EXHIBIT C
EXPERT REBUTTAL 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

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 2

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Cause of Action Institute, counsel for D-Link Systems, Inc. (DLS), previously retained 

me to design and conduct surveys to test the extent to which, if at all, alleged 

misrepresentations pertaining to security of DLS wireless routers1 are material to 

purchase decisions – i.e., whether such representations influence consumers’ likelihood 

of purchasing the routers. As detailed in my opening Expert Report, the surveys 

showed that the allegedly misleading representations pertaining to security are not 

material to purchase decisions. I have now been asked to review the Expert Reports of 

Dr. Kent Van Liere and Professor Terence Shimp. This Rebuttal Report contains my 

opinions regarding the Van Liere Report and the survey discussed therein. Because 

Professor Shimp’s opinions are not based on any empirical research that could be 

analyzed, I generally am not offering opinions regarding the Shimp Report. My sole 

comment on the Shimp Report is that my own survey empirically tested some of the 

issues Professor Shimp opines on – namely, whether certain representations pertaining 

to security are material to purchase decisions – and the results of my research establish 

the lack of merit of Professor Shimp’s unsupported opinions. Certain aspects of 

Professor Shimp’s Report are also useful to explain why consumers were not influenced 

by the security-related content in the DLS wireless router advertising I tested.

In connection with preparing this Rebuttal Report I reviewed the materials cited in my 

opening Expert Report, the Van Liere and Shimp Reports and supporting exhibits, and 

DCS-2310L_Bates No. DLS0055084 and DLS 0055096. My qualifications are detailed in 

my opening Expert Report and an updated copy of my CV is included here as 

Appendix A. My continuing 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.

 

1 The D-Link wireless routers at issue are shown in Exhibits PX 2, PX 3, PX 4, and PX 5 of the 

Complaint. My survey specifically tested advertising for the D-Link N 300 (DIR-615) wireless 

router (Exhibit PX 2) and the D-Link N 600 Dual Band (DIR-815) wireless router (Exhibit PX 4) 

to represent the DLS products. 

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 3

The following is a summary of my key opinions regarding the Van Liere Survey and 

Report.

First, the Van Liere Report is striking in its failure to include surveys pertaining to any 

of the DLS wireless routers, or in fact any DLS advertising at all. The sole topic that Dr. 

Van Liere purported to test concerns the portion of the process for setting up a DLS IP 

camera where the consumer creates a password to access the device, which naturally 

occurs after the decision to purchase the product has already been made. Dr. Van Liere 

did not survey any DLS advertising of any kind that could be seen by consumers 

during the process of deciding whether to purchase any DLS product. Nor did Dr. Van 

Liere’s survey address DLS wireless routers in any respect. Accordingly, the Van Liere 

Survey entirely fails to address any issue pertaining to the DLS wireless routers at issue 

or any issue pertaining to any DLS advertising that consumers could have been misled

or influenced by in the course of making their purchase decision.

Even with respect to the lone issue Dr. Van Liere attempted to study, the survey 

entirely fails to test whether any mistaken consumer beliefs were caused by any DLS 

representations or whether any purchase decisions were influenced by any DLS 

representations. To the contrary, even putting aside the additional flaws in the survey

(discussed below), the most the survey design could be capable of testing is: (1) whether 

consumers believe that only one password will allow access to the IP camera, regardless 

of whether DLS representations played any role in causing such a belief; and (2) 

whether explicitly informing consumers that additional passwords could allow access 

to the IP camera would influence them, regardless of whether any DLS representations 

had misled them in the first place.

Even as to those latter topics, the survey is flawed and unreliable for the following 

reasons: (1) the survey universe included those who had purchased an IP camera any 

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 4

time in the past 10 years, a period that is far too long to reliably assure that survey 

respondents have the mindset of a purchaser, and that significantly exceeds the class 

period for most of the products at issue; (2) the survey questions asking about influence 

on the purchase decision were artificial and nonsensical given that the survey simulated 

a situation where respondents had already purchased the product and were in the 

midst of setting it up, and the experience the survey simulated could not have 

influenced a purchase that had already occurred; (3) the survey unnecessarily and 

improperly inserted the word “unauthorized” when asking about access to the camera, 

an inflammatory word that is biased to prompt a negative response; and (4) the survey 

failed to show respondents the End User License Agreement, which all consumers 

would have needed to accept prior to reaching the portion of the setup process tested in 

the survey, and which contains information relevant to the security of the product.

