CameronVSApple ProposedSettlement

Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 396 Filed 08/26/21 Page 1 of 37
1 Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice)

Robert F. Lopez (pro hac vice)
2 Theodore Wojcik (pro hac vice)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
3 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
4 Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
5 [email protected]
[email protected]
6 [email protected]
7 Shana E. Scarlett (SBN 217895)

Benjamin J. Siegel (SBN 256260)
8 Ben M. Harrington (SBN 313877)
9 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
10 Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
11 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
[email protected]
12 [email protected]
[email protected]
13
Interim Lead Class Counsel
14
[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]
15
16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18 OAKLAND DIVISION
19 DONALD R. CAMERON, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR
20 Plaintiffs, DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
21 v. CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WITH
APPLE INC.
22 APPLE INC., Date: October 12, 2021
23 Time: 2:00 p.m.
Defendant. Judge: Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
24 Location: Courtroom 1- 4th Floor
25
26
27
28
010818-11 1604783v1
1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 12, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as
3 the matter may be heard by the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District
4 Court of the Northern District of California, located in Courtroom 1, at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland,
5 CA 94612, Developer Plaintiffs will and hereby do move the Court pursuant to Federal Rules of
6 Civil Procedure 23 for an order:
7 1) preliminarily approving the proposed class action settlement with Apple

Inc.;
8
2) certifying the settlement class;
9
3) appointing Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class Counsel; and
10
11 4) approving the manner and form of notice and proposed plan of allocation to
class members.
12
This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of
13
Settlement with Apple Inc., the following memorandum of points and authorities, the
14
accompanying settlement agreement, the pleadings and papers on file in this action, and such other
15
matters as the Court may consider.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEVELOPER PLS.’ MEMORANDUM ISO MOT. FOR
PRELIM. APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT –
Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR
-i-
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................................... 1
3 II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 2
4 A. Procedural History ............................................................................................... 2
5 B. The Settlement ..................................................................................................... 3
6 1. The Settlement Negotiations ................................................................... 3
7 2. The Settlement Consideration and Release of Claims ............................ 4
8 a. Monetary Relief ........................................................................... 4
9 b. Structural Relief........................................................................... 5
10 c. Settlement Release....................................................................... 8

11 3. The Notice and Distribution Plan ............................................................ 9
12 III. LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................... 10
13 IV. THE SETTLEMENT WARRANTS PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ........................... 11
14 A. The Settlements are Fair, Reasonable and Adequate. ....................................... 11
15 1. The Class Has Been Zealously Represented. ........................................ 11
16 2. The Settlement Agreement Resulted from Arm’s-Length Negotiations.
............................................................................................................... 11
17
3. The Settlement Represents Substantial Relief for the Class. ................ 12
18
4. The Settlement Treats Class Members Equitably. ................................ 14
19
5. The Settlement Satisfies the Remaining Factors Set Forth in the
20 Northern District’s Procedural Guidance .............................................. 15
21 a. The Settlement Class Appropriately is Narrower than the Class
Pleaded in the Complaint........................................................... 15
22
b. The Settlement Release Tracks the Claims Alleged in the
23 Complaint. ................................................................................. 17
24 c. Developer Plaintiffs Anticipate a Relatively High Claims Rate.
................................................................................................... 18
25
d. Angeion Was Selected as Settlement Administrator Through a
26 Competitive Bidding Process. ................................................... 18
27 e. Counsel Will Request Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and
Reimbursement of Costs............................................................ 19
28
-ii-
1 f. Plaintiffs Intend to Request Reasonable Service Awards for

Class Representatives. ............................................................... 21
2
g. Past Distributions....................................................................... 22
3
B. The Settlement Class Merits Certification. ....................................................... 23
4
1. Rule 23(a): Numerosity ......................................................................... 23
5
2. Rule 23(a): The Case Involves Questions of Law or Fact Common to
6 the Class................................................................................................. 23
7 3. Rule 23(a): Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical of the Claims of the Class. 24
8 4. Rule 23(a): Plaintiffs Will Fairly and Adequately Represent the Interests
of the Class. ........................................................................................... 24
9
5. Rule 23(b)(2): Injunctive Relief Is Appropriate for Entire Class. ......... 25
10
6. Rule 23(b)(3): Common Questions of Fact or Law Predominate. ........ 25
11
7. The Superiority Requirement is Met. .................................................... 26
12
C. The Proposed Notice Program Satisfies Rule 23. ............................................. 26
13
D. The Court Should Appoint Interim Co-Lead Counsel as Settlement Counsel. . 28
14
E. Proposed Schedule for Notice and Final Approval ........................................... 28
15
V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 28
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEVELOPER PLS.’ MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL OF
SETTLEMENT WITH APPLE INC. – Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-
YGR -iii-
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page(s)
3 FEDERAL CASES
4 In re Aftermarket Auto. Lighting Prods. Antitrust Litig.,
5 276 F.R.D. 364 (C.D. Cal. 2011)......................................................................................... 27
6 Allapattah Servs. Inc v. Exxon Corp.,

454 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (S.D. Fla. 2006) ................................................................................ 20
7
Amador v. Baca,
8 2020 WL 5628938 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2020) .................................................................... 21
9 Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,
10 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ...................................................................................................... 17, 26
11 In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.,

327 F.R.D. 299 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .......................................................................................... 4
12
In re Apple Pod iTunes Antitrust Litig.,
13 2008 WL 5574487 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2008) .................................................................... 26
14 B.K. by next Friend Tinsley v. Snyder,
922 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................... 24
15
16 Brown v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,

2014 WL 6483216 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2014) .................................................................... 16
17
Castro v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc.,
18 134 F. Supp. 3d 820 (D.N.J. 2015) ...................................................................................... 26
19 In re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig.,

2015 WL 9266493 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2015) .................................................................... 14
20
In re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig.,
21
2016 WL 3648478 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2016) ....................................................................... 12
22
In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig.,
23 830 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (S.D. Fla. 2011) ................................................................................ 20
24 Churchill Vill., LLC v. Gen. Elec.,

361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................... 27
25
Congdon v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
26 2019 WL 2327922 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2019)..................................................................... 22
27
de Mira v. Heartland Emp’t Serv., LLC,
28 2014 WL 1026282 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2014) .................................................................... 19
YGR -iv-
1 Garner v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.,

2010 WL 1687832 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010) ....................................................................... 3
2
Goertzen v. Great Am. Life Ins. Co.,
3 2017 WL 8294291 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2017) ...................................................................... 10
4
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
5 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................................. 25
6 Hesse v. Sprint Corp.,

598 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................... 18
7
In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig.,
8 985 F. Supp. 2d 167 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ........................................................................... 24, 27
9 Hubbard v. RCM Techs. (USA), Inc.,
10 2020 WL 6149694 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2020) ..................................................................... 24
11 In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig.,

926 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc) ................................................................... 17, 23, 26
12
In re Ikon Office Sols., Inc., Secs. Litig.,
13 194 F.R.D. 166 (E.D. Pa. 2000) .......................................................................................... 20
14 Lerwill v. Inflight Motion Pictures, Inc.,
15 582 F.2d 507 (9th Cir.1978) ................................................................................................ 25
16 In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig.,

2004 WL 1221350 (E.D. Pa. June 2, 2004)................................................................... 20, 21
17
Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship,
18 151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................................. 21
19 In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig.,
2020 WL 7264559 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2020) ........................................................ 12, 13, 14
20
21 In re Nat’l Collegiate Athl. Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig.,

2017 WL 6040065 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2017) ...................................................................... 20
22
In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig.,
23 2013 WL 5979327 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) .................................................................... 26
24 Nitsch v. DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc.,
2017 WL 399221 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2017)........................................................................ 11
25
In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig.,
26
779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................... 19
27
Pecover v. Elec. Arts, Inc.
28 2010 WL 8742757 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ................................................................................... 24
YGR -v-
1 In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig.,

2015 WL 1639269 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2015) ................................................................... 20
2
In re Resistors Antitrust Litig.,
3 2020 WL 2791922 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) .................................................................... 14
4
In re Static Random Access (SRAM) Antitrust Litig.,
5 2008 WL 4447592 (N. D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2008) ................................................................... 27
6 Staton v. Boeing Co.,

327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................... 21
7
In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Pracs., &
8 Prod. Liab. Litig.,
2013 WL 12327929 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2013) ................................................................... 13
9
10 In re Urethane Antitrust Litig.,

