Exhibit 55

To Declaration of Jarad Brown in Support of 

Federal Trade Commission’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 1 of 37
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

NO. 3:17-CV-00039-JD 

V. 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, fNC.,

Defendant. 

DECLARATION OF TERENCE A. 

SHIMP INCORPORATING EXPERT 

REPORT 

I, Terence A. Shimp, declare as follows: 

1. I am a Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of South Carolina's

Moore School of Business. I am over the age of 21 and fully competent to make this declaration. 

The matters stated in this declaration are true of my own knowledge and, if necessary, I could 

and would testify competently thereto. 

2. I was asked to render an expert opinion in this case. My Expert Report, executed

July 2, 2018, and appended hereto, contains opinions about which I expect to testify in the 

above-captioned case and the facts supporting them, if called upon to do so. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is 

true and correct. 

Executed this 17th day of September, 2018, in Columbia, South CaroJjna. 

�a-� 

TERENCE A. SHIMP 

TERENCE A. SHIMP DECLARATION INCORPORATING EXPERT REPORT

CASE No. 3: l 7-cv-00039 PAGE 1 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 2 of 37
Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 3 of 37
1 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 2

A. Qualifications and Compensation .................................................................................... 2

B. Scope of Undertaking ....................................................................................................... 4

II. THE FTC’S COMPLAINT RE: D-LINK’S ROUTERS AND IP CAMERAS .................... 5

A. Factual Allegations ........................................................................................................... 5

B. Scope of Opinion .............................................................................................................. 6

III. THEORETICAL FRAMING OF ADVERTISING DECEPTION ..................................... 7

IV. PRELIMINARY ISSUES .................................................................................................... 9

A. Consumer Processing of D-Link’s Marcom ................................................................... 10

B. Consumers’ Online Search Behavior ............................................................................. 11

V. ANALYSIS OF D-LINK’S MARCOM MATERIALS ....................................................... 12

A. Consumer Motivation ..................................................................................................... 12

B. PX 2: Marcom for the DIR-615 Wireless N 300 Router ............................................... 16

Analysis of Express and Implied Claims for the DIR-615 Router. ...................................... 17

C. PX 3: Marcom for the DIR-412 Mobile Wireless Router ............................................. 19

Analysis of Express and Implied Claims for the DIR-412 Mobile Wireless Router. ........... 20

D. PX 4: Marcom for the DIR-815 Wireless N Dual Band Router ................................... 21

Analysis of Express and Implied Claims for DIR-815 Wireless N Dual Band Router. ....... 22

E. PX 5: Marcom for the DIR-645 Whole Home Router 1000 ......................................... 23

Analysis of Express and Implied Claims for the DIR-645 Whole Home Router 1000. ....... 24

F. PX 1: SECURITY EVENT RESPONSE POLICY .......................................................... 25

Analysis of Express and Implied Claims for the Security Event Response Policy .............. 27

VI. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................ 29

VII. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 31

VIII. Appendix: SHIMP Publications and Case Participation ............................................... 33

A. Publications (Past 10 Years) .......................................................................................... 33

B. Prior Expert Testimony (Past 4 Years) .......................................................................... 33

C. Materials Considered...................................................................................................... 33

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 4 of 37
2 

I. OVERVIEW 

A. Qualifications and Compensation 

1. I retired from the University of South Carolina’s Moore School of Business in 

2006 and now hold the title Distinguished Professor Emeritus. My teaching and scholarly career 

spanned nearly four decades. My work, which mostly concentrated in the areas of consumer 

psychology and marketing communications, has been recognized by professional colleagues 

through such awards as being elected president of the Association for Consumer Research 

(1993), having been selected to receive the American Academy of Advertising’s Lifetime 

Contributions to Advertising Research Award (2001), and having been elected Fellow of the 

Society of Consumer Psychology (2003). I was an active scholar publishing many articles in top 

academic journals along with several textbooks. I also served on the editorial review boards of 

virtually every major journal in my field. My most recent textbook (now coauthored with former 

Ph.D. student, Dr. Craig Andrews)—Advertising, Promotion, and Other Aspects of Integrated 

Marketing Communications1

—has been widely adopted throughout the United States and 

internationally. Finally, an analysis of the first 40 years (June 1974-April 2014) of publications 

in the premier journal reporting on consumer behavior—the Journal of Consumer Research

(“JCR”)—revealed that of the nearly 900 authors who had published at least one article in JCR

during that period, only 35 authors had published more frequently than had I.2

2. Over the past 30 years, I have served as an expert witness in approximately 15 

advertising deception cases, mostly representing the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) but also 

 

1

 TERENCE A. SHIMP & J. CRAIG ANDREWS, ADVERTISING, PROMOTIONS, AND OTHER ASPECTS OF INTEGRATED 

MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS (10th ed. 2018). 

2

 Xin “Shane” Wang, Neil T. Bendle, Feng Mai & June Cotte, The Journal of Consumer Research at 40: A 

Historical Analysis, 42 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 5-18 (2015). 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 5 of 37
3 

several state agencies, and I have been deposed on approximately 10 occasions. My role in most 

of these cases has been to analyze various forms of marketing communications pertinent to each 

case (e.g., print advertisements, web pages, infomercials, TV commercials, packaging materials, 

sales promotions) and render opinions as to whether, in my opinion, the marketing 

communications would deceive consumers. 

3. To render informed opinions in these various cases, I have applied relevant 

academic theories and concepts to understand how typical consumers might process the 

applicable marketing communications materials. The claims sometimes are predominantly 

objective and explicit—rather than subtle, abstract, or implicit—and thus my analyses have 

involved a rather straightforward identification of these claims and an effort to assess their 

materiality to prospective consumers’ product evaluations and purchase decision making. In 

those instances where claims have been mostly subjective and implicit, I have offered opinions—

buttressed with suitable theory and concepts—as to how they likely are interpreted by typical, 

reasonable consumers. Regardless of the nature of the claim, my analyses have required me to 

make inferences regarding key message-processing determinations such as consumers’ 

motivation, opportunity, and ability to process message claims.3

4. My scholarly work involving deception and related matters4 and my knowledge of 

aspects of consumer psychology (especially attitude formation/change, information processing, 

 

3 Cf., Scott B. Mackenzie & Richard A. Spreng, How Does Motivation Moderate the Impact of Central and 

Peripheral Processing on Brand Attitudes and Intentions?, 18 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 519-529 (1992); 

Deborah J. MacInnis & Bernard J. Jaworski, Information Processing from Advertisements: Toward an Integrative 

Framework, 53 JOURNAL OF MARKETING, 1-23 (1989); Deborah J. MacInnis, Christine Moorman & Bernard J. 

Jaworski, Enhancing and Measuring Consumers’ Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability to Process Brand 

Information from Ads, 55 JOURNAL OF MARKETING, 32-53 (1991); RICHARD E. PETTY & JOHN T. CACIOPPO,

ATTITUDES AND PERSUASION: CLASSIC AND CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES (1981). 

4 E.g., Terence A. Shimp, Do Incomplete Comparisons Mislead? 18 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH, 21-28 

(1978); Terence A. Shimp, Social-Psychological (Mis)Representations in Television Advertising, 13 JOURNAL OF 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 6 of 37
4 

and persuasion practices—themes contained in many of my journal publications that are too 

extensive to list but are coalesced in my multiple textbooks5

—prepared me well to offer 

informed opinions in the various cases for which I have served as an expert witness. 

5. The Appendix contains a list of my publications over the past 10 years and a 

record of my participation as an expert witness over the past 4 years. The Appendix also 

includes a list of materials I considered in forming my opinions contained in this report. 