These and other flaws are discussed in more detail below.

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF VAN LIERE SURVEY

The following is a very brief overview of the Van Liere Survey. Additional detail is 

contained in the Van Liere Report and is discussed below.

The Van Liere Survey was an online survey using the online panel Critical Mix.2 The 

survey consisted of individuals who have purchased a Wi-Fi home IP security camera 

in the past 10 years (since 2008).

In the main survey, all respondents were shown a portion of the on-screen set-up 

process for an IP camera. The specific portion shown was a simulation of the screen on 

 

2 My survey was also an online survey using an online panel.

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 5

which a consumer is asked to create a password. Specifically, respondents were shown 

the following screen from a DLS setup wizard:

Respondents in a Test Group were shown only this screen. 

Respondents in a Control Group were also shown the following additional screen 

containing a pop-up disclaimer indicating that there may be other passwords left by the 

manufacturer that are able to access the device:

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 6

All respondents in both groups were then asked the following question:

Respondents who answered “ONLY password” or “don’t know” were later asked:

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 7

Respondents who answered that there are “OTHER” passwords were instead asked:

All respondents who answered that the information that additional passwords “may 

allow unauthorized users to access your camera” would influence their decision were 

subsequently asked whether the information would make them more or less likely to 

purchase the camera (or neither).

The Van Liere Report indicates that 74% of Test Group respondents answered that the 

password they create is the ONLY password that will allow access to the camera, as 

compared to 30% in the Control Group where the disclaimer about other passwords 

was provided. Based on this result, Dr. Van Liere opines that a net 43 percent (the 

difference between the two groups due to rounding) are misled into believing that the 

only password that will allow access to the camera was the one they created.

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 8

The Van Liere Report also indicates that 46% of Test Group respondents answered that 

the information that additional passwords may allow unauthorized access to their 

camera would make them less likely to purchase the product, as compare to 16% in the 

Control Group. Based on this result, Dr. Van Liere opines that a net 30% of respondents 

would be less likely to purchase the product due to that information.

DETAILED OPINIONS REGARDING VAN LIERE SURVEY AND REPORT

I. The Van Liere Survey did not test any DLS wireless routers or any DLS 

advertising that consumers would see in the course of making a purchase 

decision.

A critical initial observation regarding the Van Liere Report is that it does not include 

any surveys pertaining to any of the DLS wireless routers at issue, and does not include 

any surveys pertaining to any DLS advertising that consumers would see in the course 

of making a purchase decision. The FTC Complaint alleges that DLS wireless routers 

were misleadingly advertised. Since Dr. Van Liere disclosed no surveys pertaining to 

DLS wireless routers, his report has no bearing on the claims regarding wireless routers. 

The FTC Complaint also alleges that DLS advertising content that could potentially be 

seen by consumers at the point of sale misled and influenced consumers. Since Dr. Van 

Liere disclosed no surveys pertaining to DLS web pages, brochures, or any other 

materials that consumers could have reviewed in deciding whether to purchase a DLS 

product, his report has no bearing on the claims regarding such advertising materials. 

At most, the Van Liere Report attempts to address one portion of the set-up process for 

an IP camera product.

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 9

II. The Van Liere Survey did not test whether any mistaken belief relating to 

password security was caused by any DLS representations.

The sole survey disclosed in the Van Liere Report asks whether a password created by 

the user is the ONLY password that will allow access to the camera or whether there 

could be OTHER passwords that will allow access to the camera. Roughly 74% of 

respondents in the Test Group answered that they believe the password they create 

during the setup is the ONLY password that will allow access to the camera. As Dr. 

Van Liere concedes, it is necessary in a survey such as his to determine whether such 

answers are caused by the effects of “advertising or assurances” and to rule out the 

possibility that the answers merely reflect “background noise,” which includes preexisting beliefs or assumptions that consumers bring into the survey.3 Dr. Van Liere 

claims to have accomplished this by using a Control Group in which a disclaimer was 

added stating that there may be other passwords left by the manufacturer that are able 

to access the device. This Control Group, however, entirely failed to accomplish the 

goal of ruling out background noise as the cause of the results, and thus renders the 

survey incapable of testing whether any mistaken belief is caused by any DLS 

representations.