2016 WL 4060156 (D. Kan. July 29, 2016) ........................................................................ 20
11
Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.,
12 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................. 21
13 In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig.,
2001 WL 34312839 (D.D.C. July 16, 2001) ....................................................................... 20
14
15 In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prod. Liab. Litig.,
229 F. Supp. 3d 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ............................................................................... 12
16
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
17 564 U.S. 338 (2011) ............................................................................................................ 24
18 FEDERAL STATUTES
19 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 ........................................................................................................ 2
20 FEDERAL RULES
21
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 .................................................................................... passim
22
OTHER AUTHORITIES
23
2 William B. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 4:63 (5th ed. 2018) ............................ 23
24
University of San Francisco School of Law, 2018 Antitrust Annual Report:
25 Class Action Filings in Federal Court (May 2019) ............................................................ 20
26 Eisenberg, Miller & Germano, Attorneys’ Fees in Class Actions: 2009-2013, 92
N.Y.U. L. Rev. 937, 952 (2017) .......................................................................................... 20
27
28 Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements (N.D. Cal.) (2018) ................................... 16
YGR -vi-
1 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
2 Plaintiffs Donald Cameron and Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc. (“Developer Plaintiffs”), on
3 behalf of themselves and other members of the proposed Settlement Class, are pleased to report
4 their proposed Settlement with Apple Inc. The Settlement, if approved, would resolve the claims
5 of a Settlement Class consisting of approximately 67,000 iOS developers earning more than $0 but
6 less than $1 million from transactions annually in the App Store during the Class Period. Nearly
7 all domestic iOS developers with paid app transactions—more than 99 percent—fall within the
8 Settlement Class and would recover under the Settlement. These small developers are the
9 backbone of the iOS app economy, developing apps of all types that improve the functionality and
10 performance of iOS devices. And they all stand to recover substantial benefits under the
11 Settlement, both from direct monetary payments and structural relief that, going forward, will make
12 iOS app development a more productive enterprise.
13 The proposed Settlement establishes a $100 million non-reversionary monetary fund from
14 which Settlement Class members will receive direct distributions. Individual Settlement Class
15 Members will receive a minimum payment of $250; higher payments will be tiered based on
16 historic proceeds, with the highest minimum payment tier providing $30,000. The Settlement also
17 contains valuable structural relief. It acknowledges (properly) that this lawsuit was one driver
18 behind Apple’s 2021 launch of its Small Business Program, under which small developers qualify
19 for a lower 15 percent commission rate. Under the Settlement, Apple has committed to maintain
20 the Small Business Program’s 15 percent rate for at least another three years. Apple has also
21 committed to revise its “anti-steering” Guidelines to permit app developers to communicate
22 directly with their customers regarding alternative payment options. Apple has further agreed to
23 institute and maintain a range of structural reforms that will enable developers to better create,
24 distribute, and monetize their apps. These structural reforms are valuable. Developer Plaintiffs
25 conservatively estimate that the Small Business Program element of the Settlement alone adds at
26 least $35.44 million in value.
27 The Settlement follows over two years of contentious litigation, including voluminous class
28 certification briefing supported by multiple expert reports, and extensive discovery before that. It
-1-
1 is the product of arm’s-length negotiations among experienced counsel under the auspices of one of
2 the nation’s most respected mediators, the Hon. Layn Phillips (U.S.D.J. Ret.). The Settlement
3 terms are fair, reasonable, and more than adequate. The recovery for the Settlement Class is well
4 within the range of approval amounts, and settlement at this stage eliminates the risk of a litigated
5 outcome that could return less value, or nothing at all, to app developers.
6 Developer Plaintiffs respectfully request an Order that: (1) preliminarily approves the
7 proposed Settlement; (2) certifies the Settlement Class; (3) appoints Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
8 LLP as Settlement Class Counsel; and (4) approves the manner and form of notice and proposed
9 plan of distribution to Settlement Class members.
10 II. BACKGROUND
11 A. Procedural History
12 The Court is well-versed in the history of this litigation. Developer Plaintiffs recount here
13 only the primary events.
14 Developer Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on June 4, 2019, and their Consolidated
15 Amended Complaint on September 31, 2019. See ECF No. 53. Asserting claims under the
16 Sherman Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law, Developer Plaintiffs contend that Apple
17 monopolizes a relevant market for iOS app and in-app-product distribution services, charging iOS
18 app developers supracompetitive commissions.
19 Apple filed its answer on November 11, 2019. See ECF No. 74. The Court subsequently
20 coordinated this matter with In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:11-cv-6714
21 (“Consumer Action”) (and later with Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-5640
22 (“Epic Action”)) for discovery purposes, and substantial discovery ensued. More than 5 million
23 documents and 20 million pages have been produced in this litigation. The parties collectively
24 have taken over fifty depositions, including depositions of Apple’s senior management. Following
25 protracted negotiations, and motion practice, Apple produced a 13-terabyte transactional dataset
26 that Developer Plaintiffs and their experts have extensively analyzed.
27 Developer Plaintiffs moved for class certification on June 1, 2021, just one week after
28 closing arguments in the Epic trial. See ECF No. 331. Developer Plaintiffs’ motion was supported
YGR -2-
1 by detailed expert reports from Professor Einer Elhauge, Professor Nicholas Economides, and
2 Christian Tregillis, CPA. On August 10, 2021, after deposing both named Plaintiffs and each of
3 Developer Plaintiffs’ experts, Apple filed its opposition to class certification along with seven
4 supporting expert reports. See ECF No. 376. Apple simultaneously moved to compel Developer
5 Plaintiffs to produce a “trial plan” and to exclude certain of Developer Plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions
6 under Daubert. See ECF Nos. 371 & 380. Developer Plaintiffs filed administrative motions to
7 strike both of these motions. See ECF Nos. 382 & 384.
8 As this chronology attests, the parties have devoted enormous resources to develop a large
9 discovery record, while aggressively litigating their claims and defenses. Developer Plaintiffs also
10 stand in the unusual position of having seen not only Apple’s fully developed opposition to class
11 certification, but the bench trial of one developer’s claims (Epic). Developer Plaintiffs understand
12 the strengths and vulnerabilities of their case.
13 B. The Settlement
14 1. The Settlement Negotiations
15 The parties engaged in four remote mediation sessions with the Hon. Layn Phillips
16 (U.S.D.J. Ret.). The first two occurred in June and July of 2020. See Berman Decl. at ¶ 5.1 The
17 sessions were vigorous and detail-driven, but the parties could not reach agreement. After a year of
18 active litigation, the parties met again on July 28, 2021, and again on August 13, 2021, with the
19 latter session occurring days after Apple submitted its opposition to class certification. Discussions
20 were more sharply focused in this second round of mediation and, by the end of August 13, 2021,
21 the essential contours of the Settlement had been reduced to a Memorandum of Understanding.
22 See id.
23 The Settlement is the product of hard bargaining by experienced counsel, which, coupled
24 with the active involvement of a skilled mediator, supports a “presumption that the settlement is
25 fair and reasonable.” Garner v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 2010 WL 1687832, at *13 (N.D.
26
1
27 “Berman Decl.” means the Declaration of Steve W. Berman in Support of Developer
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement with Defendant Apple Inc.,
28 filed concurrently herewith.
YGR -3-
1 Cal. Apr. 22, 2010); see also In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 327 F.R.D. 299, 327 (N.D. Cal.
2 2018) (noting that “the Settlement [in that matter] was negotiated at arms’ length over several full-
3 day mediation sessions with the help of an experienced mediator—Judge Layn Phillips,” and that
4 “Courts in this district have recognized that the assistance of an experienced mediator in the
5 settlement process confirms that the settlement is non-collusive.”).
6 2. The Settlement Consideration and Release of Claims
7 The Settlement provides for monetary and structural relief, both in exchange for a release of
8 claims. These elements of the Settlement are addressed in turn below.
9 a. Monetary Relief
10 Apple has committed to pay $100,000,000 into a Small Developer Assistance Fund. See
11 Berman Decl., Ex. A at § 5.3. The fund is non-reversionary; under no circumstances will any
12 portion of the fund return to Apple. See id. at § 6.6. All Members of the Settlement Class will
13 receive a minimum direct distribution from the Small Developer Assistant Fund in the amount of
14 $250, with higher distribution amounts available to Settlement Class Members based on their
15 historic proceeds from distributing apps in the App Store.
16 PROCEEDS TIER PERCENTAGE OF THE MINIMUM PAYMENT