6. I am being compensated at a rate of $250 per hour. 

B. Scope of Undertaking 

7. I was employed as an expert witness by the FTC for the purpose of evaluating 

certain statements made by defendant D-Link Systems, Inc. (“D-Link”) to consumers. I offer my 

opinions as to how reasonable consumers would interpret D-Link’s statements related to security 

and whether they are likely to influence consumers’ purchasing decisions. My qualifications as 

an active researcher for more than 30 years and as a scholar of consumer psychology and 

marketing communications enable me to offer a well-informed opinion to a reasonable degree of 

professional certainty of how reasonable consumers would interpret D-Link’s statements. 

 

 

CONSUMER AFFAIRS, 28-40 (1979); Terence A. Shimp & Ivan L. Preston, Deceptive and Nondeceptive 

Consequences of Evaluative Advertising, 45 JOURNAL OF MARKETING, 22-32 (1981); Terence A. Shimp & J. 

Thomas Yokum, Advertising Inputs and Psycho-physical Judgments in Vending-Machine Retailing, 58 JOURNAL OF 

RETAILING, 95-113 (1981); Terence A. Shimp, Evaluative Verbal Content and Deception in Advertising: A Review 

and Critical Analysis, in INFORMATION PROCESSING RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING, 195-216 (Richard J. Harris ed., 

1983); Jeff Langenderfer & Terence A. Shimp, Expert Opinion Testimony in Federal Trade Commission 

Enforcement Proceedings: Theoretical Versus Empirical Evidence, in 8 Marketing and Public Policy Conference 

Proceedings, 41-42 (Alan Andreasen, Alex Simonson & N. Craig Smith eds., 1998); Jeff Langenderfer & Terence 

A. Shimp, Consumer Vulnerability to Scams, Swindles, and Fraud: A New Theory of Visceral Influence on 

Persuasion, 18 PSYCHOLOGY AND MARKETING, 763-783 (2001). 

5

 TERENCE A. SHIMP & J. CRAIG ANDREWS, ADVERTISING, PROMOTIONS, AND OTHER ASPECTS OF INTEGRATED 

MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS (9th ed. 2013). 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 7 of 37
5 

II. THE FTC’S COMPLAINT RE: D-LINK’S ROUTERS AND IP CAMERAS 

A. Factual Allegations 

8. Among other things, the FTC’s Complaint (“Complaint”)6 alleges that D-Link has 

failed to take “reasonable steps to protect their routers and IP cameras from widely known and 

reasonably foreseeable risks of unauthorized access”7 and, as a result, “thousands of Defendants’ 

routers and cameras have been vulnerable to attacks that subject consumers’ sensitive personal 

information and local networks to a significant risk of unauthorized access.”8 

9. The FTC’s Complaint subsequently states, “Defendants have disseminated or 

caused to be disseminated to consumers statements regarding the security of their products, 

including their routers and IP cameras.”9 In Paragraph 20 of its Complaint, the FTC asserts that 

“after highly-publicized security flaws were found to affect many of its products”—during the 

period of “approximately December 2013 until early September 2015”—D-Link “posted a 

Security Event Response Policy on its product support webpage” (PX 1). The Complaint further 

states that “Defendants highlight their routers’ security features in a wide range of materials 

available on Defendant DLS’s website, including user manuals and promotional brochures, 

which describe these features alongside language that specifically references the device’s 

‘security.’ Such materials include, but are not limited to, brochures about routers in the general 

 

6

 Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Equitable Relief (Dkt. No. 1) (hereinafter, “Complaint”). 

7

 Complaint, ¶ 15. 

8

 Complaint, ¶ 16. 

9

 Complaint, ¶ 19. 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 8 of 37
6 

form of Exhibits 2-5.”10 It is to be noted that Exhibits 1-5 are labeled PX 1 through PX 5, and 

my subsequent analysis will use this labeling convention when discussing these exhibits. 

10. The FTC Complaint against D-Link claims that due to the representations in DLink’s Security Event Response Policy characterized in Paragraph 20 that “Defendant DLS has 

represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that Defendants took reasonable 

steps to secure their products from unauthorized access.”11 The FTC therefore alleges that “the 

making of the representation set forth in Paragraph 31 of this Complaint constitutes a deceptive 

act or practice.”12 

11. The FTC Complaint against D-Link also claims that due to the communication 

materials characterized in Paragraph 21 that “Defendants have represented, directly or indirectly, 

expressly or by implication, that the routers described by these claims were secure from 

unauthorized access.”13 The FTC therefore alleges that “the making of the representation set 

forth in Paragraph 34 of this Complaint constitutes a deceptive act or practice.”14 

B. Scope of Opinion 

12. In this report, I provide expert opinion regarding D-Link’s representations in its 

marketing communications materials (PX 2 through PX 5) as to whether they do indeed claim—

either directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication—that the routers involved in these 

communications are “secure from unauthorized access.” I additionally present an opinion of DLink’s Security Event Response Policy (PX 1) as to whether it claims, either directly or 

 

10 Complaint, ¶ 21. 

11 Complaint, ¶ 31, italics added. 

12 Complaint, ¶ 33. 

13 Complaint, ¶ 34, italics added. 

14 Complaint, ¶ 36. 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 9 of 37
7 

indirectly, expressly or by implication, that D-Link took reasonable steps to secure its routers and 

IP cameras from unauthorized access. Finally, I opine as to whether these representations are 

likely to affect prospective consumers’ decisions related to purchasing routers and IP cameras 

from D-Link. 

13. I lack the expertise to assess the factual bases of the FTC’s allegations that DLink has failed to protect their routers and IP cameras from risks of unauthorized access. 

III. THEORETICAL FRAMING OF ADVERTISING DECEPTION 

14. The FTC in its Complaint has referred to D-Link’s advertising materials as 

“promotional brochures” or simply “brochures,” 15 available on D-Link’s website16 and possibly 

available through its retail partners.17 The language of “promotional brochures” and “brochures” 

is perfectly suitable, but I use the label “marcom material” throughout my report with marcom 

being a term of art and truncated version of “marketing communications.”18 I find the term 

marcom more descriptive of D-Link’s materials and thus will employ this terminology hereafter. 

15. I analyze D-Link’s marcom materials and offer opinions as to the likely belief 

formed by reasonable consumers upon reviewing them. The model depicted in Figure 1, infra, 

frames my view of the deception process that is grounded in my scholarly background and 

expertise involving deception and marketing communications and is also influenced by 

Richards’19 thoughtful and sophisticated theorizing. The five boxed sections in the model are 

 

15 Complaint, ¶ 22. 

16 DLS First Amended Answers to FTC 3rd Set of Interrogs. No. 8. 

17 DLS Answers to FTC 6th Set of Interrogs. No. 26. 

18 TERENCE A. SHIMP & J. CRAIG ANDREWS, ADVERTISING, PROMOTIONS, AND OTHER ASPECTS OF INTEGRATED 

MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS (9th ed. 2013). 

19 JEF RICHARDS, DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING: BEHAVIORAL STUDY OF A LEGAL CONCEPT (2013). 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 10 of 37
8 

labeled A through E, and oval outcomes are described as either Nondeceptive or Deceptive. Box 

A denotes “Marcom Material” such as D-Link’s promotional brochures that promote its various 

routers. Box B represents the “Message Conveyed” to prospective purchasers of D-Link’s router 

products, and Box C translates the conveyed message into “Likely Consumer Belief” regarding 

the expected probability that a particular D-Link router possesses a claimed attribute or will 

deliver a promised benefit. 