In order to appreciate the flaw in the Van Liere Survey design, it is important to 

consider the critical distinction between a pre-existing belief or assumption, on the one 

hand, and a belief caused by an advertisement, on the other hand. The fact that a 

respondent expresses a belief after viewing a stimulus does not prove that the stimulus 

caused the respondent to form that belief. One possibility is that viewing the stimulus 

caused the respondent to form the belief. The other possibility, however, is that the 

stimulus has not caused the respondent to form the belief, but that the respondent 

already had the belief prior to the survey or simply used their own judgment to express 

 

3 Van Liere Report, Paragraph 31.

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 10

a belief upon hearing a question, complete unimpacted by anything the stimulus said or 

showed.

The Van Liere Survey contains data that conclusively demonstrate that a high 

percentage of respondents can report an “incorrect” belief about a DLS IP camera for 

reasons that have nothing to do with anything communicated by DLS. In addition to 

the questions relating to the password, the Van Liere Survey also asked questions on 

other topics, including the following one (Q.3):

In response to this question, 78% of respondents (388 of 500) answered that the camera 

feed data from the camera IS stored in the cloud. It is my understanding that this is 

false. Since the materials shown in the Van Liere Survey regarding the set-up process 

do not in any way address the topic of data being stored in the cloud, it is clear that the 

78% rate of mistakenly answering that camera feed data is stored in the cloud is 

completely the product of respondents’ assumptions, pre-existing beliefs, or guesses. 

This clearly demonstrates the acute risk that the comparable 74% rate of answering that 

only the password created during the setup process can access the camera is similarly 

the product of assumptions, pre-existing beliefs and guesses, rather than anything 

communicated by any DLS advertising materials.

The following hypothetical is useful in understanding how the Van Liere Survey design 

entirely failed to measure whether any beliefs expressed in the survey were caused by 

any DLS representations. Imagine that a group of consumers are shown no advertising 

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 11

at all, but are simply told that there is a new social media app. They are told nothing 

about security or anything relating to security. They are then asked a question 

comparable to Dr. Van Liere’s question – i.e., if they sign up for the mobile app and 

create a password for their account, do they think that will be the only password that 

can access the account or that other passwords may allow access to the account. It 

could easily be the case that 74% of consumers or more would answer that the 

password they create would be the ONLY password that can access the account, simply 

because they are making an assumption or because they have a pre-existing belief that a 

social media account will only allow one password to access it. In this hypothetical, the

high rate of consumers answering that only one password can access the account cannot

be caused by any misleading representations from the social media company, because 

the consumers have not even seen any representations at all. The high rate of opinion 

that only one password will allow access could only be based purely on pre-existing 

beliefs and assumptions.

For the second part of the hypothetical, imagine that a “Control Group” is given the 

same introduction about the new social media app, but is also read a “disclaimer” 

stating that, in addition to a password they create, there may be other passwords that 

can access the account. It would not be at all surprising if the provision of this explicit 

disclaimer regarding the existence of other passwords significantly reduced the 

percentage of consumers who thereafter answer that ONLY one password can access 

the account. The fact that this disclaimer reduced the percentage of Control Group 

consumers who believe that only one password can access the social media account 

would not prove that the higher rate in the Test Group was caused by advertising 

representations. To the contrary, it would merely prove that an explicit disclaimer that 

tells people that their existing beliefs or assumptions are incorrect can dispel such

beliefs or assumptions.

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 12

For this precise reason, the Van Liere Survey entirely fails to prove that any mistaken 

belief about there being only one password that can access a DLS IP camera is caused 

by any DLS representations (“advertising or assurances” in Dr. Van Liere’s wording). 

The Test Group result was that 74% believe the password they create is the ONLY one 

that can access the camera. This, however, could be entirely the product of pre-existing 

beliefs or assumptions that have nothing to do with the DLS setup screen they were 

shown in the survey. In other words, some consumers may simply assume that any 

password for any device or account is the only one that will work, regardless of 

whether any advertising materials said or implied this to them. Accordingly, prior to 

consulting the Control Group, it is possible that the entire 74% result reflects preexisting beliefs and assumptions, and that there is nothing about the DLS set-up screen 

or representations that caused a mistaken belief. 