SETTLEMENT CLASS2
17
$0.01 to $100 51% $250.00
18
$100.01 to $1,000.00 23% $500.00
19
$1000.01 to $5,000.00 11% $1,000.00
20
$5,000.01 to $10,000.00 4% $1,500.00
21
$10,000.01 to $50,000.00 6% $2,000.00
22
$50,000.01 to $100,000.00 2% $3,500.00
23
$100,000.01 to $250,000.00 2% $5,000.00
24 $250,000.01 to $500,000.00 1% $10,000.00
25 $500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00 1% $20,000.00
26 Over $1,000,000.00 1% $30,000.00
27
2
28 See Berman Decl. ¶ 6.
YGR -4-
2 Importantly, the minimum payment amounts set forth above are just that, minimums. They
3 would apply only if every member of the Settlement Class submits an approved claim. While the
4 Parties have developed a robust and streamlined claims process, see infra at Section II.B.3, a 100-
5 percent claims rate is not likely. The proposed Settlement Administrator, Angeion Group LLC
6 (“Angeion”), estimates a claims rate of 35 percent in this matter. See Weisbrot Decl. at ¶ 35.3 In
7 that event, the minimum payment amounts will increase proportionally in each tier. See Berman
8 Decl., Ex. A at § 6.3.
9 The Settlement proposes that any leftover funds after distributions to Settlement Class
10 Members (for example, from uncashed checks) will be used as a cy pres distribution to Girls Who
11 Code, a nonprofit organization that works to close the gender gap in computer science and
12 programming. See id. at § 6.6. Apple has advised Developer Plaintiffs that both the company and
13 its counsel have supported this organization in financial and other ways in the past.
14 b. Structural Relief
15 In addition to the monetary relief just described, the Settlement provides for important and
16 valuable structural relief in five areas of particular concern to the iOS developer community.
17 Commissions / Small Business Program. Through the Settlement, Apple acknowledges
18 that this litigation (together with other considerations) was a factor in Apple’s January 1, 2021
19 launch of the Small Business Program. See id. at § 2.3. Under the Small Business Program,
20 existing and new developers earning up to $1,000,000.00 in proceeds annually are entitled upon
21 enrollment to a reduced commission rate of 15 percent on paid apps and in-app purchases. See id.
22 Under the Settlement, Apple has agreed to maintain the 15-percent commission tier for U.S.
23 developers enrolled in the Small Business Program for at least three years after Final Approval.
24 See id. at § 5.1.1. This is a valuable assurance to the Settlement Class.
25
26
27 3
“Weisbrot Decl.” means the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion Group Regarding the
28 Proposed Notice Program, filed concurrently herewith.
YGR -5-
1 Named Plaintiff Pure Sweat Basketball’s CEO, Richard Czeslawski, addresses the benefits
2 in an accompanying declaration. As Mr. Czeslawski explains, the Settlement “furthers the
3 substantial direct benefits of the Small Business Program . . . by locking in the benefits of the
4 Reduced Commission, from 30% to 15%, for at least three more years, providing invaluable
5 business planning value.” Czeslawski Decl. at ¶ 7.4 As elaborated below, Professor Nicholas
6 Economides estimates that the Small Business Program, and Apple’s three-year commitment to
7 maintain its 15% tier, will save the Settlement Class $177.2 million in commissions. See infra at
8 Section IV.A.3.
9 Steering. Apple has agreed to revise its App Store Guidelines to permit developers of all
10 app categories to communicate with consenting customers outside their app, including via email
11 and other communication services, about purchasing methods other than in-app purchase. See
12 Berman Decl., Ex. A at § 5.1.3. Under the App’s Store existing Guidelines, developers may not
13 use contact information (emails, phone numbers, etc.) obtained within an app to contact their user
14 base outside the app. As a practical matter, this prevents developers from alerting their customers
15 to alternative payment options. The proposed Settlement lifts this restriction, and it does so for all
16 app categories.
17 This injunctive relief is extremely valuable. By informing customers of alternative
18 payment options, developers can avoid paying Apple’s commissions and, moreover, exert
19 competitive pressure on Apple to discipline its pricing. Mr. Czeslawski considers this a “game
20 changer” because the “ability to effectively communicate with [his] customers is the lifeblood of
21 [his] business.” See Czeslawski Decl., at ¶¶ 9, 12. Mr. Czeslawski anticipates that Pure Sweat
22 Basketball, and other Settlement Class Members, will “take full advantage of this change in
23 Customer Communications as a way to further reduce the commissions paid to Apple.” Id. at ¶ 12;
24 see also Economides Decl. at ¶ 24 (describing this structural relief as “a major change from
25
26
4
27 “Czeslawski Decl.” means the Declaration of Richard Czeslawski in Support of Deverloper
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement with Apple, Inc., filed
28 concurrently herewith.
YGR -6-
1 Apple’s previous policies [that] could bring substantial benefits to developers”).5 Under the
2 Settlement, this modification to Apple’s App Store Guidelines must be maintained for at least three
3 years from Final Approval.
4 Discoverability. For at least three years after Final Approval, Apple will continue to
5 “conduct robust experimentation to drive continuous improvement” in App discoverability,
6 including in ways that will “give new and high-quality apps a chance to be found.” See Berman
7 Decl., Ex. A at § 5.1.2. Innovations on discoverability are important to iOS developers, many of
8 which have developed high-quality apps that, for reasons beyond their control, have not gained
9 prominence in the App Store or its search results. Named Plaintiff Donald Cameron is one such
10 developer. Like other small developers, Mr. Cameron has “a limited budget for advertising and
11 promotion” and while he believes he has created “one of the best baby naming apps available,” it
12 has been difficult for him to get the app discovered. See Cameron Decl. at ¶ 7.6 Mr. Cameron
13 believes that Apple’s commitment to continuous improvement on issues of discoverability “is vital
14 so that new and high-quality apps have a better chance of being found.” Id.
15 Pricing Freedom. Under Apple’s existing guidelines, iOS developers can price their Apps
16 and in-app products only at price tiers ending in $0.99. There are presently 100 such tiers. Under
17 the terms of the Settlement, Apple will expand its pricing tiers from 100 to 500 (by December 31,
18 2022), and maintain those tiers for at least three years from Final Approval. See Berman Decl., Ex.
19 A at § 5.1.4. This enhanced pricing freedom will allow iOS developers to more carefully calibrate
20 their prices to compete and enhance revenues. Mr. Cameron, for example, has priced his app at
21 $2.99 and, under the current pricing tiers, can only adjust that price (up or down) in dollar
22 increments, which constitutes a “huge price jump or a steep decline.” Cameron Decl. at ¶ 5. Mr.
23 Cameron believes that greater pricing flexibility under the Settlement will enable him to better
24 compete and “adjust prices in the market.” Id. Mr. Czeslawski agrees. See Czeslawski Decl. at ¶
25
5
“Economides Decl.” means the Declaration of Professor Nicholas Economides, filed
6
27 “Cameron Decl.” means the Declaration of Donald R. Cameron in Support of Developer
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement with Apple Inc., filed
YGR -7-
1 14 (“The more than five-fold increase in price tiers will allow Pure Sweat the flexibility to
2 competitively price its subscriptions, and, thus, allow it to better react to market trends and
3 conditions, compete for new customers, retain current customers by, among other things, offering
4 customers plans that suit their specific needs.”).
5 App Review. iOS developers have expressed concern that Apple’s App Review standards
6 are not always applied fairly or in a consistent manner. Under the Settlement, Apple will create
7 new content for its website alerting developers to an appeal process, which is available to any
8 developer who “believes that there has been unfair treatment by Apple in the review of any of the
9 U.S. developer’s apps, or in-app products, or updates.” See Berman Decl., Ex. A at § 5.1.5. Apple
10 will be required under the Settlement to maintain this appeal process, and the website callout, for at
11 least three years. See id. This is an important commitment for iOS developers.
12 Transparency. For at least three years from Final Approval, Apple will publish an annual
13 “transparency report” that (at a minimum) will provide (a) meaningful statistics on the number of
14 apps rejected and reasons why, (b) the number of customer and developer accounts deactivated,
15 and (c) objective data regarding search queries and results, and the number of apps removed from
16 the App Store. See id. § 5.1.6. These data points will provide developers with better insight into
17 Apple’s App Store review, rejection and search functions. This is valuable information for
18 developers trying to gain a foothold in the App Store. As Mr. Cameron explained, transparency
19 reports “will help developers like me understand why [our] apps are being found (or not), and
20 improve our search results. See Cameron Decl. at ¶ 10. Mr. Cameron believes that having
21 transparency reports will help him “compet[e] against more well-resourced competitors in
22 [Apple’s] very large digital store.” Id.
23 c. Settlement Release
24 In exchange for the monetary and injunctive consideration just described, the Settlement
25 Class would release Apple from all past, present and future claims “related to the same facts
26 underlying the claims asserted in the Action.” Berman Decl., Ex. A at §§ 10.1, 10.2. The proposed
27 Release does not purport to relinquish claims of any iOS developer not within the Settlement Class.
28
YGR -8-
1 3. The Notice and Distribution Plan
2 Plaintiffs have attached to this motion a declaration from the Settlement Administrator,
3 Angeion, that includes proposed class notices, a sample claim form, and proposes a comprehensive
4 notice program. See Weisbrot Decl. at ¶¶ 13-28, Exs. B, C, & D. The proposed notice program
5 provides individual direct notice to all reasonably identifiable Settlement Class Members via email
6 and mail, along with a dedicated website and toll-free telephone line where Settlement Class
7 Members can learn more about their rights and options pursuant to the terms of the Settlement. See
8 id. at ¶¶ 23-24.
9 For direct notice, Angeion will send individual direct notice by email and mail to all of the
10 approximately 67,000 members of the proposed Settlement Class whose contact information can be
11 obtained. Apple requires emails and physical addresses from developers when they establish
12 individual developer accounts, and Apple has agreed to provide that data to Angeion. It is thus
13 likely that Angeion will have contact information for all or nearly all Settlement Class Members.
14 Angeion will also employ additional methods to help ensure that as many Settlement Class
15 Members as possible receive notice via email. For example, prior to distributing email notice,
16 Angeion will engage in an email updating process to help ensure the accuracy of recipient email
17 addresses. See Weisbrot Decl. at ¶¶ 14-22.
18 The content of the direct notice emails will be the Email Notice attached to the Weisbrot
19 Declaration. See Weisbrot Decl. Ex. C. Angeion will also send postcard notice to each Settlement
20 Class Member with a physical mailing address. The proposed Postcard Notice is attached to
21 Weisbrot Declaration as Exhibit D. These notice documents will, inter alia, inform Settlement
22 Class Members that the settlement funds will be distributed to Settlement Class Members
23 according to proceed tiers, as described supra, in Section II.B.2.a. See id. at ¶¶ 23-24.
24 Angeion will establish a case-specific toll-free hotline and case-specific website, with the
25 domain reserved as SmallAppDeveloperAssistance.com. See id. at ¶¶ 23, 26. On the settlement
26 website, Settlement Class Members will be able to view general information about this class action,
27 read relevant Court documents, and review important dates and deadlines pertinent to the
28 Settlement. For example, the detailed long-form notice will be available for download on the
YGR -9-
1 website (“Class Notice”). See id. at ¶ 25, Ex. B. The Settlement Website will be designed to be
2 user-friendly and make it easy for Settlement Class Members to find information about the
3 Settlement, and it will also have a “Contact Us” page where Settlement Class Members can send an
4 email with any additional questions to a dedicated email address. See id. at ¶ 23.
5 Using a tool displayed prominently on the Settlement Website, any Settlement Class
6 Member will be able to determine the Settlement payment tier to which they are assigned and
7 submit a Claim Form. Settlement Class Members will be provided with log-in information via the
8 mail and email notice which they can use to view a pre-populated Claim Form that is streamlined
9 for ease of submission. See id. at ¶ 24. Settlement Class Members will have the ability to
10 download the Class Notice, Summary Notice and Claim Form from the Settlement Website. A
11 copy of the Claim Form is attached to the Weisbrot Declaration as Exhibit E.
12 Claimants will be given digital payment options such as via PayPal, which will provide
13 Settlement Class Members with convenient access to their settlement funds while greatly reducing
14 the transaction costs associated with mailing paper checks to thousands of claimants. However,
15 claimants also will have the option to request and receive a paper check. See id. at ¶ 30.
16 III. LEGAL STANDARD
17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires judicial approval of any compromise or
18 settlement of class action claims. Preliminary approval is not a dispositive assessment of the
19 fairness of the proposed settlement; rather, preliminary approval assesses only whether the
20 proposed settlement falls within the “range of possible approval.” Goertzen v. Great Am. Life Ins.
21 Co., 2017 WL 8294291, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2017) (Gonzalez Rogers, J.). Preliminary
22 approval establishes an “initial presumption of fairness, such that notice may be given to the class
23 and the class may have a full and fair opportunity to consider the proposed [settlement] and
24 develop a response.” Nitsch v. DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc., 2017 WL 399221, at *1 (N.D.
25 Cal. Jan. 19, 2017).7 A settlement may preliminarily be approved upon a “showing that the court
26 will likely be able to (i) approve the proposal under Rule 23(e)(2); and (ii) certify the class for
27
7
28 Internal quotation, bracket and ellipses marks omitted here and throughout.
YGR -10-
1 purposes of judgement on the proposal.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). Factors courts consider under
2 Rule 23(e)(2) include whether:
3 (A) the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the
class;
4 (B) the proposal was negotiated at arm’s length;
(C) the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking into account:
5
(i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal;
6 (ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to the class,
including the method of processing class-member claims;
7 (iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney's fees, including timing of
payment; and
8 (iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and
(D) the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other.
9
10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2).
11 All of the requirements for preliminary approval are met here.
12 IV. THE SETTLEMENT WARRANTS PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
13 A. The Settlements are Fair, Reasonable and Adequate.
14 1. The Class Has Been Zealously Represented.
15 Developer Plaintiffs’ Complaint was the product of extensive investigation and analysis,
16 setting forth what this Court has described as an “articulated theory” of antitrust injury. See ECF
17 No. 66 at 16. As described above, interim Class Counsel have aggressively pursued and analyzed a
18 massive discovery record, which includes millions of documents and voluminous transactional
19 data, some of which was produced only after motions to compel. Class Counsel have conducted
20 and/or defended at least seventeen depositions, retained prominent economic and accounting
21 experts, and prepared a thorough motion for class certification. See ECF No. 332-4 at ¶¶ 5-7.