16. I apply this framing in analyzing D-Link’s marcom materials and in assessing 

what beliefs reasonable consumers likely form while processing D-Link’s marcom materials. To 

facilitate reading my subsequent analyses for each of D-Link’s routers subject to the FTC’s 

Complaint, the references to Boxes in my theoretical framing are as follows: 

Box A – Marcom material (i.e., product brochures on D-Link’s website) 

Box B – Message conveyed by these materials 

Box C – Likely consumer belief formed from reading these materials 

Box D – Materiality of belief 

Box E – D-Link’s ability to support claim (outside the scope of my expertise) 

Figure 1 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 11 of 37
9 

17. Importantly, the distinction between “Message Conveyed” and “Likely Consumer 

Belief” is more than mere semantics. A message is conveyed to consumers when they are 

exposed to a message claim, pay attention to that claim, and comprehend what has been 

claimed.20 This, however, is not tantamount to “believing” the claim. Rather, “Likely Consumer 

Belief”21 results only when consumers internalize the claim—i.e., accept it into memory—as 

something that a brand of router is likely to provide (in the case of a desirable product feature) or 

prevent (in the instance of an undesirable feature). It thus should be clear that message 

conveyance is a necessary but insufficient requirement for what consumers believe about a brand 

whose benefits have been communicated via a marcom message. 

18. Returning now to the theoretical framing of marcom messages, Box D queries 

whether the belief is material to the purchase decision. If consumer belief resulting from a 

message claim is material, then a further query is needed as to whether the advertiser—D-Link in 

this case—can support the claim (Box E). If “yes,” then the message conveyed is nondeceptive, 

but if “no,” then consumers can be considered to have been deceived. I include reference to 

claim supportability (Box E) simply as a matter of model completeness. 

IV. PRELIMINARY ISSUES 

19. Before presenting my analysis of D-Link’s marcom materials, it is important to 

consider two factors that bear on consumer shopping behavior related to routers: First, when 

during the buying process would prospective purchasers of routers come into contact with DLink’s marcom? Second, what is the evidence of consumers’ online search behavior for routers? 

 

20 E.g., id. 

21 Id.

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 12 of 37
10 

A. Consumer Processing of D-Link’s Marcom 

20. There are various ways that consumers may acquire product- and brand-related 

information and subsequently purchase routers that fit their consumption needs. Some 

consumers may do their router-related shopping exclusively at brick-and-mortar (“B&M”) 

stores; others might shop exclusively online; while yet others likely shop both online and in 

B&M outlets. Although I have no way of knowing what proportion of consumers visit router 

brand websites prior to making a purchase decision, it is incontrovertible that some percentage of 

consumers likely would acquire router information from online sources, which would include the 

websites of various router brands such as D-Link. D-Link has made the business decision to 

promote its router models via online information presentation, and I conclude from that decision 

that some consumers would indeed visit D-Link’s website prior to making purchase decisions. 

D-Link apparently does not maintain logs of visitations to its website, but if it did I would have a 

better understanding of the proportion of its total unit sales that are preceded by website 

information acquisition. 

21. Importantly, D-Link has acknowledged that it promoted the router models 

identified in PX 2 through PX 5 (i.e., models DIR-615, DIR-412, DIR-815, and DIR-645) online 

and in B&M outlets. D-Link’s response to the FTC’s Interrogatory No. 8 reveals that these 

router models “could have been” posted on D-Link’s main product website and subsequently 

archived on D-Link’s support website.22 In terms of distribution outlets, D-Link “believes it may 

have provided PX 2 – PX 5 to the following brick-and-mortar and online retail sales partners”: 

Amazon.com, Inc.; Newegg, Inc.; B&H Foto & Electronics Corp.; Rakuten Commerce Ltd. 

 

22 DLS First Amended Answers to FTC 3rd Set of Interrogs. No. 8. 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 13 of 37
11 

DBA buy.com; Walmart Inc.; RadioShack Inc.; Staples, Inc.; Office Depot, Inc.; Office Max, 

Inc.; Fry’s Electronics Inc.; Microcenter Inc.”23

22. All said, it is apparent that D-Link actively marketed and advertised its various 

router models and that, accordingly, numerous consumers would have been exposed to its 

marcom messages, either directly through online visitations or possibly via presentations by 

B&M sales associates.24

B. Consumers’ Online Search Behavior 

23. Numerous academic articles have been written on the topic of online search 

behavior. However, none of these articles involve online search for router products. Most 

involve nondurable products, and many took place in the early-to-mid 2000s, which may not 

well-reflect consumer search behavior during the period relevant to the D-Link case. The only 

article I have located that is closely relevant to the D-Link case—both in terms of time frame and 

product category—is a publication involving consumers’ online search for digital cameras.25 

These researchers collected log files from nearly 1,000 online panelists, all of whom ultimately 

purchased cameras from online retailers. They determined that online search for digital cameras 

is extensive and consumers conduct an average of 14 online searches across multiple brands and 

models. 

24. Extrapolating to router products, it is possible that online search in this category 

also is extensive insofar as products in this category vary greatly in price, performance, and 

likely effectiveness—thus representing a moderate- to high-involvement purchase for many 

 

23 DLS Answers to FTC 6th Set of Interrogs. No. 26. 

24 See id., (stating that D-Link believes it may have provided PX 2 – 5 to B&M partners). 

25 Bart J. Bronnenberg, Jun B. Kim & Carl F. Mela, Zooming in on Choice: How Do Consumers Search for 

Cameras Online?, 35/5 MARKETING SCIENCE, 693-712 (2016). 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 14 of 37
12 

consumers. Because so many retailers sell and provide information regarding routers and IP 

cameras online, I conclude that consumers likely engage in online searches for routers and that 

these searches bring them into contact with websites and marcom for D-Link routers. D-Link 

commands shelf space at leading B&M retailers and thus would be the object of online searches. 

V. ANALYSIS OF D-LINK’S MARCOM MATERIALS 

25. I now review the various marcom materials that are included in the FTC’s 

Complaint against D-Link. These are labeled PX 2 through PX 5 in the FTC’s Complaint. I also 

analyze, in Section V.F., D-Link’s Security Event Response Policy (PX 1). In each of the 

following four sections, which correspond to the marcom materials in PX 2 through PX 5 and 

represent marcom for four of D-Link’s router models, I initially describe the overall marcom and 

then highlight via bullet points those claims that relate to the FTC’s case against D-Link. I 

conclude the discussion for each router model with an analysis of how reasonable consumers 

would internalize D-Link’s express and implied claims about security and whether those claims 

are likely to influence reasonable consumers’ purchasing decisions. 

A. Consumer Motivation 

26. As a prelude to presenting my analysis, I need to explain my approach to 

determining what messages D-Link’s marcom materials likely convey to consumers (Box B of 

theoretical model) and what beliefs probably are formed (Box C). My method to this 

determination is based on my opinion, discussed herein, that many consumers who are interested 

in purchasing a router—and thus undertake store visitations and/or shop online for routers—are 

moderately to highly motivated to process information that will enable them to learn about 

routers and ultimately make prudent purchase decisions. See Section IV.B. above. Motivation is 

defined as the consumer’s goal-directed arousal and desire to process brand information in an 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 15 of 37
13 

advertisement or other form of marcom.26 Based upon my experience and research, the 

consumer’s level of motivation to process brand information is determined by the personal 

importance of making an appropriate or a wise purchase decision and typically would be 

expected to be higher with (1) more expensive purchases; (2) when choosing among brands is 

difficult; (3) when choice criteria are somewhat uncertain (i.e., determining what product 

attributes should facilitate making a wise brand-selection decision); (4) when the brand choice is 

relevant to the consumer’s self-concept; (5) when product safety is an important purchase 

consideration; and so on. 