It is then up to the Control Group to assure us that a substantial portion of the 74% 

result is caused by DLS representations. Dr. Van Liere’s Control Group does not do so. 

It merely shows that adding an explicit disclaimer stating that more than one password 

may access the camera reduces the percentage of respondents who believe that only one 

password can. This may simply mean that the disclaimer is explicitly dispelling a preexisting belief or assumption, but does not at all prove that the higher result in the Test 

Group is caused by any DLS representations. The 43% “net” difference between the 

Test and Control Group is not proven to represent the percentage who were misled by 

any DLS representations. It could just as easily represent the percentage who answered 

that only one password can access the camera based on pre-existing beliefs or 

assumptions but could have that belief changed by a disclaimer that explicitly tells them 

otherwise.4

 

4 An even simpler hypothetical makes this equally obvious. Imagine a Test Group of 

respondents is shown a banana asked if they believe bananas are high in iron or low in iron. 

Imagine a Control Group respondent is asked the same thing but is first shown a card that says 

“a banana does not have enough iron to meet your daily needs.” The percentage of 

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 13

Another way to easily see how the Van Liere Survey design fails to establish that any 

rate of mistaken belief is caused by any DLS representations is to consider the 

alternative design that could have done so. If the Test Group had viewed the DLS setup screen and the Control Group had viewed an alternative version of that screen on 

which any allegedly misleading content had been removed, the resulting “net” 

difference between the two groups would have properly measured a rate of mistaken 

belief that is caused by the allegedly misleading content. For instance, if the FTC 

believed that the phrase “secure your camera” in the portion of the set-up process 

where respondents are instructed to select a password was misleading, the survey 

could have used a Control Group where this phrase was removed. If the removal of the 

phrase “secure your camera” from the Control Group stimulus had caused the result to 

drop from 74% to 30%, this would have proven (assuming no other flaws in the survey) 

that the language “secure your camera” must be the cause of the higher result, as that 

would have been the only difference between the two groups. 

On the other hand, where the disclaimer is the only difference between the two groups, 

all we have learned from the survey is the obvious fact that telling one group that there 

may be additional passwords reduces the percentage of consumers who think only one 

password will access the camera. This tells us nothing, however, about why many 

consumers thought only one password will work in the first place, and does nothing to 

establish that such a belief was caused by DLS representations as opposed to preexisting beliefs or assumptions.

 

respondents in the “Control Group” who have been shown an explicit disclaimer may have a 

substantially lower rate of answering that bananas are high in iron. This would not, however, 

mean that the “net” difference between the Test and Control Group represents any deception

caused by any advertising. It would simply reflect the obvious fact that you can reduce the 

percentage of people who believe something by explicitly telling them otherwise, regardless of 

what had caused them to form the belief in the first place.

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 14

III. The Van Liere Survey did not test the materiality of any DLS 

representations.

For the same reasons detailed in the preceding section, the Van Liere Survey entirely 

failed to test whether any DLS representations are material. Again, in considering 

materiality, there is a distinction between advertising content and “information” that 

may have nothing to do with advertising. Dr. Van Liere provided all respondents with 

“information” indicating that there may be other passwords that can access the camera

and reports that 46% of Test Group respondents (or a net of 30%) answered that this 

would make them less likely to purchase the camera. This result has no bearing on any 

issue relating to alleged DLS misrepresentations. At most, it could show that the 

provision of information that is perceived as negative would reduce likelihood of 

purchase. It in no way shows that any DLS advertising content influences respondents’ 

likelihood of purchase. Again, it may simply be that respondents have pre-existing 

beliefs or assumptions about how passwords work that have nothing to do with DLS 

advertising, and that additional “information” regarding the existence of other 

passwords reduced the reported likelihood of purchase by dispelling pre-existing 

beliefs, not by correcting any deception caused by the advertising. This means that the 

survey provides no showing that any DLS advertising is material.5 Even prior to

considering any of the additional flaws discussed below, the Van Liere Survey design 

could, at most, test whether the “information” that multiple passwords could access the 

camera could influence likelihood of purchase, regardless of whether any DLS 

advertising content influenced any beliefs or purchase decisions.