22 Named plaintiffs likewise have furthered the interests of the class by reviewing submissions,
23 conferring with Class Counsel, producing documents, and sitting for depositions. See ECF No.
24 332-15 & 332-16. The Settlement Class has been adequately represented.
25 2. The Settlement Agreement Resulted from Arm’s-Length Negotiations.
26 The Settlement is the product of sustained negotiations between experienced counsel with a
27 track record of success in antitrust and class-action matters. Negotiations occurred at arm’s length,
28 over several sessions, including before one of the nation’s leading mediators (Hon. Layn R.
YGR -11-
1 Phillips (Ret.)). Having worked on this case for years, including through the Epic trial, counsel
2 understand both the risks and potential recovery of further litigation. Counsel’s determination that
3 the settlement is fair and reasonable is afforded “great weight” in the settlement approval analysis.
4 See In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prod. Liab. Litig., 229 F. Supp. 3d
5 1052, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (observing that “competent counsel are better positioned than courts
6 to produce a settlement that fairly reflects each party’s expected outcome in litigation”).
7 3. The Settlement Represents Substantial Relief for the Class.
8 Preliminary approval requires consideration of whether the “relief provided for the class is
9 adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C). It is here.
10 The $100 million Small Developer Assistance Fund established under the proposed
11 Settlement is itself substantial and more than adequate relief. For context, if the Settlement Class
12 were to obtain class certification, survive summary judgment and prevail at trial, its members
13 would stand to recover between approximately $289 million and $329 million in single damages.
14 See Economides Decl. at ¶ 10.8 While the Small Developer Assistance Fund affords prospective
15 relief, not damages, it is equivalent to between 30.4 and 34.6 percent of single damages. That is a
16 substantial monetary recovery, particularly in comparison to other antitrust settlements upheld in
17 this district. In In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., for example, the court approved a
18 settlement representing 20% of single damages, citing a survey of 71 settled antitrust cases which
19 showed a weighted mean settlement of 19%. See 2016 WL 3648478, at *7 & n.19 (N.D. Cal. July
20 7, 2016). This Court recently described a recovery of 11.7% of single damages as an “excellent”
21 result. In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., 2020 WL 7264559, at *20 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10,
22 2020).
23 Moreover, the relief afforded by this Settlement is not limited to the Small Developer
24 Assistance Fund. The Settlement’s structural relief elements (individually, and collectively) confer
25 additional economic and practical benefits on the Settlement Class. See In re Toyota Motor Corp.
26
27 8
These calculations are based on the transactional data Apple has produced in this action,
28 which extends through April 26, 2021. See id. at ¶ 8.
YGR -12-
1 Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prod. Liab. Litig., 2013 WL 12327929, at *29. n.7
2 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2013) (in valuing a settlement, “Plaintiffs’ experts appropriately have included
3 the non-monetary benefits”). As set forth above, and in the accompanying declarations of Named
4 Plaintiffs, commitments in the Settlement to improve app discoverability, pricing freedom, app
5 review, and transparency will all assist the Settlement Class in monetizing and their apps. See
6 supra at Section II.B.2.b. Apple’s further commitment to permit outside-app communications—
7 specifically authorizing developers of all apps to alert customers to alternative payment
8 mechanisms—will confer additional economic benefits on the Settlement Class. See id.;
9 Economides Decl. at ¶¶ 23-24.
10 Developer Plaintiffs do not endeavor to quantify the value of this entire panoply of
11 structural relief. The Small Business Program, however, can be valued and it is appropriate to do
12 so given Apple’s acknowledgment that this litigation was a driving factor behind the program’s
13 adoption. See Berman Decl., Ex. A at § 2.3. Professor Economides has performed the valuation.
14 He shows that the Small Business Program, coupled with Apple’s agreement under the Settlement
15 to maintain the program for at least three additional years, will save the Settlement Class $177.2
16 million, and all U.S. iOS developers $190.2 million. See Economides Decl. at ¶¶ 21-22.
17 Developer Plaintiffs recognize that this litigation may not be solely responsible for the
18 Small Business Program. Apple has cited two other contributing factors—the Coronavirus and a
19 desire to propel innovation by small developers. See Berman Decl., Ex. A at § 2.3. Weighing this
20 litigation equal to these other factors would be reasonable, but even assuming the litigation played
21 a lesser role, it still conferred millions of additional dollars on the Class. For example, even if the
22 litigation was 20 percent responsible for the Small Business Program, that would mean that the
23 litigation delivered an additional $35.44 million to the Settlement Class ($177.2m x .20).
24 Combining that amount with the $100 million Small Developer Assistance Fund yields $135.44
25 million, which represents between 41.2 and 46.9 percent of the Settlement Class’s single damages.
26 That is a remarkable recovery, and it does not even account for the other valuable structural
27 reforms Apple has agreed to implement.
28
YGR -13-
1 The value of the Settlement must also be weighed against the risks of further litigation.
2 Developer Plaintiffs believe this to be a strong case, but the path forward is not without peril. As
3 this Court knows, “[a]ntitrust cases are particularly risky, challenging, and widely acknowledge[d]
4 to be among the most complex actions to prosecute.” In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig.,
5 2020 WL 7264559, at *15. “‘The best case can be lost and the worst case can be won, and juries
6 may find liability but no damages. None of these risks should be underestimated.’” Id. (quoting In
7 re Super. Beverage/Glass Container Consol. Pretrial, 133 F.R.D. 119, 127 (N.D. Ill. 1990)).
8 Additional risk is present here because Developer Plaintiffs have not yet passed the class
9 certification hurdle, and the outcome of the Epic trial looms over everything. A trial outcome
10 adverse to Epic could pose an obstacle to Developer Plaintiffs’ ability to establish liability or
11 substantial damages for any class of developers. The Settlement takes these risks off the table,
12 ensuring that the Settlement Class receives meaningful, immediate, and assured relief.
13 4. The Settlement Treats Class Members Equitably.
14 In addition to evaluating the adequacy of the Settlement overall, the Court must consider
15 whether the “proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
16 23(e)(2)(D). A plan of allocation is “governed by the same standards of review applicable to
17 approval of the settlement as a whole: the plan must be fair, reasonable and adequate.” In re:
18 Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL 9266493, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2015).
19 Courts routinely uphold allocation plans that divide settlement funds on a pro rata basis. See id.
20 (collecting cases); see also In re Resistors Antitrust Litig., 2020 WL 2791922, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
21 Mar. 24, 2020) (finding plan to allocate “on a pro rata basis based on the dollar value of approved
22 purchases . . . [to be] fair, reasonable, and adequate.”).
23 The allocation plan here provides a minimum payment to every member of the Settlement
24 Class, with higher payments available to those who have participated more extensively in the iOS
25 app ecosystem. As addressed above, each Settlement Class Member’s recovery will be tied to the
26 historic proceeds they have generated through the App Store. See supra at Section II.B.2.a.
27 Settlement Class Members with higher proceeds, and who thus paid higher commissions, will
28 recover more than Settlement Class Members with lower proceeds. This is an equitable
YGR -14-
1 methodology of allocation because it ties payments to each Settlement Class Member’s
2 contribution to the App economy and graduates payments based on Developer Plaintiffs’ theory of
3 harm.
4 However, one unique consideration here is the issue of “discoverability.” As reflected in
5 the Consolidated Complaint, Developer Plaintiffs contend that the App Store renders many apps
6 undiscoverable, meaning consumers do not purchase them because they are difficult to find among
7 the nearly two million apps sold within the only iOS App Store available. See ECF No. 53 at ¶¶
8 94-96. Discoverability is addressed in the Settlement, as noted above. To improve discoverability,
9 Apple has committed to “continue to conduct robust experimentation to drive continuous
10 improvement.” See Berman Decl., Ex. A at § 5.1.2.
11 Given that Settlement Class Members’ proceeds in the App Store can be influenced by
12 discoverability issues outside their control, Developer Plaintiffs believe that an equitable means of
13 allocating the settlement fund is to group Settlement Class Members into tiers, which the
14 Settlement here does. This assures that individual Settlement Class Members recover amounts tied
15 to their App Store proceeds, but without making proceeds the sole determinant of the amount each
16 Settlement Class Member recovers. Settlement Class Members with comparable proceeds will be
17 treated equally at each of the ten payment tiers contemplated by the allocation scheme.
18 5. The Settlement Satisfies the Remaining Factors Set Forth in the Northern
District’s Procedural Guidance
19
This District’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements (“Procedural Guidance”)
20
instructs parties to address certain factors in any motion to preliminarily approve a class
21
settlement.9 A number of these factors are addressed throughout this submission. The remaining
22
applicable factors are addressed below.
23
a. The Settlement Class Appropriately is Narrower than the Class Pleaded
24 in the Complaint.
25 The Procedural Guidance requires that where, as here, a litigation class has not been
26 certified, a motion for preliminary approval must address “any differences between the settlement
27
9
28 See https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/procedural-guidance-for-class-action-settlements/.
YGR -15-
1 class and the class proposed in the operative complaint and [provide] an explanation as to why the
2 differences are appropriate in the instant case.” Procedural Guidance § 1(a).
3 Here, the Settlement Class definition is narrower than class definition in the Consolidated
4 Complaint because it is limited to developers who earned proceeds in the App Store of no more
5 than $1,000,000 in calendar years 2015 through 2021. See ECF No. 53 at ¶ 114.10 Although
6 narrower, the Settlement Class Definition still covers more than 99 percent of the developers in the
7 class initially proposed in the Consolidated Complaint. See Economides Decl. at ¶ 6. It excludes
8 only 586 developers. See id. By definition, the only developers not participating in the settlement
9 are the very largest developers operating in the iOS ecosystem, for example Google, Microsoft, and
10 Epic.
11 There is nothing remarkable about moving to certify a narrower settlement class than is
12 pleaded in a complaint. “Class definitions are often revised, for example, to reflect the contours of
13 a settlement.” Brown v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 2014 WL 6483216, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18,
14 2014). The narrower definition is appropriate here for at least two reasons.
15 First, narrowing the class definition enhances the cohesiveness of the class and, in doing
16 so, puts to rest one of Apple’s chief arguments in opposition to class certification—that a class of
17 small developers and “corporate behemoths” cannot be certified under Rule 23. See ECF No. 379
18 at 11 (contenting that Named Plaintiffs are not “typical” of class containing corporate giants); id. at
19 3-4 (contending that impact analysis differs for “Mr. Cameron with only $145 in revenue” and
20 “Match Group, with more than $1 billion in revenue”); id. at 24-25 (contending that developers
21 “with substantial claims (such as Epic) have the resources to bring their own suits and have a
22 strong pecuniary interest ‘individually controlling the prosecution . . . of separate actions’ as
23 opposed to relying on Mr. Cameron and Pure Sweat to advance the divergent interests of the class”
24 (quoting Rule 23(b)(3)(A)).
25
26
27 10
Developer Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification added to the class definition a Class
28 Period of June 4, 2015 to the present.
YGR -16-
1 To be clear, Developer Plaintiffs have answers to all of these arguments and believe that the
2 litigation class proposed in the Consolidated Complaint could be certified. But nothing is certain in
3 litigation. Moreover, Apple’s contentions regarding absent large developers carry more force with
4 respect to a settlement class. As the Supreme Court has cautioned, aspects of Rule 23 “designed to
5 protected absentees by blocking unwarranted or overbroad class definitions . . . demand undiluted,
6 even heighted attention in the settlement context.” Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591,
7 620 (1997). The reason is that the class definition in litigated proceedings is inherently
8 provisional. The court can always “adjust the class, informed by the proceedings as they unfold.”
9 Id.; In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., 926 F.3d 539, 557 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc). This is
10 not the case with respect to a settlement class, where the finality of the class definition can support,
11 as here, a more circumscribed approach.
12 Second, this is not a situation in which the class definition has been amended to exclude
13 class members with the smallest claims or who otherwise require the class action vehicle to
14 recover. Quite the opposite. The 586 large developers that fall outside the Settlement Class are, by
15 definition, the developers most capable of bringing their own actions against Apple. Indeed one of
16 them (Epic) already has. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement prevents these developers from
17 bringing their own case, with their own counsel, under their own theories.
18 The Settlement Class definition also departs from the Consolidated Complaint’s definition
19 by explicitly excluding certain parties who cannot properly recover. For example, the Settlement
20 excludes from the class defense counsel and their immediate family; Court staff in which this
21 matter is assigned; developers who opt-out; and any other individual whose claim have been
22 adjudicated to verdict. See Berman Decl., Ex. A at § 1.27. These are standard and appropriate
23 class exclusions.
24 b. The Settlement Release Tracks the Claims Alleged in the Complaint.
25 The Procedural Guidance also requires identification of “any differences between the
26 claims to be released and the claims in the operative complaint and an explanation as to why the
27 differences are appropriate in the instant case.” Procedural Guidance § 1(c). The Settlement
28 release here extends beyond the specific claims asserted in the Consolidated Complaint, but only to
YGR -17-
1 encompass potential claims “related to the same facts” and only to those claims “that can be
2 released as a matter of law.” Berman Decl., Ex. A at ¶¶ 10.2, 10.3. This is an appropriate release.
3 As the Ninth Circuit has recognized, a release may properly extend to “claims not alleged in the
4 underlying complaint where those claims depended on the same set of facts as the claims that gave
5 rise to the settlement.” Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581, 590 (9th Cir. 2010).
6 c. Developer Plaintiffs Anticipate a Relatively High Claims Rate.
7 Angeion estimates a 35% claims filing rate. That estimate is based on comparisons to
8 similar settlements, as well as considerations that include the comprehensive direct notice efforts
9 via email and mail to Settlement Class Members; the simplicity of the Claim Form and claim
10 submission process; and the anticipated earned media that this Settlement will garner. See
11 Weisbrot Decl. at ¶ 29.
12 d. Angeion Was Selected as Settlement Administrator Through a