27. For consumers making purchase decisions in any given product category—

automobiles, appliances, routers, wine, etc.—there is no singular level of motivation that would 

characterize all consumers in that category. Rather, it is expected that motivation levels are 

varied and that some form of statistical distribution—possibly normal but typically skewed—

would best capture consumers’ levels of motivation for that product. For example, when 

consumers are exposed to an advertisement for a mundane product, say a common food item, it 

would be expected that the information-processing-motivation level for most consumers would 

be relatively low, thus representing a distribution skewed to the downside of motivation. 

Comparatively, the motivation level likely would be high for many consumers choosing which 

car to purchase because cars are expensive and purchased relatively infrequently, which would 

represent motivation skewed to the upside. 

28. It is my opinion that many router purchasers are moderately to highly involved 

when in process of making a router purchase decision. This is because (1) routers are not 

inexpensive; (2) router models vary in what benefits they offer; (3) many consumers have little 

 

26 Deborah J. MacInnis & Bernard J. Jaworski, Information Processing from Advertisements: Toward an Integrative 

Framework, 53 JOURNAL OF MARKETING, 1, 4 (1989). 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 16 of 37
14 

experience in making router brand and model choices in this category; and (4) the relevant 

choice criteria for distinguishing among brands are somewhat uncertain in comparison to product 

instances where consumers regularly make choices among competitive brands. In other words, 

many prospective router purchasers must learn about routers and router brands before making a 

satisfying purchase decision.27 This required learning would elevate purchasers’ motivation to 

process router-related marcom messages to acquire meaningful and purchase-relevant 

information. 

29. I expect that the many router purchasers who are moderately to highly involved 

when in the process of making a router purchase decision would seek out arguments in marcom 

messages that are central to the claims made by D-Link and its competitors rather than spend 

their time examining peripheral, or unimportant, aspects of message claims.28 

30. But, to the key issue of what messages are conveyed (Box B) and what beliefs are 

formed (Box C), it is my opinion that (1) there are a finite number of message claims contained 

in D-Link’s marcom materials; (2) these claims are overwhelmingly explicit; and (3) there are a 

limited number of plausible messages conveyed. Hereafter, I identify for each of D-Link’s 

router models the messages likely conveyed to reasonable and moderately to highly motivated 

consumers. Moreover, to assess whether these conveyed messages are believed, versus doubted, 

 

27 C.f., Stephen J. Hoch & Young-Won Ha, Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product 

Experience, 13 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 221-233 (1986); Stephen J. Hoch & John Deighton, Managing 

What Consumers Learn from Experience, 53 JOURNAL OF MARKETING, 1-20 (1989). 

28 C.f., Scott B. Mackenzie & Richard A. Spreng, How Does Motivation Moderate the Impact of Central and 

Peripheral Processing on Brand Attitudes and Intentions?, 18 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 519-529 (1992); 

Deborah J. MacInnis & Bernard J. Jaworski, Information Processing from Advertisements: Toward an Integrative 

Framework, 53 JOURNAL OF MARKETING, 1-23 (1989); Deborah J. MacInnis, Christine Moorman & Bernard J. 

Jaworski, Enhancing and Measuring Consumers’ Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability to Process Brand 

Information from Ads, 55 JOURNAL OF MARKETING, 32-53 (1991); RICHARD E. PETTY & JOHN T. CACIOPPO,

ATTITUDES AND PERSUASION: CLASSIC AND CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES (1981). 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 17 of 37
15 

I turn to the psychology literature that addresses matters of perception and belief formation. 

Gilbert has presented an especially compelling argument as encapsulated in this statement: 

“Findings from a multitude of research literatures converge on a single point: People are 

credulous creatures who find it very easy to believe and very difficult to doubt.”29 Believing is, 

in other words, less cognitively demanding than is doubting! Empirical support is provided by 

psychologists Gilbert, Tafarodi, and Malone,30 and in an advertising context by consumer 

researchers, Koslow and Beltramini.31

31. In sum, it is my opinion that the messages conveyed to consumers who process DLink’s marcom materials are also likely believed and incorporated into their cognitive structures 

regarding the performance of this company’s router products. This is not to say that all 

consumers believe every claim made by D-Link or its router competitors, as consumer 

skepticism is an aspect of marketing communications and consumer behavior in general.32 

Research has revealed, however, that consumers are less skeptical of objective than subjective 

claims,33 with objective claims characterizing concrete product features and subjective claims 

representing intangible aspects—e.g., as contained in a hypothetical claim that a router model is 

“fabulous.” I conclude that D-Link’s security-related claims are objective and thus unlikely to 

generate much consumer skepticism. The net result is that messages conveyed in D-Link’s 

 

29 Daniel T. Gilbert, How Mental Systems Believe, 46 AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, 117 (1991). 

30 Daniel T. Gilbert, Romin W. Tafarodi & Patrick S. Malone, You Can’t Not Believe Everything You Read, 65 

JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 221-233 (1993). 

31 Scott Koslow & Richard F. Beltramini, Consumer Skepticism and the “Waiting Room of the Mind”: Are 

Consumers More Likely to Believe Advertising Claims If They Are Merely Comprehended?, 29 ADVANCES IN 

CONSUMER RESEARCH, 473-479 (2002). 

32 Gary T. Ford, Darlene B. Smith & John L. Swasy, Consumer Skepticism of Advertising Claims: Testing 

Hypotheses from Economics of Information, 16 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 433-441 (1990). 

33 Id.

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 18 of 37
16 

marcom materials for its router products also are likely believed and thus likely to positively 

influence reasonable consumers’ product evaluations and purchase decisions.

B. PX 2: Marcom for the DIR-615 Wireless N 300 Router 

32. The marcom material (PX 2) for the DIR-615 router consists of a two-page 

document. The first page displays the product and provides three photos of representative 

product users captioned with claimed brand benefits. Immediately below the three photos is 

detailed verbiage related to product functioning and benefits, specifically (1) Upgrade your 

network; (2) Easy to set up; and (3) Easy to secure. The second page presents two additional 

sections of product information labeled (1) What this product does; and (2) Benefits of a wireless 

N 300 router. Two thirds of the remainder of this page entails a presentation of technical 

specifications (standards, device interface, security, weight, warranty, etc.). 

33. In terms of total space attributed to the issue of security, I roughly estimate it at 

only about 10 percent. However, in terms of the impression on reasonable consumers, I would 

gauge the emphasis as considerably greater, minimally at least 25 percent. I arrive at this 25%+ 

estimate in view of how I believe typical, nonexpert consumers would process this marcom 

piece. Specifically, it is my opinion that the technical details would escape the interest and 

attention of most nonexperts, who, rather, would devote their attention to comprehensible and 

salient issues such as those treated under the headings “easy to set up” and “easy to secure.” 

Ease of set up would be especially attention-grabbing insofar as many consumers experience 

setup difficulties and frustrations with digital products. But “easy to secure” also would capture 

the reader’s considerable attention given the combination of consumers’ familiarity with the 

concept of security in general and their uncertainty with exactly what “secure” means as related 

to routers. I am of the opinion that the issue of security would constitute disproportionate 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 19 of 37
17 

interest on the reader’s part in comparison to the total amount of space this marcom piece 

devotes to the topic. 

34. Here specifically is what PX 2 for the DIR-615 N 300 router expressly claims 

with respect to the product’s security: 

 Under the subheading “Easy to Secure,” on page 1, consumers are told explicitly that the 

DIR-615 “supports the latest wireless security features to help prevent unauthorized 

access,” regardless of the source (“from over a wireless network or from the Internet”). 