IV. Additional flaws undermine the reliability of the Van Liere Survey.

 

5 Dr. Van Liere appears to concede this in concluding that the “information” that there may be 

additional passwords is material, rather than concluding that any DLS advertising content or 

representations are material. Van Liere Report, Pararaph 48.

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 15

As detailed above, the Van Liere Survey only attempted to survey a single issue relating 

to IP camera passwords, and did not use a design that was capable of testing whether 

any DLS advertising or representations are the cause of any mistaken consumer belief 

or purchase decisions relating to that issue. Additional flaws in the survey further 

undermine the reliability of the survey even as it pertains to the lone issue the survey 

design could have tested.

A. The survey universe was improperly broad.

The purpose of the requirement that a survey target a proper universe is that in order 

for the survey results to reflect the likely perceptions or behaviors of actual consumers, 

those taking the survey must have a state of mind that is representative of purchasers of 

the products at issue.6 In most cases testing perception of advertising, this means 

surveying those who have relatively recent experience shopping for or purchasing the 

type of product at issue or who are considering purchasing the type of product at issue 

in the reasonably foreseeable future. Both recent purchasers and prospective 

purchasers have a mindset that is reflective of the population of purchasers at issue, 

because they are not far removed from the process of considering a purchase. For 

instance, in my own survey testing DLS wireless router advertising, respondents were 

included if they have purchased a wireless router in the past 12 months or are likely to 

purchase a wireless router in the coming 12 months. Such individuals have a mindset 

that is consistent with the relevant population at issue, as they have relatively current 

knowledge and interest relating to wireless routers due to their recent purchase 

experience or current purchase interest.

The Van Liere Survey, on the other hand, included anyone who has purchased an IP 

camera in the past 10 years. A 10-year period is far too expansive to ensure that the 

 

6 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition Section 32:159.

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 16

survey respondents had a mindset that would reflect the perceptions of relevant 

purchasers. A respondent in the Van Liere Survey may have last purchased and set up 

an IP camera upwards of 5 or 10 years ago. This may have been the last time the 

respondent has shopped for, purchased, or set up an IP camera, or given any thought at 

all to any issues relating to selection or set up of an IP camera. In such a case, the 

survey’s simulation of the set-up process for an IP camera and questions regarding their 

expectations about the number of passwords or about impact on purchase would have 

little relevance or realism to that respondent. In the case of respondents who have not 

purchased or set up an IP camera for many years, their answers to the survey questions 

about passwords are just as likely to reflect whatever experiences or assumptions they 

have had with creating passwords for other devices and accounts during more recent 

years (such as on mobile phones, tablets, or email or social media accounts) as to reflect 

the perceptions of actual IP camera purchasers.

To the extent that the 10-year time period was used because the products at issue go 

back as far as 2008, it is important to note that this is not a proper basis for a survey of 

the type that Dr. Van Liere conducted. The survey was not questioning respondents 

about actual past purchases of the relevant DLS products, which would of course 

require including respondents who had made purchases during the relevant time 

periods. Rather, the survey was simulating a hypothetical scenario in which a current 

purchaser sets up their camera. For such a survey to be realistic and produce useful 

insights, it must include respondents for whom such a simulation is currently relevant –

i.e., a recent or prospective purchaser – not individuals who made a purchase so long 

ago that the survey’s simulation has no relevance or interest to them. It is also worth 

noting that the 10-year period largely exceeds the relevant time period for most of the 

relevant DLS products, which I understand mostly did not come on the market until 

2011 or later.

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 17

B. The questions about influence on purchase decisions were artificial and 

nonsensical.

One of Dr. Van Liere’s findings is that information that there may be additional 

passwords that can access the camera would influence respondents’ purchase decisions. 

For instance, the following is one of the questions:

As shown above, this question invites respondents to answer whether the information 

would influence their “decision to purchase this security camera.” The survey 

simulation, however, presumes that respondents have already purchased the camera. 