Competitive Bidding Process.
13
Prior to engaging Angeion as the notice and claims administrator, interim Class Counsel
14
sent a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) to other leading settlement administrators. The RFP included
15
a carefully drafted template for the candidates to complete. It required each firm to make the same
16
assumptions about the notice and administration of the settlements, ensuring an apples-to-apples
17
comparison. All three administrators responded with the completed template, as well as additional
18
information explaining their proposals. It was only after this competitive bidding process that
19
Class Counsel, in consultation with Apple, chose Angeion as providing the best value for the
20
Settlement Class. All three administrators proposed direct notice through email. The claims
21
payment methods proposed included digital payments by email and paper checks. Angeion’s
22
initial proposal was the most competitively priced. See Berman Decl. at ¶¶ 7-8.
23
In the last two years, Angeion has worked Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on three
24
other cases. See id. at ¶ 9. Angeion estimates total administration costs will be approximately
25
$125,000, or around 0.125% of the Small Developer Assistance Fund. The funds for
26
administration will be paid from the Small Developer Assistance Fund. See Weisbrot Decl. at ¶ 33.
27
28
YGR -18-
1 e. Counsel Will Request Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement

of Costs.
2
When it comes time to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed settlements, the Court also
3
looks to the potentially requested attorney’s fees. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C)(iii); see also
4
Procedural Guidance at § 6. Here, the Settlement Agreement provides that any Court-awarded fees
5
will be paid from the Small Developer Assistance Fund. See Berman Decl., Ex. A at § 6.1.2.
6
Plaintiffs will make a request for attorneys’ fees of up to $30 million. The notice advises the Class
7
of this request. See Weisbrot Decl. Exs. B, C, & D.
8
A fee award of $30 million, which again is the maximum amount plaintiffs will request,
9
represents 30 percent of the Small Developer Assistance Fund. Even if one were to look solely at
10
this monetary relief, such a request would be reasonable. When applying the percentage-of-the
11
fund method, the Ninth Circuit has established a benchmark percentage of 25 percent to be used as
12
the “starting point” for analysis. In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 949, 955
13
(9th Cir. 2015). “That percentage amount can then be adjusted upward or downward depending on
14
the circumstances of the case.” de Mira v. Heartland Emp’t Serv., LLC, 2014 WL 1026282, at *1
15
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2014). Courts in this district have recognized that “‘in most common fund
16
cases, the award exceeds the benchmark.’” Id. (quoting In re Omnivision Techs., Inc., 559 F. Supp.
17
2d 1036, 1047 (N.D. Cal. 2008)). Indeed, federal courts in this district and across the country
18
routinely award class counsel fees equivalent to, and often exceeding, 30 percent of the common
19
fund,11 including in so-called “megafund” cases, even where the common fund exceeds 100 million
20
dollars.12 Recently, in the 2018 Antitrust Annual Report, Professor Joshua Davis found that among
21
22 11
See Eisenberg, Miller & Germano, Attorneys’ Fees in Class Actions: 2009-2013, 92 N.Y.U.
23 L. Rev. 937, 952 (2017) (finding that among antitrust class action settlements surveyed with a
mean recovery of $501.09 million and a median recovery of $37.3 million, the mean and median
24 percentages awarded were 27 percent and 33 percent, respectively).
12
Allapattah Servs. Inc v. Exxon Corp., 454 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 1210 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (awarding
25 31.33% fee on $1.075 billion settlement fund); accord In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., 2016 WL
4060156, at *6 (D. Kan. July 29, 2016) (awarding 33.33% fee on $835 million settlement;
26 “Counsel’s expert has identified 34 megafund cases with settlements of at least $100 million in
which the court awarded fees of 30 percent or higher.”); see also, e.g., In re Polyurethane Foam
27 Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL 1639269, at *7 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2015) (awarding 30% fee on $147.8
million settlement fund); In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 830 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1366
28 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (awarding 33.3% fee on $410 million settlement fund); In re Linerboard Antitrust
YGR -19-
1 antitrust class action settlements surveyed between 2013 and 2018, the median fee awarded for
2 settlements between $100 and $249 million was 30 percent—and the monetary portion of the
3 settlement here is at the lowest end of that range, at $100 million.13
4 Moreover, as explained above, the Settlement also provides substantial non-monetary relief
5 to the Class. See supra at Section IV.A.3. This includes structural relief that will benefit the
6 Settlement Class (and other developers) regarding discoverability of their apps (particularly
7 important for small developers), steering, increased pricing freedom, app review, App Store
8 transparency, and the establishment and maintenance (for at least three years) of the reduced
9 commission rate of 15 percent for U.S. developers enrolled in the Small Business Program. As
10 addressed above, the establishment of the Small Business Program alone, coupled with Apple’s
11 agreement under the Settlement to maintain the program for at least three additional years, will
12 save the Settlement Class $177.2 million in commissions. This non-monetary relief, which adds
13 substantial value to the Settlement should be considered by the Court in awarding fees. See
14 Amador v. Baca, 2020 WL 5628938, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2020) (Wilson, J.) (finding an
15 upward adjustment warranted where lawsuit led to institutional policy changes); Staton v. Boeing
16 Co., 327 F.3d 938, 972-74 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding that “the actual percentage award was much
17 higher” in light of the injunctive relief, which was a “relevant circumstance” in determining a
18 reasonable fee); Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 151 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir. 1998)
19 (considering both monetary and non-monetary value of the settlement).
20
21
Litig., 2004 WL 1221350, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 2, 2004) (awarding 30% fee on $202.5 million
22 settlement fund); In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., No. 99-md-1278, Order No. 49 at 18-20 (E.D.
Mich. Nov. 26, 2002) (awarding 30% of a $110 million dollar fund, which produced a multiplier of
23 3.7); In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 2001 WL 34312839, at *9 (D.D.C. July 16, 2001) (awarding
33.7% fee on $365 million settlement fund); In re Ikon Office Sols., Inc., Secs. Litig., 194 F.R.D.
24 166, 170 (E.D. Pa. 2000) (awarding 30 % fee on $111 million settlement fund); see also In re Nat’l
Collegiate Athl. Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig., 2017 WL 6040065, at *5, *9 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6,
25 2017) (“federal district courts across the country have, in the class action settlement context,
routinely awarded class counsel fees in excess of the 25% ‘benchmark,’ even in so-called ‘mega-
26 fund’ cases”).
13
27 See 2018 Antitrust Annual Report: Class Action Filings in Federal Court at 23, published
May 2019, available at https://www.huntington.com/-/media/pdf/commercial/antitrust-annual-
28 report-050819.
YGR -20-
1 To date, Plaintiffs have invested 20,576 hours and approximately $10,591,088 in attorneys’
2 fees in this litigation. A $30 million attorneys’ fee award—the maximum amount requested—
3 would therefore result in a lodestar multiplier of 2.83. That is within the range of awards in other
4 class action settlements. The Ninth Circuit has affirmed a multiplier of 6.85, holding that it “falls
5 within the range of multipliers that courts have allowed.” In Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., a leading
6 Ninth Circuit case on attorneys’ fees, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a fee award with a 3.66 multiplier.
7 See 290 F.3d 1043, 1050-51 (9th Cir. 2002); see also id. at 1052-54 (describing district court cases
8 in the Ninth Circuit approving multipliers as high as 6.2). In In re Linerboard Antitrust
9 Litigation, the district court explained that “during 2001-2003, the average multiplier approved in
10 common fund class actions was 4.35 and during 30 year period from 1973-2003, [the] average
11 multiplier approved in common fund class actions was 3.89.” 2004 WL 1221350, at *16 (citing
12 Stuart J. Logan, et al., Attorney Fee Awards in Common Fund Class Actions, 24 Class Action
13 Reports 167 (2003)). Plaintiffs also will invest significant additional attorney resources in this case
14 between now and the final approval hearing.
15 Plaintiffs will also request reimbursement of certain costs and expenses, not to exceed $3.5
16 million. See Procedural Guidance at § 6 (instructing class counsel to state “whether and in what
17 amounts they seek payment of costs and expenses, including expert fees”). Those expenses include
18 at least $2,823,445 in expert costs. See Berman Decl. at ¶ 4. The funds spent on experts were
19 critical to achieving the settlement, which came after plaintiffs filed the expert reports of Professor
20 Einer Elhauge, Professor Nicolas Economides, and accountant Christian Tregillis, each of whom
21 was deposed. The importance of the experts’ testimony in this antitrust case is indicated by the fact
22 that Apple submitted seven expert reports in support of their opposition to class certification.
23 f. Plaintiffs Intend to Request Reasonable Service Awards for Class
Representatives.
24
Pursuant to § 7 of the Procedural Guidance, Developer Plaintiffs intend to request Service
25
Awards of $5,000 for named Plaintiffs Donald Cameron and Pure Sweat Basketball. This Court
26
has previously upheld service awards of $5,000, observing that “[t]he Ninth Circuit has repeatedly
27
28
YGR -21-
1 held that $ 5,000 is a reasonable amount.” See Congdon v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2019 WL 2327922,
2 at *9 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2019).
3 Named Plaintiffs have been actively involved in the litigation. Both reviewed pleadings
4 and consulted with interim Class Counsel regarding case developments. Both were deposed and
5 devoted numerous hours to preparing for deposition. Both conducted document searches and
6 collected materials for production. See ECF No. 332-15 & 332-16. Neither derived a personal
7 benefit beyond any recovery to the class. In addition, a $5,000 service award represents just 0.005
8 percent of the Small Developer Assistance Fund, such that named Plaintiffs do not stand to recover
9 substantially more than other Settlement Class Members. See Congdon, 2019 WL 2327922, at *9
10 (service award of $5,000 “proportional” where it represented 0.25% of total recovery).
11 g. Past Distributions
12 The Procedural Guidance, at § 11, instructs that lead class counsel should provide certain
13 information “for at least one of their past comparable class settlements.” The charts below are for
14 three cases in which Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP was co-counsel for plaintiffs in antitrust
15 class actions: Edwards v. National Milk Producers Federation (“In re Milk IPP Antitrust Case”),
16 No. 11-cv-04766-JSW (N.D. Cal.); In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust
17 Litigation (In re DRAM IPP Antitrust Case), No. 02-md-01486-PJH (N.D. Cal.); and Pecover et al.
18 v. Electronic Arts, Inc. (“Electronic Arts IPP Antitrust Case”), No. 08-cv-2820-CW (N.D. Cal.).
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
YGR -22-
1 B. The Settlement Class Merits Certification.
2 Preliminary approval also requires the Court to determine whether it is likely to “certify the
3 class for purposes of judgment on the proposal.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B)(ii). While the Court
4 must assess all applicable requirements of Rule 23, “they are applied differently in litigation
5 classes and settlement classes.” In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., 926 F.3d at 556. A critical
6 distinction is that, in the settlement context, the Court need not be concerned with the