Consumers also are promised that the DIR-615 router “utilizes dual active firewalls (SPI 

and NAT) to prevent potential attacks from across the Internet.” A concluding sentence 

claims that the DIR-615 router delivers great performance and “network security.” 

 In the “Technical Specifications” section on page 2, a SECURITY bullet point claims that 

this product provides “Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA, WPA2).” A bullet point in the 

section labeled “ADVANCED FIREWALL FEATURES” lists three technical features. 

35. Analysis of Express and Implied Claims for the DIR-615 Router. The marcom 

material (PX 2) for the DIR-615 wireless N 300 router clearly conveys to potential purchasers 

(Box B of deception model) that not only is this router “easy to secure,” but that, in fact, it is

secure from unauthorized access. The bullet points describing the “ADVANCED FIREWALL 

FEATURES” are likely understood only by technical sophisticates but which may imply to 

novice consumers that this router is protected from interventions by hackers who might 

compromise the device’s security. It is my opinion that reasonable consumers would form the 

belief (Box C) that this product is secure from unauthorized access. This claim is stated 

expressly under the subheading labeled “Easy to Secure” and then buttressed elsewhere in the 

marcom piece. 

36. Although the semantic concepts “secure” and “security” are theoretically subject 

to different meanings, of which unauthorized access is just one possible interpretation, it is my 

opinion that in context of router marcom there are only a finite number of plausible 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 20 of 37
18 

interpretations, or conveyed meanings (Box B), on which consumers might form beliefs 

regarding product performance. Surely, possibilities such as “secure from physically breaking 

down” or “secure from personal injury” are implausible interpretations. To the contrary, 

reasonable consumers most likely would interpret “secure” as promising that this router is 

protected from unauthorized access (qua hacking) and have this belief (Box C) as an important 

cognitive component bearing on their evaluation of this router. 

37. Is, however, this conveyed message and corresponding belief material (Box D) to 

a consumer’s decision to seriously consider purchasing this brand and particular model? It goes 

without saying that security is a material consideration for tech-savvy consumers who fully 

understand that Internet-connected devices are potentially susceptible to unauthorized access. 

But what about those consumers who lack technical expertise? Router security also is a material 

purchase consideration for this group of consumers. My reasoning is as follows: These 

consumers probably have never considered the possibility that a router may be accessed (hacked) 

by intruders. However, upon reading the marcom material for the DIR-615 they are alerted 

prominently to the possibility of potential attacks from across the Internet. Hence, if security 

were relatively immaterial to their product evaluation prior to processing marcom for the DIR615, upon reading it those consumers learn that they should take security into consideration 

when evaluating and choosing to purchase the DIR-615. It thus is my opinion that security is a 

material purchase consideration for all consumers, technically savvy or otherwise, who have 

reviewed the marcom for the DIR-615. Apparently D-Link considers security to be a material 

purchase consideration in view of its page-one emphasis on “Easy to Secure,” which is one of 

three key sales points on this opening page. 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 21 of 37
19 

C. PX 3: Marcom for the DIR-412 Mobile Wireless Router 

38. The marcom piece (PX 3) for the DIR-412 mobile wireless router presents on the 

first of two pages this model’s advantages ordered as (1) Maximum portability; (2) Advanced 

network security; and (3) Simple to install and use. This marcom piece’s security emphasis is 

prominent. Specifically, the second subheading on the front page is labeled “ADVANCED 

NETWORK SECURITY,” and in this section it is claimed that the “DIR-412 ensures a secure 

Wi-Fi network” through wireless encryption. And, importantly, the marcom content declares 

that all the router owner need do to ensure security is to “Simply press the WPS button to quickly 

establish a secure connection to new devices.” The marcom further claims that the router’s 

firewalls “prevent potential attacks and intrusions from across the Internet.” The message 

conveyed (Box B) is that when setting up this router, the consumer can be assured that the DIR412 is secure from unauthorized access. Likewise, this claim likely is internalized by consumers 

in the form of a belief (Box C) that the router is protected from intrusions. 

39. As was the case with the marcom for the DIR-615 (PX 2), the total amount of 

space in the marcom for the DIR-412 devoted to security is relatively slight; however, as also 

applicable to the DIR-615’s marcom, I believe the prominent emphasis on security for the DIR412 router belies the limited coverage devoted to that topic. In fact, one of three headers on the 

front page emphasizes network security (indeed, advanced network security) and the lead header 

(Maximum Portability) also treats security in its reference to “a secure, high-speed 802.11n 

wireless network.” Hence, I am of the opinion that the overall effect on consumers of this 

router’s prominent security promise is substantially greater than the physical amount of coverage 

it receives. 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 22 of 37
20 

40. The marcom for the DIR-412 states (in the Advanced Network Security section) 

that this router utilizes firewalls “to prevent potential attacks and intrusions from across the 

Internet.” Via this language, the marcom material for the DIR-412 is effectively defining for 

consumers “security” as meaning secure from unauthorized access. 

41. Here specifically is what the web page for the DIR-412 mobile wireless router 

expressly asserts with respect to the product’s security:

 As mentioned previously, the section labeled Advanced Network Security asserts that 

the DIR-412 router ensures a secure Wi-Fi network and that this can be achieved by 

simply pressing a WPS button. The section also states that the firewalls “prevent 

potential attacks and intrusions from across the Internet.”

 Under the Technical Specifications section on page two, a subsection is labeled 

Wireless Security, and three bullets list technical features describing wireless 

encryption. 

42. Analysis of Express and Implied Claims for the DIR-412 Mobile Wireless Router. 

I conclude that the marcom material for the DIR-412 mobile router conveys (Box B) to 

reasonable consumers that this device is secure from unauthorized access. Reasonable 

consumers would have no reason to believe otherwise and thus would form the purchaseinfluencing belief (Box C) that this router is secure from “potential attacks and intrusions from 

across the Internet,” which is tantamount to claiming that this router is secure from unauthorized 

access. The marcom material for this router not only promises security but also offers simplicity 

in the claim that security can be achieved by merely pressing a button. 

43. D-Link’s promise of providing security along with the push-button ease of 

achieving this would be, in my view, material (Box D) to reasonable consumers in determining 

whether this D-Link router deserves their serious purchase consideration. The marcom’s 

emphasis on “Advanced Network Security” in one of three headers on the first page leads me to 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 23 of 37
21 

conclude that D-Link considers security to be a material purchase consideration. Tech-savvy 

consumers certainly would be concerned about unauthorized access to a potential router 

purchase, and marcom for the DIR-412 likely would have persuaded them that security is 

enabled by this product. Less technically sophisticated consumers would have learned from the 

marcom for the DIR-412 that security from unauthorized access is something they absolutely 

should take into consideration when making a router purchase decision. Hence, regardless of 

one’s technical sophistication, security would be (for tech-savvy consumers) or become (for lesssavvy consumers) a material purchase consideration. 

D. PX 4: Marcom for the DIR-815 Wireless N Dual Band Router 

44. The marcom material (PX 4) for the DIR-815 consists of a three-page 

presentation. Page one displays the router and describes several product benefits such as faster 

network speeds and superior home coverage. At the top of the second page are two bolded 

headers. The first, labeled “Exceptional Performance,” informs prospective purchasers that with 

this router they can “Create a secure wireless network to share photos, files, music, printers, and 

more.” Readers are informed, in the section labeled “Advanced Network Security,” that this 

router “supports the latest wireless security features to help prevent unauthorized access, be it 

from over a wireless network or from the Internet.” The remainder of the content on page two 

presents technical product features and displays a graphic showing the relative superiority of 

Dual Band N 600 technology compared with other D-Link models, N 150 and N 300. 