The survey simulates the process of selecting a password during the setup process, 

which means the decision to purchase the camera has already been made. The 

subsequent questions asking whether information regarding additional passwords 

would influence their decision to purchase “this security camera” is artificial and 

nonsensical. In the scenario being surveyed, the consumer has already purchased the 

camera and is in the midst of setting it up, and the presence or absence of additional 

information about passwords cannot influence a decision about whether to purchase

the camera. The results to the question are, therefore, arbitrary and do not reflect 

anything about a scenario in which a respondent is considering making a purchase 

(which the survey did not test).

C. The questions regarding purchase influence used biased wording.

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 18

The Van Liere results regarding the purported influence of information regarding 

additional passwords are also unreliable due to the use of biased question wording. 

The purpose of the question was to assess whether information that there are 

passwords other than the one created by the user would influence a purchase decision. 

The following shows the language of the key question:

As this shows, Dr. Van Liere used the word “unauthorized” in stating that the 

passwords may allow unauthorized users to access the camera. The inclusion of the 

word “unauthorized” is inflammatory and biases the results by explicitly suggesting a 

negative consequence. The survey could have simply asked whether the existence of 

additional passwords that may allow access to the camera would influence their 

decision. This would be objective and neutral wording that does not merely suggest a 

negative consequence, but rather leaves open other possibilities, such as that the 

existence of other passwords could be useful in customer service accessing the camera 

in an authorized manner to provide assistance. Explicitly referring to the threat of 

unauthorized use is biased toward suggesting a concerning, negative scenario that 

would tend to encourage a negative response by survey respondents.

It is clear from the wording Dr. Van Liere used on previous screens of the survey that it 

was unnecessary to use an inflammatory word like “unauthorized” to accurately depict 

the scenario the survey was intended to test. The following shows the language that the 

survey used to provide the disclaimer regarding additional passwords. 

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 19

As shown above, this disclaimer does not mention unauthorized access. It simply states 

in a neutral manner that there may be other passwords that are able to access the 

device, leaving open the possibility that such passwords could be used in an authorized

or otherwise positive manner (such as for the consumer to get assistance from the 

manufacturer). There was no need to refer to “unauthorized” access in questioning 

respondents about the potential influence of additional passwords. The impact of using 

the word “unauthorized” is that it improperly provokes a concerned, negative reaction, 

which undermines the reliability of the results.

D. The Van Liere Survey did not show respondents preceding portions of the 

setup process that consumers could review to learn more about the security 

of the device.

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 20

It is further worth noting that all actual consumers of the DLS IP camera would have 

been required to accept the terms and conditions of the End User License Agreement 

prior to reaching the portion of the setup process simulated in the survey. The End 

User License Agreement contains the following provisions: 

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 21

As shown above, Provision 5 includes significant content relating to security, including 

explicitly stating that some products and services are not encrypted, that information 

may be intercepted, and that D-Link cannot and does not guarantee that the product or 

software is completely secure. Provision 6 further emphasizes evolving threats to 

network security and states that D-Link does not warrant that the product, software, or 

any system or network is free of vulnerability to intrusion, attack or capturing of data. 

Any consumer who cares about the issue of security would have had the opportunity to 

review these portions of the End User License Agreement, and such content may impact 

their understanding of any security-related risks inherent to the device. The Van Liere 

Survey did not show these provisions. Accordingly, it deprived respondents of the 

ability to learn more about security risks that real consumers would have, and may 

have overstated the extent to which real consumers who care about security would 

have had certain beliefs about the security of the device.

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 22

OPINION REGARDING SHIMP REPORT

As noted above, I am generally not providing an analysis of the Shimp Report, because 

Professor Shimp’s opinions are not based on any empirical research that can be 

analyzed. My lone opinion regarding the Shimp Report is that Professor Shimp opines

(without empirical research or other objective support) on certain topics that were 

empirically tested in my own surveys. Specifically, Professor Shimp opines that the

representations related to security in the DLS advertising materials for wireless routers 

(such as those shown in Exhibits PX 2 through PX 5) would influence purchase 

decisions. Since my own surveys empirically tested this issue and found that interest 

levels in purchasing the DLS products did not change when the security-related content 

was removed from the advertising, it is my opinion that my own surveys prove that 

Professor Shimp’s opinions regarding the impact of DLS wireless router advertising are

invalid. It is my opinion that my surveys’ testing of 800 recent and prospective 

consumers of wireless routers through a scientifically controlled experiment provides 

superior and more reliable evidence of the impact on consumers (or lack thereof) than 

Professor Shimp opining on the topic based purely on his own review of the materials 

without any study of consumer perception.