7 manageability at trial because “by definition, there will be no trial.” See id. at 557. This can have
8 profound implications on, inter alia, the predominance and superiority inquiries. “A class that is
9 certifiable for settlement may not be certifiable for litigation if the settlement obviates the need to
10 litigate individualized issues that would make a trial unmanageable.” See id.; see also 2 William
11 B. Rubenstein, Newberg on Class Actions § 4:63 (5th ed. 2018) (“Courts ... regularly certify
12 settlement classes that might not have been certifiable for trial purposes because of manageability
13 concerns.”).
14 1. Rule 23(a): Numerosity
15 The numerosity requirement is generally satisfied by classes containing 40 or more
16 members. See Hubbard v. RCM Techs. (USA), Inc., 2020 WL 6149694, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20,
17 2020) (Gonzalez Rogers, J.). The Settlement Class here has approximately 67,000 members. See
18 Economides Decl. at ¶ 6. That more than satisfies numerosity.
19 2. Rule 23(a): The Case Involves Questions of Law or Fact Common to the Class.
20 To satisfy the commonality requirement, “[e]ven a single [common] question will do,” Wal-
21 Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 359 (2011). “Antitrust liability alone constitutes a
22 common question that will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each class member’s
23 claim in one stroke.” In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., 985 F. Supp. 2d 167, 1180 (N.D.
24 Cal. 2013). To establish antitrust liability here, Plaintiffs must identify a relevant market and
25 Apple’s monopoly power. These are manifestly common questions, as is the question of whether
26 the Settlement Class has been injured. The commonality requirement is met.
27
28
YGR -23-
1 3. Rule 23(a): Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical of the Claims of the Class.
2 Typicality requires that the Named Plaintiffs’ claims be “reasonably coextensive with those
3 of absent class members; they need not be substantially identical.” B.K. by next Friend Tinsley v.
4 Snyder, 922 F.3d 957, 969-70 (9th Cir. 2019). “In antitrust cases, typicality usually will be
5 established by plaintiffs and all class members alleging the same antitrust violations by
6 defendants.” High-Tech, 985 F. Supp. 2d at 1181; Pecover v. Elec. Arts, Inc. 2010 WL 8742757, at
7 *11 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
8 Here, while Developer Plaintiffs could have obtained certification of the class defined in the
9 Consolidated Complaint, the narrower Settlement Class definition obviates typicality challenges
10 and coheres the class. Named Plaintiffs, like all members of the Settlement Class, are small
11 developers earning Class Period proceeds of $101 and $148,950, respectively. See Economides
12 Decl. at ¶ 7. These revenues are typical of the Settlement Class, which includes only those
13 developers who have earned less than $1 million in every year of the Class Period. Named
14 Plaintiffs have an interest in maintaining the reduced 15% commissions for small developers, as
15 provided for by the Settlement Agreement, as do all small developers. See Czeslawski Decl. at ¶¶
16 6-9. And like all small developers, Named Plaintiffs have an interest in the various structural relief
17 called for by the Settlement Agreement. See id. at ¶¶ 10-16; Cameron Decl. at ¶¶ 5-10. Named
18 Plaintiffs are typical of the Settlement Class.
19 4. Rule 23(a): Plaintiffs Will Fairly and Adequately Represent the Interests of the
Class.
20 The adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a) entails two separate inquiries: (a) whether the
21 class representatives have interests that are antagonistic to or in conflict with the interests of the
22 class and (b) whether the representatives are represented by counsel of sufficient diligence and
23 competence to fully litigate the case. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir.
24 1998); Lerwill v. Inflight Motion Pictures, Inc., 582 F.2d 507, 512 (9th Cir.1978). Both
25 requirements are met here.
26 First, Named Plaintiffs have been actively involved at each step of this litigation, as already
27 addressed. See supra at Section IV.A.5.f. They have no conceivable conflict of interest with the
28
YGR -24-
1 Settlement Class. Named Plaintiffs have suffered the same alleged injury as all Settlement Class
2 Members. To the extent Named Plaintiffs prevail on their claims, they will establish liability and
3 antitrust injury for the entire Settlement Class.
4 Second, Class Counsel have extensive experience in antitrust and complex litigation,
5 including in this Court, and have leveraged that experience to forcefully advance the Settlement
6 Class’s interests. Class Counsel are committed to prosecuting this action to maximize and have a
7 proven track record of litigating efficiently and strategically to achieve that outcome. See ECF No.
8 331-8. Rule 23(a)(4)’s requirements are met.
9 5. Rule 23(b)(2): Injunctive Relief Is Appropriate for Entire Class.
10 Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate where the defendant “has acted or refused
11 to act on ground that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding
12 declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). The
13 App Store restraints challenged in this litigation apply generally and the structural relief set forth in
14 the Settlement would benefit all Settlement Class Members. Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is
15 thus appropriate.
16 6. Rule 23(b)(3): Common Questions of Fact or Law Predominate.
17 Class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3) when “questions of law or fact
18 common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.”
19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The predominance requirement “tests whether proposed classes are
20 sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Amchem, 521 U.S. at 623. This
21 “is a test readily met in certain cases alleging . . . violations of the antitrust laws.” Id. at 625.
22 In most antitrust cases, the fundamental questions to be adjudicated concern the
23 Defendant’s conduct—its genesis, effects, and rationale. So it is here. As the Epic trial previewed,
24 establishing liability in this action will require resolution of a series of threshold issues that are
25 common the Settlement Class. The Court must define a relevant market, a common question. See
26 In re Apple Pod iTunes Antitrust Litig., 2008 WL 5574487, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2008). The
27 Court must determine whether Apple maintains monopoly power in that market, another common
28 question. See id.; Castro v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., 134 F. Supp. 3d 820, 846 (D.N.J. 2015). Next the
YGR -25-
1 Court must determine whether the challenged restraints can be upheld with procompetitive
2 justifications, one more common question. See In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness
3 Licensing Litig., 2013 WL 5979327, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013). The classwide impact of
4 Apple’s conduct can likewise be established with common proof, including expert analysis based
5 on a common methodology. See ECF No. 332 at 17-21. Because this is a settlement class, the
6 Court need not evaluate any manageability issues arising from class treatment, nor are there
7 substantial manageability issues in this case anyway. See In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig.,
8 926 F.3d at 556. The predominance requirement is met.
9 7. The Superiority Requirement is Met.
10 The superiority inquiry requires assessment of whether a “class action is superior to other
11 available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
12 This requires assessment of whether the settlement will “achieve economies of time, effort, and
13 expense, and promote . . . uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated without sacrificing
14 procedural fairness or bringing about other undesirable results.” Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615.
15 Here, it would be inefficient to litigate the predominating common issues in countless
16 individual proceedings, rather than on a class basis. See High-Tech, 985 F. Supp. 2d at 1228-29
17 (“[T]he nature of Defendants’ alleged overarching conspiracy and the desirability of concentrating
18 the litigation in one proceeding weigh heavily in favor of finding that class treatment is superior. . .
19 .”). Moreover, the Settlement Class is comprised only of small developers and for many of them, if
20 not all, damages are too small to justify litigation. Class treatment is superior so that these
21 Settlement Class Members have “the opportunity of meaningful redress.” In re Static Random
22 Access (SRAM) Antitrust Litig., 2008 WL 4447592, at *7 (N. D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2008); In re
23 Aftermarket Auto. Lighting Prods. Antitrust Litig., 276 F.R.D. 364, 375 (C.D. Cal. 2011).
24 C. The Proposed Notice Program Satisfies Rule 23.
25 Rule 23(e)(1) requires that a court approving a class action settlement “direct notice in a
26 reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by the proposal.” In addition, for a
27 Rule 23(b)(3) class, the Rule requires the court to “direct to class members the best notice that is
28 practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be
YGR -26-
1 identified through reasonable effort.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). Notice “is satisfactory if it
2 generally describes the terms of the settlement in sufficient detail to alert those with adverse
3 viewpoints to investigate and to come forward and be heard.” Churchill Vill., LLC v. Gen. Elec.,
4 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) (describing specific
5 information to be included in the notice).
6 The notice plan proposed here is the best practicable in the circumstances and, given the
7 comprehensive contact information available, should reach an unusually large segment of the
8 Settlement Class. Helpfully, Settlement Class Members were required to provide Apple with an
9 email and mailing address when establishing their developer account, and this entire body of
10 contact information will be made available to Angeion, the Administrator. As set forth in the
11 accompanying declaration of Steven Weisbrot, the Administrator will use Apple’s contact
12 information to direct both email and mailed notice to all or virtually all Settlement Class Members.
13 Angeion will employ email verification tools to facilitate delivery, and further notice will be
14 provided through the earned media this Settlement will garner. See Weisbrot Decl. at ¶¶ 13-26
15 Notice will be provided in plain terms and easy-to-understand language. To encourage
16 engagement, Angeion’s initial email and mailed notices will be in a short-form versions of the
17 long-form notice, which will be accessible on a settlement website Angeion will create and
18 maintain. See id. All forms of notice will contain the information required by Rule 23(c)(2)(B).
19 See id. Ex. C (Email Notice), Ex. D (Postcard Notice), Ex. B (Class Notice). All forms of notice
20 will identify the minimum payment tiers available under the Settlement and direct developers to a
21 website where they can input their Apple Developer Accounts to learn which Settlement tier they
22 fall under. The entire claim submission process will be executable on the Settlement
23 Administrator’s website, which will minimize burdens and encourage claims, particularly for the
24 tech-savvy Settlement Class here. See id. at ¶ 24.
25 These notice provisions satisfy Rule 23 and will provide the Settlement Class with a fair
26 opportunity to review and respond to the proposed Settlement.
27
28
YGR -27-
1 D. The Court Should Appoint Interim Co-Lead Counsel as Settlement Counsel.
2 Rule 23(c)(1)(B) provides that “[a]n order that certifies a class action . . . must appoint class
3 counsel under Rule 23(g). All Rule 23(g) factors weigh in favor of appointing (a) Hagens Berman
4 as Settlement Class Counsel and (b) Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC,
5 and Sperling & Slater, P.C. as constituents of Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee. The Court issued
6 these appointments on an interim basis in 2019. See ECF No. 65. The same considerations that
7 guided the Court’s interim Order apply here. If appointed, counsel will continue to vigorously
8 pursue this action and devote all necessary resources toward obtaining the best possible result for
9 the Settlement Class.
10 E. Proposed Schedule for Notice and Final Approval
11 Event Proposed Deadline

