EXHIBIT B

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 137-2 Filed: 03/23/21 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:2435
Exhibit B

In re TikTok, Inc. Consumer Privacy Litigation, MDL No. 2948, 20-cv-4699

Table of Comparable Privacy Settlements 

CASE NAME

PRIMARY 

CLAIMS 

ASSERTED

AVAILABLE 

STATUTORY

DAMAGES

FACTS ARB 

RISK? KEY FACTORS

EST. 

CLASS 

SIZE

TOTAL SETTLEMENT FUND CLASS MEMBER 

RECOVERY

In re Netflix

Privacy Litig., 

No. 11-cv-00379, 

2013 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 37286

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 

18, 2013) (final 

approval order); 

see also Nos. 13-

15723, 13-15733, 

13-15734, 13-

15751, 13-15759

(9th Cir.)

(Jay Edelson was 

counsel)

Video Privacy 

Protection Act 

(VPPA)

$2,500 (VPPA) Asserted that Netflix unlawfully stored the 

financial information and viewing history of 

former customers who canceled their 

accounts.

NO • Conceded data collection.

• Dispute over legality of 

collection and disclosure.

• Edelson was plaintiffs’

counsel and claimed that 

settlement was on par with 

Lane v. Facebook

(described below).

62M Cy pres only distribution of $9 

million to 20 non-profit 

organizations.

Counsel (Jay Edelson) stated that:

cy pres was reasonable given that 

direct distribution would have 

provided approx. $0.14 per class 

member.

the cy pres settlement provides 

consumers with “relief in excess of 

what could reasonably be expected 

from trial.”

“class counsel calculated the net 

present value of the case to be 

approximately $6.4 million

plus attorneys’ fees and costs”

“regardless of the likelihood of 

certifying a class and prevailing on 

the merits of the Disclosure Claims, 

given that Netflix’s theoretical 

liability exceeded $150 billion, both 

constitutional and pragmatic 

concerns suggested that no court 

would award such an amount, and, 

in class counsel’s opinion, a bestcase recovery for those claims 

would be $3 million.”

$0.00

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 137-2 Filed: 03/23/21 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:2436
2

CASE NAME

PRIMARY 

CLAIMS 

ASSERTED

AVAILABLE 

STATUTORY

DAMAGES

FACTS ARB 

RISK? KEY FACTORS

EST. 

CLASS 

SIZE

TOTAL SETTLEMENT FUND CLASS MEMBER 

RECOVERY

Missaghi v. 

Blockbuster, 

LLC, No. 0:11-

cv-02559-JRTJSM (D. Minn.)

(Jay Edelson was 

counsel)

VPPA $2,500 (VPPA) Alleged that Blockbuster unlawfully kept a 

digital dossier on millions of consumers. 

Plaintiffs asserted that Blockbuster’s records

contained PII, credit card information, and 

video preferences and viewing histories. 

NO • Video tape service provider 

conceded.

• Consumers were actually 

identified.

• Ability to pay was an issue 

and thus, injunctive relief 

was focal point.

• Early settlement (motion to 

dismiss was filed but never 

briefed; motion 

subsequently withdrawn 

and case settled).

20M No monetary recovery to the class

or cy pres relief; injunction only

$0.00

Turner v. Storm8, 

LLC, No. 09-cv05234-CW, 2010 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

145536 (N.D. 

Cal. July 30, 

2010) 

(preliminary 

approval order)

(Edelson 

McGuire, LLP

was counsel)

Computer Fraud 

and Abuse Act 

(CFAA)

California Unfair 

Competition Law 

(UCL)

California’s 

Computer Crime 

Law (CCCL)

And others.

None Alleged that Defendant improperly utilized 

gaming software to remove, collect, and 

store consumers’ wireless telephone numbers 

without authorization.

NO • Parties identified at 

mediation several 

potentially viable defenses 

and reached largely in-kind 

relief-based settlement in 

light of complexity and 

uncertainty of continued 

litigation. 

2.1M No monetary relief provided. Inkind relief only consisting of 45

Points per device owned. Value of 

points was represented to be 

equivalent to $3.75 per device per 

Class Member. The relief was 

represented to have a “total 

purchase value of approximately 

$7,875,000.”