One additional observation about the Shimp Report is that Professor Shimp actually 

provides the most likely explanation for why consumers would not be substantially 

influenced by the DLS advertising content related to security, which is the result shown 

by my survey. One might initially be prone to assume that “security” would generally 

be an important topic to consumers, assuming they have any reason to think about it. 

Professor Shimp, however, provides the key insight as to why most consumers were 

likely not thinking about the issue of security when shopping for a wireless router 

during the relevant period and why, therefore, they might gloss over and be 

uninfluenced by advertising language pertaining to security. As Professor Shimp 

observes in Paragraph 37 of his report, consumers who lack technical expertise (which 

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 23

is the vast majority of consumers) “probably have never considered the possibility that 

a router may be accessed (hacked) by intruders.”7 Since, as Professor Shimp observes, 

most consumers of routers may be completely unaware of any security issue related to 

wireless routers, their entire focus in shopping for a router may be on aspects that they 

are familiar with, such as how fast their wi-fi will be or how easy or difficulty the router 

is to set up. For this reason, they may examining products with the specific goal of 

searching for the type of information they already believe is relevant (such as a stronger 

signal, larger range, faster speeds or easy installation) and may gloss over the mention 

of other topics that they perceive to be technical in nature and that they may not believe

differ from router to router. For instance, consumers may be well aware that some 

routers have stronger signals or a broader coverage area and may be specifically 

looking to compare which router is better with respect to such issues. On the other 

hand, consumers may be entirely unaware that security is a potential issue with routers,

or to the extent they are aware of security as an issue, they may assume that various 

router products use comparable security measures, and it may therefore not occur to 

consumers to compare router advertising based on statements about security.

Professor Shimp has no basis for opining that those who were previously unaware of 

security as an issue will suddenly take an active interest in security upon seeing the 

word “secure” or other terms relating to security (such as firewall protection) in DLS

advertising. The opposite outcome is also possible, which is that they will pay no 

attention to security-related wording because it is not a topic they understand to be 

relevant to the selection of a router and which they may assume is not a distinguishing 

feature that would cause them to pick one router over the other (as compared to issues 

like strength of signal or range of coverage). Indeed, Professor Shimp specifically states 

 

7 Shimp Report, page 18. It is particularly likely that most consumers were unaware of such 

concerns at the times relevant to the FTC Complaint, as there had been less well-publicized 

episodes involving hackers and security breaches.

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 24

that he believes “technical details” would “escape the interest and attention” of most 

nonexperts, who would devote their attention to “comprehensible and salient 

issues...”8 Professor Shimp’s own observation that most consumers were likely 

unaware that security is an issue to be concerned about with a router is the precise 

explanation for why security may not strike consumers as a “salient” issue, and why 

anything pertaining to security might strike consumers as the type of “technical” detail 

that would escape their interest or attention. Professor Shimp has no objective basis for 

concluding that any mention of security in the advertising would cause previously nontech-savvy consumers to suddenly appreciate and attend to security issues, as opposed 

to glossing over them as technical details that are not likely to be the basis for selecting 

one router over another. My survey showed that consumers who reviewed the DLS 

materials were not influenced by the security-related content. Professor Shimp’s 

observation that many consumers would be unaware of security being an issue for 

routers and that many consumers don’t pay attention to details that seem technical or 

hard to understand may explain why the security-related content did not impact 

respondents’ level of purchase interest.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is my opinion that the Van Liere Survey entirely fails to test 

any issue relating to any DLS advertising and is significantly flawed as pertains to the 

limited issue it attempted to test. It is further my opinion that Professor Shimp’s 

opinion that the alleged misrepresentations relating to security materially impact the 

likelihood of purchase of the advertised DLS routers is proven inaccurate and 

unreliable by my surveys that objectively tested that very issue.

 

8 Shimp Report at Paragraph 33, page 16.

CONFIDENTIAL
Page | 25

Dated: July 27, 2018

CONFIDENTIAL