45. The third page displays the back view of the DIR-815 Wireless N Dual Band 

Router and provides technical specifications, one of which is labeled “Security” with a bullet 

point stating “Wi-Fi protected access (WPA, WPA2).” 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 24 of 37
22 

46. The following bullet points identify express references to security on the DIR815’s marcom: 

 Under the heading “Advanced Network Security,” the marcom makes strong claims that 

the N Dual Band Router “supports the latest wireless security features to help prevent 

unauthorized access, be it from over a wireless network or from the Internet,” that enable 

users to “use the best possible encryption method,” and that the router’s firewalls “help 

prevent potential attacks from across the Internet.” 

 A highlighted blue-boxed section lists under Features that the product provides “Wi-Fi 

Protected Setup” and “Supports Secure Wireless Encryption.” 

 Additional content placed alongside the blue-boxed section compares three router 

products and indicates that all three provide (1) safe network connection with wireless 

encryption; and (2) push button Wi-Fi protected setup (WPS). 

 A “Security” bullet point on the final page notes that this router enables “Wi-Fi Protected 

Access (WPA, WPA2).” 

47. Analysis of Express and Implied Claims for DIR-815 Wireless N Dual Band 

Router. In addition to various advantages claimed for this router (e.g., faster network speeds and 

superior home coverage), network security also receives prominent space and emphasis. This is 

especially so in the section labeled “Advanced Network Security” where it is claimed that this 

router “supports the latest wireless security features to help prevent unauthorized access. . . .” 

Applying again my theoretical framing of the deception process, it is my opinion that, among 

other information, the marcom piece for the DIR-815 router conveys (Box B) that this router is 

secure from unauthorized access. Reasonable consumers reading this information would likely 

believe (Box C) that this router is secure from unauthorized access. 

48. As I have opined in the instance of D-Link’s two router models that I discussed 

previously (DIR-615 and DIR-412), I regard the emphasis on security in the marcom for the 

DIR-815 to be a material representation to reasonable consumers. Upon processing the marcom 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 25 of 37
23 

for this product, reasonable consumers would likely believe they should be concerned about 

purchasing a router that is secure from unauthorized access over a wireless network or from the 

Internet. As before, the relatively small subset of tech-savvy consumers would know the 

importance of security prior to processing this marcom message, and the larger subset of 

technically unsophisticated consumers would now have learned from the marcom for the DIR815 that security from unauthorized access is a critically important to well-informed product 

evaluation and choice—ergo, material—when making a router purchase decision. 

E. PX 5: Marcom for the DIR-645 Whole Home Router 1000 

49. The marcom material (PX 5) for the DIR-645 router consists of a three-page 

document. Page one presents both front and back pictures of the Whole Home Router 1000 and 

emphasizes the SmartBeam technology that enables this router to provide coverage throughout 

the home. Page two is delineated into five sections with subheadings (not numbered in the 

original): (1) “Give your wireless devices the bandwith they crave. Give them SmartBeam”; (2) 

“Now Playing: Everything”; (3) “Advanced home networking. Simple setup”; (4) “128-bit 

security encryption”; and (5) “Get ready for the future—IPv6 equipped.” Page three presents, at 

the top of the page, before-and-after graphics to demonstrate the superior performance of the 

Amplifi wireless network vis-à-vis a traditional wireless network. Thereafter on this page are 

shown product features and technical specifications. 

50. All in all, I estimate that the marcom material for the DIR-645 router devotes only 

about five percent of the total amount of space to security matters. However, given that page 

two represents the essence of this three-page layout and that security represents about 14 percent 

of the space on that page, I would roughly estimate that security would command at least 20 

percent of the reader’s attention in view of the importance to consumers of having secure 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 26 of 37
24 

products and in light of the fact that the last subsection on page two (“Get ready for the future—

IPv6 equipped”) is devoted to technical details that most nonexpert consumers would, in my 

opinion, simply bypass. 

51. Express references to security on the web pages for the DIR-645 router are: 

 In a section labeled “128-bit Security Encryption,” on page two, D-Link claims that this 

router “protects your network” using “the same technology used in E-commerce or online 

banking.” Obviously, the promise to consumers is that this router provides state-of-theart protection. This protection is enabled with “hassle-free plug and play installation,” 

“Push Button Security,” and “advanced Wi-Fi protected setup” that is “standard on every 

Amplifi device.” Consumers are further informed in this section that the Whole Home 

Router 1000 is “not only one of the fastest routers available, its [sic] also one of the 

safest.” 

 In a section on page three labeled Features, a bullet point lists WPS (for Wi-Fi Protected 

Setup), and a following bullet point claims that the product “Supports Secure Wireless 

Encryption Using WPA or WPA2.” 

 The Technical Specifications section on page three claims under a SECURITY heading 

that the router provides “Wi-Fi Protected Access” and offers two technical means for 

accomplishing this. 

52. Analysis of Express and Implied Claims for the DIR-645 Whole Home Router 

1000. Although the marcom material for this router places emphasis on consumer benefits other 

than security—particularly whole-home coverage, ability to power multiple digital devices, and 

simple setup—security is not neglected. Page two conveys (Box B) to prospective purchasers 

that the DIR-645 router will protect one’s network with the “same technology used in Ecommerce or online banking,” making it “one of the safest” routers. This reference to Ecommerce and online banking represents a powerful claim inasmuch as consumers would be 

impressed that D-Link employs the same technology as used by firms that are implied to be 

sophisticated protectors of their customers’ sensitive data. The claim also is thoroughly 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 27 of 37
25 

believable in that skepticism is unlikely to be evoked among reasonable consumers who would 

have no compelling reason to question the claim given that the protection is based on the use of a 

technically sophisticated-sounding language, including “128-bit AES data security encryption.” 

It is my opinion that all except the most cynical consumers would likely form the belief (Box C) 

that the Whole Home Router 1000 is “one of the safest” routers available, with safety 

interpreted, in context of the advertising claims, as secure from unauthorized access. This broad 

claim (“one of the safest”) attached to a very specific claim (“128-bit encryption”) underscores 

that D-Link is purposefully endeavoring to convey broad claims of security from unauthorized 

access using specific claims about particular security features. 

53. It is my further opinion that security from unauthorized access is what D-Link is 

promising to prospective purchasers in PX 5. This promise—internalized as a consumer belief—

would represent an important choice criterion, or buying consideration, for many consumers, 

especially those who lack technical sophistication and now would realize—pursuant to reading 

the marcom for the DIR-645—that security from unauthorized access is something they must 

consider when making a router purchase decision. As such, security is material (Box D) to 

prospective purchasers in evaluating whether this router is a serious purchase candidate. 

F. PX 1: SECURITY EVENT RESPONSE POLICY 

54. The FTC’s Complaint34 includes as an exhibit a document labeled PX 1, which is 

D-Link’s Security Event Response Policy (“SERP”). The FTC asserts that “after highlypublicized security flaws were found to affect many of its products” D-Link “posted a Security 

Event Response Policy on its product support webpage.”35 Because D-Link’s SERP is 

 

34 Complaint, ¶ 20. 

35 Complaint, ¶ 20. 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 28 of 37
26 

applicable to its IP camera products as well as to its various router models, the following analysis 

pertains to both product categories. I otherwise employ the same methodology as described 

above in Sections III. and IV. 