Points only; no money

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 137-2 Filed: 03/23/21 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:2437
3

CASE NAME

PRIMARY 

CLAIMS 

ASSERTED

AVAILABLE 

STATUTORY

DAMAGES

FACTS ARB 

RISK? KEY FACTORS

EST. 

CLASS 

SIZE

TOTAL SETTLEMENT FUND CLASS MEMBER 

RECOVERY

In re 

DoubleClick Inc. 

Privacy 

Litigation, No. 

00-CV-0641. 

2002 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 27009

(S.D.N.Y. May 

23, 2002) (final 

approval order)

Stored 

Communications 

Act (SCA)

Wiretap Act

CFAA

Related state law 

claims

$10,000

(Wiretap Act)

$1,000 (SCA)

Class action against Internet advertising 

corporation relating to corporation’s storage 

of “cookies” on Internet users’ hard drives.

NO • Case dismissed on 

pleadings. See In Re 

DoubleClick, Inc. Privacy 

Litig., 154 F. Supp .2d 497 

(S.D.N.Y. 2001).

• Settlement reached after 

filing of notice of appeal.

• DoubleClick committed to 

a series of privacy 

protections for consumers, 

including better disclosure 

of how data will be used 

and a promise to purge old 

consumer data. The 

company also served 300 

million banner ads with 

information for consumers 

about Internet privacy.

100M No monetary recovery for the class; 

only injunctive relief and attorneys’

fees

$0.00

In re Sony PS3 

"Other OS" 

Litig., No. 10-cv01811, 2017 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 

203402 (N.D. 

Cal. Nov. 21, 

2017) 

(preliminary 

approval order)

CFAA None Alleged that Sony marketed “Fat PS3” as 

having the ability to run an alternative 

operating system such as Linux in addition 

to the native game operating system (“Other 

OS”), and that SCEA subsequently removed 

the “Other OS” functionality via firmware 

update 3.21, harming PS3 purchasers.

NO • Claims-Made 10M Claims made settlement only; no 

settlement fund

Total paid was $3,750,000 

(inclusive of Notice/Admin, 

Fees/Costs; Service Awards/Valid 

Claims); Fees and costs awarded 

were $1,250,000.00, Service awards 

in aggregate were $17,500.

Monetary relief 

available to each class 

member less than 

$0.25, ultimate payout 

was approximately 

$10 per claimant.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 137-2 Filed: 03/23/21 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:2438
4

CASE NAME

PRIMARY 

CLAIMS 

ASSERTED

AVAILABLE 

STATUTORY

DAMAGES

FACTS ARB 

RISK? KEY FACTORS

EST. 

CLASS 

SIZE

TOTAL SETTLEMENT FUND CLASS MEMBER 

RECOVERY

In re Google Inc. 

Cookie 

Placement 

Consumer 

Privacy 

Litigation, No. 

1:12-md-02358, 

(D. Del.)

Note: Settlement 

was finally 

approved in 2016; 

Third Circuit 

remanded for 

issues related to 

cy pres recipients 

and release of 

claims. Parties 

agreed to third 

party neutral to 

choose cy pres 

recipients. 

Settlement 

pending approval.

Stored 

Communications 

Act (SCA)

Wiretap Act

CFAA

California 

Constitutional 

Right to Privacy

Common law 

claims

$10,000

(Wiretap Act)

$1,000 (SCA)

Alleged that Google circumvented users’ 

privacy to secretly track their online activity.

NO • Variety of non-BIPA 

privacy violations.

• Third Circuit affirmed

district court dismissal of 

the three federal statutory 

causes of action; common 

law claims sustained.

100M+ Cy pres only

Google agreed to pay $5.5 million 

to nonprofit or educational 

institutions for public awareness of 

privacy concerns.

$0.00

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 137-2 Filed: 03/23/21 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:2439
5

CASE NAME

PRIMARY 

CLAIMS 

ASSERTED

AVAILABLE 

STATUTORY

DAMAGES

FACTS ARB 

RISK? KEY FACTORS

EST. 