Entry of Order Granting Preliminary Subject to Court’s Discretion
12 Approval and Directing Notice
13
Notice Campaign and Claims Period Begins 45 Days from Preliminary Approval Order
14 (“Notice Date”)
15
Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement 30 Days from Notice Date
16 of Litigation Expenses, and Service Awards
17
Exclusion and Objection Deadline 60 Days from Notice Date
18
Motion for Final Approval and Response to 100 Days from Notice Date
19 Objections
20
Claims Period Closes 120 Days from Notice Date
21
Final Approval Hearing At least 135 Days from Notice Date
22
(at the convenience of the Court)
23
V. CONCLUSION
24
For the foregoing reasons, Developer Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter the
25
accompanying Proposed Order preliminarily approving the Settlement.
26
27
28
YGR -28-
1 DATED: August 26, 2021 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
2
By /s/ Steve W. Berman
3 STEVE W. BERMAN (pro hac vice)
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
5 Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
6
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
7 [email protected]
[email protected]
8 [email protected]

Berkeley, CA 94710
12 Telephone: (510) 725-3000
13 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
[email protected]
[email protected]
15
16
Joseph M. Vanek (pro hac vice)
17 Eamon P. Kelly (pro hac vice)
Alberto Rodriguez (pro hac vice)
18 SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
55 W. Monroe Street, 32nd Floor
19 Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 676-5845
20
Facsimile: (312) 641-6492
[email protected]
23 Guido Saveri (SBN 22349)

R. Alexander Saveri (SBN 173102)
24 Cadio Zirpoli (SBN 179108)
Sarah Van Culin (SBN 293181)
25 SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
706 Sansome Street
26 San Francisco, CA 94111
27 Telephone: (415) 217-6810
Facsimile: (415) 217-6813)
YGR -29-
1 [email protected]
[email protected]
2 [email protected]
3 Kimberly A. Justice
Jonathan M. Jagher (pro hac vice)
4 FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
5 923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
6 Telephone: (610) 234-6487
Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
7 [email protected]
[email protected]
8
Douglas A. Millen (pro hac vice)
9 Brian M. Hogan (pro hac vice)
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
10 2201 Waukegan Road, #130
Bannockburn, IL 60015
11
Telephone: (224) 632-4500
12 Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
[email protected]
14 Plaintiffs‘ Executive Committee
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
YGR -30-
Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 396-1 Filed 08/26/21 Page 1 of 41
1 Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice)

3 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
4 Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
5 [email protected]
[email protected]
6 [email protected]

10 Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
11 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
[email protected]
[email protected]
13
14