55. First, the fact that D-Link includes such a policy on its web site suggests that the 

company is acknowledging that security issues represent a significant concern with its router and 

IP camera products. Second, it is my understanding that purchasers of D-Link routers and IP 

cameras who may have had concerns about device vulnerability—perhaps grounded in media 

reports and/or based on comments from other consumers—would have had access to the SERP 

from a link available on D-Link’s product support page.36 As with the marcom for routers, DLink did not track page views of the SERP on its website.37 Finally, in view of the officiallooking nature of this document and the density of content, it is my opinion that only highly 

motivated consumers would read this document carefully and form judgments based on their 

careful reading. If, on the other hand, consumers are not highly motivated, their processing of 

this document would be superficial and thus I would have a somewhat different opinion as to the 

judgments they may form from their surface reading. 

56. This document when processed by highly motivated consumers would suggest to 

them the following: 

a. that D-Link takes security very seriously; 

b. that D-Link has the operational capability of dealing with security threats and 

problems, as indicated in the section labeled “Product Security Event Response” 

where it is pointed out that D-Link has expansive “security event response teams” 

that work with “customers, vendors, partners, consultants, security researchers, 

 

36 Complaint, ¶ 20. 

37 DLS Answers to FTC 5th Set of Interrogs. No. 24. 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 29 of 37
27 

industry organizations, and others to identify potential security issues in our 

products”; 

c. that, as indicated in the section labeled “Suspected Security Vulnerability Support 

and Reporting,” D-Link encourages anyone who suspects a product security issue to 

bring that concern to the attention of its security event response team; 

d. that the “security event response team” monitors security requests received via email on a 24/7/365 basis, and that “Reports [of security vulnerability] are typically 

acknowledged within 24 hours” and that “Plan of actions are typically offered with in 

[sic] 48 hours of a recognition and posting of a report”; 

e. that consumers can readily track security vulnerability information from D-Link by 

accessing any of various sources (web, e-mail, RSS, Twitter, or various public 

relations contacts); and 

f. that, in a final section labeled “D-Link’s Commitment to Product Security,” that “DLink prohibits at all times, including during product development by D-Link or its 

affiliates, any intentional product feature or behaviors which allow unauthorized 

access to the device or network, including but not limited to undocumented account 

credentials, covert communications channels, ‘backdoors’ or undocumented traffic 

diversion.” It is my opinion that consumers would not process this section as 

restricted to just intentional actions but rather would consider this section as a 

claim—in conjunction with prior information in the document—that D-Link is 

simply committed to maintaining the highest levels of product security. 

57. Analysis of Express and Implied Claims for the Security Event Response Policy. 

In sum, D-Link promises with this document that it takes security very seriously, and that it has 

taken reasonable steps to secure its products from unauthorized access. It moreover promises 

that D-Link regularly provides security vulnerability information, has mechanisms available to 

deal with security threats quickly and efficiently, and that consumers can easily track security 

issues in D-Link devices. 

58. I predicated the foregoing analysis on the supposition that primarily only highly 

motivated consumers would carefully read and study this document. On the other hand, it is my 

opinion that less-motivated information processors—i.e., those who devote only minimal effort 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 30 of 37
28 

to examining this document and who read it only superficially—would likely not have read the 

document carefully enough to form the belief that D-Link will protect their devices from 

unauthorized access and that support is available in the event a security problem occurs. 

59. It is reasonable for me to assume, for at least two significant reasons, that some 

percentage of D-Link’s purchasers fall into the high-motivation category. First, it is well-known 

that consumers are concerned about privacy violations when using the Internet. Consumers are 

worried, for example, that personal online data is insecure.38 A survey of more than 2,000 

American consumers determined that more than 90 percent of respondents are worried about 

their online privacy. Concerns about online shopping represent the greatest area of alarm. More 

than one half of respondents to this survey indicated they avoid companies they believe do not 

protect their online data.39 Granted, Internet-related privacy concerns are not equivalent to DLink’s Security Event Response Policy, but there is a parallel relation in that apprehension about 

one’s online privacy infringement is conceptually similar to fear that one’s router or IP camera is 

susceptible to hacking, which also represents a form of privacy invasion. 

60. Second, and more directly relevant, given that consumers have learned from the 

general media that Internet-connected products are susceptible to outside intrusions—and 

perhaps some consumers have personally experienced such invasions—they would, upon being 

alerted by D-Link to the possibility of a security threat, be motivated to learn more about the 

nature of the threat and how they could secure their Internet-connected devices. Hence, these 

two factors taken together suggest that some purchasers of D-Link’s routers and IP cameras 

 

38 TrustArc Blog 2015, Data Privacy is a Major Concern for Consumers (January 28, 2015), 

https://www.trustarc.com/blog/2015/01/28/data-privacy-concern-consumers/. 

39 TRUSTe, TRUSTe 2014 US Consumer Confidence Privacy Report: Consumer Opinion and Business Impact (Jan. 

27, 2014), http://www.theagitator.net/wp-content/uploads/012714 ConsumerConfidenceReport US1.pdf. 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 31 of 37
29 

would be highly motivated to diligently process the information in D-Link’s SERP. Those 

highly motivated, reasonable consumers would form the belief that D-Link takes security 

seriously and has taken reasonable steps to secure its routers and IP cameras from unauthorized 

access. Insofar as this belief would be instrumental in consumers’ decision making with respect 

to D-Link’s router and IP camera products, I opine that D-Link’s SERP conveys impressions to 

consumers that are manifestly material to their subsequently evaluating and choosing D-Link’s 

router and IP camera products. 

VI. CONCLUSIONS 

61. My analysis leads me to conclude that reasonable consumers for four models of 

D-Link’s router products—DIR-615, DIR-412, DIR-815, and DIR-645—were led to believe by 

D-Link’s marcom materials that these routers are secure from unauthorized access. In all 

instances, the claim of security from unauthorized access creates a belief that is purchase 

influential and thus material to reasonable consumers who have been exposed to these marcom 

pieces and thus would enhance their evaluations of these router models and elevate the likelihood 

of their purchasing D-Link models. 

62. The specific messages conveyed and consumer beliefs formed for the four router 

models are as follows: 

 DIR-615: The primary claims conveyed to potential purchasers of this model and 

the likely beliefs formed are that this router is easy to set up and secure from 

unauthorized access, both of which are material to product evaluation and 

purchase consideration. 

 DIR-412: The marcom material for this router conveys to consumers that this 

model is secure from unauthorized access. This security is claimed to be achieved 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 32 of 37
30 

with the mere pushing of a button. These claims are likely internalized by 

consumers as believable product features and would be material considerations in 

their product evaluations. 

 DIR-815: The marcom for this router model asserts that the DIR-815 has the 

latest wireless security features to help prevent unauthorized access. Prospective 

purchasers would have little reason to doubt this claim and thus would internalize 

it as a product-related belief that would materially influence their assessment of 

this model as a viable purchase candidate. 

 DIR-645: The most salient and influential message conveyed by the marcom for 

this router model is that it protects the owner’s network security by using the 

same technology as employed by E-commerce and online banking companies, 

making it “one of the safest” routers available. Reasonable consumers would 

believe, upon reading this powerful claim, that D-Link is promising that this 

router is secure from unauthorized access. Prospective purchasers would be 

persuaded by such a claim, internalize it as a belief as to how the DIR-645 would 

perform, and be materially influenced to consider this model a serious purchase 

candidate. 

63. My analysis also leads me to conclude that reasonable consumers were led to 

believe by D-Link’s Security Event Response Policy that D-Link takes security very seriously; 

that it is committed to the security of its routers and IP cameras “at all times,” including during 

product development; and that it prohibits features in its products that allow unauthorized access. 