CLASS 

SIZE

TOTAL SETTLEMENT FUND CLASS MEMBER 

RECOVERY

In re Google

Referrer Header 

Privacy 

Litigation, No. 

5:10-cv-04809 

(N.D. Cal.) 

Note: Settled in 

2013; finally 

approved in 2015; 

affirmed on 

appeal to Ninth 

Circuit; vacated 

and remanded by 

the Supreme 

Court in 2019 for 

issues related to 

standing; case is 

now pending

again.

SCA

Unjust Enrichment

Other common 

law claims.

$1,000 (SCA) Challenged Google’s practice of disclosing 

search terms to third parties, alleged to

contain user’s personal information.

NO • Variety of non-BIPA 

privacy violations.

• Admitted “novel” theory of 

liability.

129M Cy pres only. $0.00

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 137-2 Filed: 03/23/21 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:2440
6

CASE NAME

PRIMARY 

CLAIMS 

ASSERTED

AVAILABLE 

STATUTORY

DAMAGES

FACTS ARB 

RISK? KEY FACTORS

EST. 

CLASS 

SIZE

TOTAL SETTLEMENT FUND CLASS MEMBER 

RECOVERY

In re Carrier iQ,

Inc., Consumer 

Privacy Litig., 

No. 3:12-md2330, 2016 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 

114235 (N.D. 

Cal. Aug. 25, 

2016) (final 

approval order)

Wiretap Act

Violations of state 

privacy acts

Violations of state 

consumer 

protection acts, 

including 

California UCL

Magnuson-Moss 

Warranty Act

Common law 

implied warranty 

claim

$10,000

(Wiretap Act)

Alleged that Carrier IQ developed software 

which collected and transferred sensitive 

data from cell phones.

NO • Variety of non-BIPA 

privacy violations.

• Wiretap claims dismissed.

• Court found no secondary 

liability under the ECPA.

79M

devices

involved 

(appx 

30M 

users)

$9 Million Fund with $2.25 million 

in attorneys’ fees and approximately 

$1 million in administration costs. 

Settlement notice disclosed that, in 

the event of unanticipated volume 

of claims, no money could be 

available and funds would be 

distributed cy pres to privacy 

advocates.

Total fund made $0.30 

available to each class 

member; actual claims 

rate of 0.14% led to 

payment of about $140 

per class member.

T.K. ex rel. 

Leshore v. 

Bytedance Tech. 

Co., No. 1:19-cv07915 (N.D. Ill.)

Note: Pending 

final approval.

VPPA $2,500 (VPPA) Alleges that defendants violated privacy 

laws, including the Children’s Online 

Privacy Protection Act by tracking, 

collecting, and disclosing personally 

identifiable information and viewing data of 

minors under the age of 13 without seeking 

parental consent. 

YES • Conceded data collection 

and disclosure.

• Dispute over binding 

arbitration and preemption.

• Settled pre-litigation.

6M $1.1 million fund (pending final 

approval).

$0.19

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 137-2 Filed: 03/23/21 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:2441
7

CASE NAME

PRIMARY 

CLAIMS 

ASSERTED

AVAILABLE 

STATUTORY

DAMAGES

FACTS ARB 

RISK? KEY FACTORS

EST. 

CLASS 

SIZE

TOTAL SETTLEMENT FUND CLASS MEMBER 

RECOVERY

In re Google LLC

Streetview Elec. 

Communications 

Litig., No. 3:10-

md-02184, 2020 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

47928 (N.D. Cal.

Mar. 18, 2020)

(final approval 

order)

Wiretap

Act

$10,000

(Wiretap Act)

Claimed Google illegally collected user 

information when consumers used public 

Wi-Fi.

NO • Conceded data collection.

• Dispute over disclosure 

and statutory wording.

60M $13 million cy pres. $0.00

In re Google 

Buzz User 

Privacy Litig., 

No. 5:10-cv00672 (N.D. Cal.) 

SCA $1,000 (SCA) Concerned Google Buzz, a social networking 

and messaging tool that integrates with 

Gmail and other Google services. The 

default “auto-follow” feature alleged to

reveal private information about its users.

