 82 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

9

IMAGE 2001 FOR CELL 2

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 83 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

10

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 84 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

11

IMAGE CELL 3001 FOR CELL 3 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 85 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

12

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 86 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

13

IMAGE 4001 FOR CELL 4.

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 87 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

14

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 88 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

15

BASE: ALL QUALIFIED RESPONDENTS

Q210 Now please take your time to review the second page of the 

advertisement.

[INSERT IMAGE 1002 FOR CELL 1 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 89 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

16

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 90 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

17

IMAGE 2002 FOR CELL 2

IMAGE 3002 FOR CELL 3 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 91 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

18

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 92 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

19

IMAGE 4002 FOR CELL 4

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 93 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

20

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 94 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

21

ASK IF: CELLS 3 AND 4 ONLY

220. Now please take your time to review the third page of the advertisement.

[INSERT IMAGE 3003 FOR CELL 3

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 95 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

22

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 96 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

23

IMAGE 4003 FOR CELL 4.

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 97 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

24

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 98 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

25

ASK: ALL

Q300

ASK: ALL

Q305

ASK: 300=1 - 7

Q310

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 99 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

26

ASK: 300=1 - 7

Q320

POST SURVEY QUESTIONS

BASE: ALL CELLS/ALL QUALIFIED RESPONDENTS

400.

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 100 of 112
Appendix C - Screenshots

27

BASE: ALL CELLS/ALL QUALIFIED RESPONDENTS

410.

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 101 of 112
Appendix D

See Native Files Provided Separately

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 102 of 112
Appendix E

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 103 of 112
Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 104 of 112
Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 105 of 112
Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 106 of 112
Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 107 of 112
Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 108 of 112
Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 109 of 112
Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 110 of 112
Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 111 of 112
Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 171-2 Filed 09/21/18 Page 112 of 112