Motivated consumers who read the policy carefully would thus believe that D-Link has taken 

reasonable steps to secure its routers and IP cameras from unauthorized access. This internalized 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 33 of 37
31 

belief would materially influence their decision to purchase D-Link branded routers and IP 

cameras. 

 

VII. REFERENCES 

Bart J. Bronnenberg, Jun B. Kim & Carl F. Mela, Zooming in on Choice: How Do Consumers 

Search for Cameras Online?, 35/5 MARKETING SCIENCE, 693 (2016). 

Gary T. Ford, Darlene B. Smith & John L. Swasy, Consumer Skepticism of Advertising Claims: 

Testing Hypotheses from Economics of Information, 16 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 433 

(1990). 

Daniel T. Gilbert, How Mental Systems Believe, 46 AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, 107 (1991). 

Daniel T. Gilbert, Romin W. Tafarodi & Patrick S. Malone, You Can’t Not Believe Everything 

You Read, 65 JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 221 (1993). 

Stephen J. Hoch & Young-Won Ha, Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of 

Product Experience, 13 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 221 (1986). 

Stephen J. Hoch & John Deighton, Managing What Consumers Learn from Experience, 53 

JOURNAL OF MARKETING, 1 (1989). 

Scott Koslow & Richard F. Beltramini, Consumer Skepticism and the “Waiting Room of the 

Mind”: Are Consumers More Likely to Believe Advertising Claims If They Are Merely 

Comprehended?, 29 ADVANCES IN CONSUMER RESEARCH, 473 (2002). 

Jeff Langenderfer & Terence A. Shimp, Expert Opinion Testimony in Federal Trade 

Commission Enforcement Proceedings: Theoretical Versus Empirical Evidence, in 8 Marketing 

and Public Policy Conference Proceedings, 41 (Alan Andreasen, Alex Simonson & N. Craig 

Smith eds., 1998). 

Jeff Langenderfer & Terence A. Shimp, Consumer Vulnerability to Scams, Swindles, and Fraud: 

A New Theory of Visceral Influence on Persuasion, 18 PSYCHOLOGY AND MARKETING, 763 

(2001). 

Deborah J. MacInnis & Bernard J. Jaworski, Information Processing from Advertisements: 

Toward an Integrative Framework, 53 JOURNAL OF MARKETING, 1 (1989). 

Deborah J. MacInnis, Christine Moorman & Bernard J. Jaworski, Enhancing and Measuring 

Consumers’ Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability to Process Brand Information from Ads, 55 

JOURNAL OF MARKETING, 32 (1991). 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 34 of 37
32 

Scott B. Mackenzie & Richard A. Spreng, How Does Motivation Moderate the Impact of Central 

and Peripheral Processing on Brand Attitudes and Intentions?, 18 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER 

RESEARCH, 519 (1992). 

RICHARD E. PETTY & JOHN T. CACIOPPO, ATTITUDES AND PERSUASION: CLASSIC AND 

CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES (1981). 

JEF RICHARDS, DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING: BEHAVIORAL STUDY OF A LEGAL CONCEPT (2013). 

Terence A. Shimp, Do Incomplete Comparisons Mislead? 18 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 

RESEARCH, 21 (1978). 

Terence A. Shimp, Social-Psychological (Mis)Representations in Television Advertising, 13 

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, 28 (1979). 

Terence A. Shimp & Ivan L. Preston, Deceptive and Nondeceptive Consequences of Evaluative 

Advertising, 45 JOURNAL OF MARKETING, 22 (1981). 

Terence A. Shimp & J. Thomas Yokum, Advertising Inputs and Psycho-physical Judgments in 

Vending-Machine Retailing, 58 JOURNAL OF RETAILING, 95 (1981). 

Terence A. Shimp, Evaluative Verbal Content and Deception in Advertising: A Review and 

Critical Analysis, in INFORMATION PROCESSING RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING, 195 (Richard J. 

Harris ed., 1983). 

TERENCE A. SHIMP & J. CRAIG ANDREWS, ADVERTISING, PROMOTIONS, AND OTHER ASPECTS OF 

INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS (9th ed. 2013). 

TrustArc Blog 2015, Data Privacy is a Major Concern for Consumers (January 28, 2015), 

https://www.trustarc.com/blog/2015/01/28/data-privacy-concern-consumers/. 

TRUSTe, TRUSTe 2014 US Consumer Confidence Privacy Report: Consumer Opinion and 

Business Impact (Jan. 27, 2014), http://www.theagitator.net/wpcontent/uploads/012714 ConsumerConfidenceReport US1.pdf. 

Xin Wang, Neil T. Bendle, Feng Mai & June Cotte, The Journal of Consumer Research at 40: A 

Historical Analysis, 42 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 5 (2015). 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 35 of 37
33 

VIII. APPENDIX: SHIMP PUBLICATIONS AND CASE PARTICIPATION 

A. Publications (Past 10 Years) 

J. CRAIG ANDREWS & TERENCE A. SHIMP, ADVERTISING, PROMOTIONS, AND OTHER ASPECTS OF 

INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS (10th ed. 2018). 

Laura Smarandescu & Terence A. Shimp, Drink Coca-Cola, Eat Popcorn, Choose Powerade: 

The Limits of Subliminal Persuasion, MARKETING LETTERS 26, 715 (2015. 

TERENCE A. SHIMP & J. CRAIG ANDREWS, ADVERTISING, PROMOTIONS, AND OTHER ASPECTS OF 

INTEGRATED MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS (9th ed. 2013). 

TERENCE A. SHIMP, ADVERTISING, PROMOTIONS, AND OTHER ASPECTS OF INTEGRATED 

MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS (8th ed. 2010). 

B. Prior Expert Testimony (Past 4 Years) 

Festiva Resorts, Inc. – Served as an expert witness in a case filed by the State of Maine’s 

Attorney General’s Office. Submitted a final report and was deposed in Portland, Maine in 

2016. 

C. Materials Considered 

Docket Entries: 

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Equitable Relief (Dkt. No. 1) and attached Exhibits 

(Dkt. No. 1-1). 

Order re Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 90). 

Discovery Responses: 

DLS First Amended Answers to FTC 3rd Set of Interrogs. 

DLS Answers to FTC 5th Set of Interrogs. 

DLS Answers to FTC 6th Set of Interrogs. 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 36 of 37
34 

Other D-Link Marcom: 

D-Link DCS-2310L Cloud Camera 2300 Datasheet (Rev. A), available at: 

https://support.dlink.com/productinfo.aspx?m=DCS-2310L. 

Websites: 

D-Link DIR-615 Wireless-N Router, 4-Port product page, available at 

https://www.amazon.com/D-Link-DIR-615-Wireless-N-Router-4-Port/dp/B000QD7B6W (last 

accessed June 29, 2018). 

Best Buy, Network Buying Guide, available at https://www.bestbuy.com/site/buyingguides/networking-buying-guide/pcmcat387100050008.c?id=pcmcat387100050008 (last 

accessed June 29, 2018). 

D-Link DIR-815 300Mbps Wireless-N Dual-Band 4-Port Router w/Firewall product page, 

available at https://www.walmart.com/ip/D-LINK-Dual-Band-Router-DIR-815/15421413 (last 

accessed June 29, 2018). 

c|net, D-Link DIR-615 Wireless N Router review, available at https://www.cnet.com/products/dlink-dir-615-wireless-n-router/review/ (last accessed June 29, 2018). 

Top Ten Reviews, Best Premium Wireless Routers, available at 

http://www.toptenreviews.com/computers/networking/best-premium-wireless-routers/ (last 

accessed June 29, 2018). 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 178-57 Filed 09/21/18 Page 37 of 37