NO • Conceded data collection.

• Dispute over consent and 

statutory wording.

37M $8.5 million cy pres. $0.00

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 137-2 Filed: 03/23/21 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:2442
8

CASE NAME

PRIMARY 

CLAIMS 

ASSERTED

AVAILABLE 

STATUTORY

DAMAGES

FACTS ARB 

RISK? KEY FACTORS

EST. 

CLASS 

SIZE

TOTAL SETTLEMENT FUND CLASS MEMBER 

RECOVERY

In re Vizio, Inc., 

Consumer 

Privacy Litig., 

No. 8:16-ml02693, 2019 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 

140502 (C.D. Cal.

Aug. 14, 2019)

(judgment); see 

also ECF No. 337 

(07/31/2019 final 

approval order).

VPPA

Wiretap Act

California UCL

Other statespecific statutory 

claims under 

California, 

Florida, New 

York, 

Massachusetts and 

Washington law

Common Law 

claims: unjust 

Enrichment/QuasiContract;

Privacy Violation 

Based on 

Intrusion; Fraud 

by Omission

$2,500 (VPPA)

$10,000

(Wiretap Act)

Alleged that Vizio secretly tracked—for 

three years—what people were watching on 

about 16 million smart TVs. Plaintiffs 

claimed that Vizio not only collected 

consumers’ viewing histories and 

information about their digital identities but 

also sold that information to other companies 

without the consumers’ consent.

YES • Conceded data collection 

and disclosure.

• Dispute over whether data 

taken = PII and its value.

16M $17M settlement fund. $1.06 made available 

to each customer

before attorneys’

fees/costs.

Actual payout was

approximately $18 per 

tv.

Sekura v. L.A. 

Tan Enters., Inc., 

No. 2015 CH 

16694 (Ill. Cir. 

Ct.)

(Edelson PC was 

counsel)

Illinois Biometric 

Information 

Privacy Act 

(BIPA)

$5,000/$1,000 

(BIPA)

Alleged L.A. Tan violated BIPA by 

collecting Illinois customers’ fingerprints 

without obtaining their informed written 

consent.

NO • Conceded use of biometric 

identifier.

• Dispute over proper 

defendant (third-party 

provider).

37,822 $1.5 settlement fund. $39.66

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 137-2 Filed: 03/23/21 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:2443
9

CASE NAME

PRIMARY 

CLAIMS 

ASSERTED

AVAILABLE 

STATUTORY

DAMAGES

FACTS ARB 

RISK? KEY FACTORS

EST. 

CLASS 

SIZE

TOTAL SETTLEMENT FUND CLASS MEMBER 

RECOVERY

Prelipceanu v. 

Jumio Corp., No. 

2018 CH 15883 

(Ill. Cir. Ct.)

Illinois BIPA $5,000/$1,000 

(BIPA)

Alleged that Defendant utilized biometric 

software that collected consumers’ biometric 

information in the form of scans of their 

facial geometry for identity and/or age 

verification purposes.

NO • Conceded use of biometric 

identifier.

• Dispute over proper 

defendant (third-party 

provider).

170,000 $7 million settlement fund. $41.18 made available 

to class members 

before attorneys’

fees/costs.

In re Facebook 

Biometric Info. 

Privacy Litig.,

No. 3:15-cv03747, 2021 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 

36801 (N.D. Cal.

Feb. 26, 2021)

(final approval 

order)

(Jay Edelson was 

counsel)

Illinois BIPA $5,000/$1,000 

(BIPA)

Alleged that Defendant utilized biometric 

software that collected consumers’ biometric 

information in the form of scans of their 

facial geometry when photos are 

uploaded/tagged on Facebook.

NO • Conceded use of biometric 

identifier / “detects faces.”

• Violated prior FTC consent 

decree on biometrics.

• Settlement occurred on eve 

of trial after plaintiffs had 

defeated motions on 

pleadings and for summary 

judgment.

6.9M $650 million settlement fund. $342 paid to each 

claimant.

Lane v. 

Facebook, Inc.,

No. 5:08–cv–

03845–RS, 2010 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

24762 (N.D. Cal.

Mar. 17, 2010)

(final approval 

order); aff’d, 696 

F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 

2012)

CFAA

VPPA

Wiretap Act

$2,500 (VPPA)

$10,000 

(Wiretap Act)

Facebook launched “Beacon” as part of its

advertisement system that sent data from 

external websites to Facebook, for the 

purpose of allowing targeted advertisements 

and allowing users to share their activities 

with their friends, resulting in users’ private 

information being posted on Facebook 

without the users’ consent.

NO • Agreement was challenged 

by some of the class 

members, who argued that 

the deal (which involved 

cy pres relief only) was 

underfunded, and that 

Facebook should not get a 

seat on the trust fund’s 

board to help decide where 

the money would go. The 

Ninth Circuit disagreed 

and affirmed the 

settlement. 

3.6M $9.5M cy pres only. $0.00 

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 137-2 Filed: 03/23/21 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:2444
10

CASE NAME

PRIMARY 

CLAIMS 

ASSERTED

AVAILABLE 

STATUTORY

DAMAGES

FACTS ARB 

RISK? KEY FACTORS

EST. 

CLASS 

SIZE

TOTAL SETTLEMENT FUND CLASS MEMBER 

RECOVERY

Campbell v. 

Facebook, Inc.,

No. 13-cv-05996, 

2017 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 132624 

(N.D. Cal. Aug. 

18, 2017) (final 

approval order);

aff’d, 951 F.3d 

1106 (9th Cir. 

2020)

Wiretap Act

California 

Invasion of 

Privacy Act 

(CIPA) 

California UCL

$10,000

(Wiretap Act)

$5,000 (CIPA)

Alleged that Facebook scanned private 

messages looking for links to web pages, 

also known as URLs, contained in those 

messages, and that if a message contained a 

URL, Facebook would collect that 

information and use it in a variety of ways 

without the user’s consent. 

NO • Court granted motion to 

dismiss, dismissing CIPA 

claim in part and UCL 

claim.

• Court certified injunctive 

and declaratory relief for 

class only.

• Facebook challenged 

standing on appeal under 

Spokeo.

>100M Business practices and privacy 

changes only. Court awarded 

$3,895,000 in attorneys’ fees.

$0.00 (business 

practices changes and 

injunctive relief only).

Fraley v. 

Facebook Inc.,

No. 11-cv-01726 

RS, 966 F. Supp. 

2d 939 (N.D. Cal.

2013) (final 

approval order)

California Civil 

Code § 3344

$750 or actual 

damages, 

whichever is 

greater

Alleged Facebook misappropriated user 

likenesses in advertisements called 

“Sponsored Stories.”

NO • Court rejected Defendant’s 

standing arguments on 

motion to dismiss.

150M Initial cy pres only proposal was 

rejected by the Court. 

Settlement was revised to create $20 

million settlement fund.

Ultimately, class members 

submitted only 614,000 claims (a 

claims rate of 0.4%), thus 

undersubscribing the fund and 

allowing the Court room to augment 

claim values upwards to $15. Fraley 

v. Facebook, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 2d 

939, 944 (N.D. Cal. 2013).

$15

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 137-2 Filed: 03/23/21 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:2445
11

CASE NAME

PRIMARY 

CLAIMS 

ASSERTED

AVAILABLE 

STATUTORY

DAMAGES

FACTS ARB 

RISK? KEY FACTORS

EST. 

CLASS 

SIZE

TOTAL SETTLEMENT FUND CLASS MEMBER 

RECOVERY

In re Lenovo 

Adware Litig., 

No. 15-md02624-HSG, 2019 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

69797 (N.D. Cal.

Apr. 24, 2019)

(final approval 

order)

CFAA

California's 

Computer Crime 

Law

Wiretap Act

$10,000

(Wiretap Act)

Alleged that co-defendant Superfish’s 

“VisualDiscovery” software, which Lenovo 

had preinstalled on its laptops, created 

performance, privacy, and security issues.

NO • State statutory claims 

dismissed at pleadings 

stage.

• Indirect purchaser class 

certified (certification 

denied for direct purchaser 

class).

• “Here, assuming a 15% 

claims rate, Plaintiffs 

estimate that recoveries 

under the short form claim 

option will be 

approximately $40 per 

computer, and the total 

settlement amount 

constitutes approximately 

24% of Plaintiffs’

maximum possible

recovery at trial.” In re 

Lenovo Adware Litig., No. 

15-md-02624-HSG, 2018 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198909, 

at *30-31 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 

21, 2018).

797,000 Superfish:

$1,000,000, non-reversionary;

Lenovo:

$7,300,000 non-reversionary 

payment added to the $1,000,000 

Superfish payment.

Approx. $40/device.

McDonald v. 

Kiloo A/S, No. 

17-cv-04344-JD, 

2020 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 175865 

(N.D. Cal. Sep. 

24, 2020)

(preliminary 

approval order)

Note: Pending 

final approval.

Intrusion Upon 

Seclusion

California 

Constitutional 

Right to Privacy

California UCL

other New York 

and Massachusetts 

state-law claims

None Alleged gaming apps collected behavioral 

data for delivery to target advertising to 

children, without disclosure or consent.

YES in

one of 

the

related 

actions

• Settlements have no 

obvious deficiencies and 

provide broad injunctive 

relief to improve privacy 

protections for children.

• While the settlement did 

not provide monetary 

relief, it did not release 

damages for class members 

of their children, except 

class representatives.

Injunctive-only relief. Privacy 

protections including, for example, 

limitations on child-directed apps so 

that only contextual (not behavioral) 

advertising is served to children 

under age 13.

$0.00 (injunctive relief 

only).

(pending final 

approval).

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 137-2 Filed: 03/23/21 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:2446
12

CASE NAME

PRIMARY 

CLAIMS 

ASSERTED

AVAILABLE 

STATUTORY

DAMAGES

FACTS ARB 

RISK? KEY FACTORS

EST. 

CLASS 

SIZE

TOTAL SETTLEMENT FUND CLASS MEMBER 

RECOVERY

Moreno v. S.F. 

Bay Area Rapid 

Transit Dist., No. 

17-cv-02911-JSC, 

2019 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 13309 

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 

28, 2019) (final 

approval order)

(Edelson PC was 

counsel)

California’s 

Cellular 

Communications

Interception Act

(CCIA)

Intrusion Upon 

Seclusion; 

California 

Constitutional 

Right to Privacy; 

and other claims 

were dismissed

$2,500 (CCIA) Alleged that Bay Area Rapid Transit’s 

collection of cell phone identifiers and 

location data via its mobile application was 

wrongful.

NO • The court previously

dismissed many claims and 

a motion to dismiss the 

remaining claims was 

pending.

• The decision to stop 

collecting data came as a 

result of class counsel’s 

efforts.

• As long as the parties have 

sufficient information to 

make an informed 

decision, formal discovery 

is not required; the parties 

evaluated the strengths and 

weaknesses of the claims 

through motion practice.

Injunctive relief only; application 

will not collect International Mobile

Equipment Identity numbers and 

will only collect a limited set of 

information; future compliance with 

CCIA; reasonable efforts not to 

retain geolocation data for more 

than three years.

$0.00 (injunctive relief 

only).

(Note: Only class 

named plaintiffs 

released damages 

claims).

In re LinkedIn

User Privacy

Litig., 309 F.R.D.

573 (N.D. Cal.

2015) and 12-cv03088, ECF No.

136 (preliminary

approval order)

(Jay Edelson was

counsel)

California UCL

Breach of Contract

None Alleged defendant’s lax security allowed 

website member’s passwords to be stolen, 

including for those members who paid a fee 

for the service.

NO • Relatively novel 

overpayment theory of 

liability and damages, in 

that defendant promised 

“industry standard” data 

security.

• $14.81 per claimant was a 

significant portion (approx. 

30%) of recovery class 

members could expect if 

successful at trial.

• Formal discovery was not a 

requirement for approval, 

“the parties investigated 

the claims before settling, 

and had sufficient 

information to make an 

informed decision.”

800,000 $1.25 million settlement fund. $1.56 per class 

member.

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 137-2 Filed: 03/23/21 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:2447