17 OAKLAND DIVISION
19 Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF STEVE W.
BERMAN IN SUPPORT OF
20 DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
v.
FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
21 SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANT
APPLE INC., APPLE INC.
22
Defendant. Date: October 12, 2021
23 Time: 2:00 p.m.
Dept: Courtroom 1, 4th Floor
24 Judge: Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
25
26
27
28
010818-11/1604782 V1
1 I, STEVE W. BERMAN, declare as follows:
2 1. I am the managing partner of the law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
3 attorneys for Plaintiffs and Interim Class Counsel. Based on personal knowledge or discussions
4 with counsel in my firm of the matters stated herein, if called upon, I could and would
5 competently testify thereto.
6 2. This Court has appointed my firm, Hagens Berman, to serve as Interim Class
7 Counsel, with a Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee composed of Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Freed Kanner
8 London & Millen, LLC, and Sperling & Slater, P.C. See ECF No. 65. For ease of reference, this
9 declaration will use “Plaintiffs’ Counsel” to refer to both Interim Class Counsel and the Plaintiffs’
10 Executive Committee.
11 3. Plaintiffs’ Counsel have aggressively pursued the claims of Named Plaintiffs and
12 the Class. Plaintiffs’ Counsel served extensive documents requests and engaged in protracted
13 negotiations and motion practice regarding the scope of Apple’s productions. The fruit of this
14 effort is a voluminous discovery record consisting of more than 5 million documents, 20 million
15 pages and 13 terabytes of transactional data. Plaintiffs’ Counsel have devoted substantial
16 resources to organizing and analyzing this body of material. Plaintiffs’ Counsel also took and/or
17 defended seventeen depositions, including depositions of Apple’s senior management. On June 1,
18 2021, Plaintiffs’ Counsel filed a thorough class certification motion, which was supported by
19 reports from three prominent economic and accounting experts—namely, Professor Einer
20 Elhauge, Professor Nicholas Economides, and Christian Tregillis, CPA.
21 4. To date, Plaintiffs’ Counsel have invested 20,576.2 hours to prosecuting this
22 action, with a combined lodestar (based on current billing rates) of $10,591,088.05. Plaintiffs’
23 Counsel also have incurred $3,104,467.61 in expenses. The bulk of these expenses—
24 $2,823,445.80—covered the retainers and hourly billing rates of Plaintiffs’ class certification
25 experts.
26 5. The Settlement for which Plaintiffs seek Preliminary Approval, is the product of a
27 series of remote mediations conducted by the Hon. Layn Phillips (U.S.D.J. Ret.). All mediation
28 sessions were conducted at arms’ length by experienced counsel who vigorously advocated their
BERMAN DECL. ISO DEVELOPER PLS.’ MOT. FOR PRELIM. -1-
APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT WITH APPLE INC. – Case No.
4:19-cv-03074-YGR
010330-11 916998V1
1 respective positions. The parties engaged in the first session on June 30, 2020, and then again
2 shortly thereafter on July 17, 2020. These first sessions were constructive and detailed, but the
3 parties were unable to reach agreement. After another year of litigation, the parties met again on
4 July 28, 2021, and then again on August 13, 2021. Through numerous joint and separate sessions
5 led by Judge Phillips, the parties made substantial progress and, by the end of day on August 13,
6 2021, the outline of the Settlement had been reduced to a Memorandum of Understanding. The
7 Settlement Agreement, drafted collaboratively in the days that followed, was executed on August
8 24, 2021. A true and correct copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
9 6. Among other terms, the Settlement Agreement contemplates that Settlement Class
10 Members will receive distributions based on their historic proceeds in the App Store (specifically,
11 over the period June 4, 2015 to December 31, 2020). The Settlement Agreement provides for ten
12 distribution tiers. See Exhibit A at § 6.2. The percentage of the Settlement Class in each
13 distribution tier, as shown in the chart below, was estimated by Apple from available data and
14 supplied to Plaintiffs’ Counsel.
15 PROCEEDS TIER PERCENTAGE OF THE MINIMUM PAYMENT

SETTLEMENT CLASS
16 $0.01 to $100 51% $250.00
17 $100.01 to $1,000.00 23% $500.00
18 $1000.01 to $5,000.00 11% $1,000.00
19
$5,000.01 to $10,000.00 4% $1,500.00
20
$10,000.01 to $50,000.00 6% $2,000.00
21
$50,000.01 to $100,000.00 2% $3,500.00
22
$100,000.01 to $250,000.00 2% $5,000.00
23
$250,000.01 to $500,000.00 1% $10,000.00
24
$500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00 1% $20,000.00
25
Over $1,000,000.00 1% $30,000.00
26
27
28
4:19-cv-03074-YGR
010330-11 916998V1
1 7. In consultation with Apple, Plaintiffs’ Counsel engaged Angeion Group to
2 administer this Settlement. Angeion was selected after a competitive bidding process involving
3 two other leading settlement administrators. To assess the administers’ fitness and capacity for
4 this particular project, Plaintiffs’ Counsel prepared a Request for Proposal (“RFP”). To compare
5 pricing, Plaintiffs’ Counsel drafted a detailed template requiring each administrator to itemize
6 their anticipated charges for a range of expected settlement administration tasks. The
7 administrators returned comparable proposals, with each recommending direct notice through
8 email and distributions through digital payments supplemented by checks.
9 8. Angeion’s proposal was the most competitively priced of the three RFP responses.
10 Plaintiffs’ Counsel conducted an additional interview with Angeion representatives to ensure that
11 Angeion would devote the personnel and resources necessary to complete this project and prepare
12 the necessary materials to promptly file for preliminary approval. Satisfied with Angeion’s
13 commitment, and with Apple’s authorization, Plaintiffs’ Counsel retained Angeion for the project.
14 9. In the last two years, Angeion has served as a notice and/or claims administrator in
15 three cases in which Hagens Berman was counsel:
16  In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep EcoDiesel Marketing, Sales Practices and Products

Liability Litigation, 3:17-cv-02777 (N.D. Cal.)
17
18  In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation, 3:19-cv-05822 (N.D. Cal.)
19  In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation, 14-md-02503 (D.

Mass.)
20
10. After further consultation with Angeion and modifications to the scope of work,
21
Angeion has anticipated administrative costs of $125,000. These administrative costs will be paid
22
from the Small Developer Assistance Fund, and represent approximately 0.125% of the entire
23
fund.
24
25
26
27
28
4:19-cv-03074-YGR
010330-11 916998V1
1 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
2 true and correct. Executed this 26th day of August, 2021, at Seattle, Washington.
4 s/ Steve W. Berman
STEVE W. BERMAN
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4:19-cv-03074-YGR
010330-11 916998V1
EXHIBIT A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
Donald R. Cameron, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR
Plaintiffs, The Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
v.
Apple Inc., STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT
Defendant.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
The Parties, by and through their respective counsel, in consideration for and subject to the
promises, terms, and conditions contained in this Settlement Agreement, hereby warrant,
represent, acknowledge, covenant, stipulate and agree, subject to Court approval pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as follows:
1. DEFINITIONS
As used herein the following terms have the meanings set for below:
1.1 “Action” shall mean the litigation styled Donald R. Cameron, Pure Sweat
Basketball, Inc., and Barry Sermons, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Apple Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (the “Court”).
1.2 “Apple” means Apple Inc.

1.3 “Approved Claims” means those Claims which are approved by the Settlement
Administrator for payment.
1.4 “Associated Developer Accounts” means any U.S. Apple Developer Program
account that an individual or legal entity owns or controls, or any U.S. Apple Developer Program
account that owns or controls a given individual’s or legal entity’s account.
1.5 “Attorneys’ Fees” means any award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses of any
kind or description incurred by Class Counsel or other attorneys, experts, consultants, or agents of
the Named Plaintiffs or the Settlement Class.
1.6 “Claim Form” means the proof of claim and release form(s) in a form mutually
agreeable to the parties, to be attached as an exhibit to the Motion for Preliminary Approval.
1.7 “Claim” means any claim submitted by a Settlement Class Member.
1.8 “Claims Period” means the period between the Notice Date until the deadline set
forth in paragraph 7.4.
1.9 “Class Counsel” means the law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, who
has any and all authority and capacity necessary to execute this Settlement Agreement and bind
all of the Named Plaintiffs who have not personally signed this Settlement Agreement, as if each
of those individuals had personally executed this Settlement Agreement.
1.10 “Class Notice” means the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action in a form mutually agreeable to the parties, to be attached as an exhibit to the Motion for
Preliminary Approval.
1.11 “Court” means the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
1.12 “Defense Counsel” means the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
2
1.13 “Developer” means a person or entity who has registered for a Developer Program
Account with Apple, and shall include all Associated Developer Accounts. A “U.S. Developer”
means a Developer who self-identified as U.S.-based when registering for the Developer Program.
1.14 “Effective Date” shall mean the first day after which all of the following events and
conditions of this Settlement Agreement have been met or occurred:
(a) Apple, Class Counsel, and Defense Counsel have executed this Settlement
Agreement;
(b) The Court has conditionally certified the Settlement Class, preliminarily
approved the Settlement, and approved notice to the Settlement Class;
(c) The time period for members of the Settlement Class to exclude
themselves has expired;
(d) The Settlement Administrator has delivered the spreadsheet(s) and
information to Defense Counsel and Class Counsel as specified in Section
7.9 and 7.10;
(e) All disputed Claims have been resolved;
(f) The Court has entered the Final Approval Order and Final Judgment;
(g) The time for appeal or writ of the Final Approval Order and Final
Judgment has expired or, if an appeal and/or petition for review is taken
and the Settlement is affirmed, the time period during which further
petition for hearing, appeal, or writ of certiorari can be taken has expired;
(h) The time for appeal or writ of any order regarding Attorneys’ Fees and
Expenses and/or Named Plaintiff Service Awards has expired or, if an
appeal and/or petition for review is taken and the order is affirmed, the
3
time period during which further petition for hearing, appeal, or writ of
certiorari can be taken has expired;
(i) The Action is dismissed with prejudice and a final judgment is entered;
and
(j) The time for appeal or writ of the final judgment in the Action has expired
or, if an appeal and/or petition for review is taken and the dismissal is
affirmed, the time period during which further petition for hearing, appeal,
or writ of certiorari can be taken has expired.
1.15 “Final Approval Order and Final Judgment” means the final approval order and
judgment dismissing and closing the Action.
1.16 “Final Hearing” means the hearing(s) held by the Court to consider and determine
whether the requirements for certification of the Settlement Class have been met and whether the
Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; whether Class Counsel’s
Attorneys’ Fees should be approved; and whether the Final Approval Order and Final Judgment
should be entered. The Final Hearing may, from time to time and without further notice to the
Settlement Class (except those who have filed timely and valid objections and requested to speak
at the Final Hearing), be continued or adjourned by order of the Court.
1.17 “Named Plaintiffs” means Donald R. Cameron and Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc.
1.18 “Net Small Developer Assistance Fund” means the Small Developer Assistance
Fund, reduced by the sum of the following amounts: (1) the costs of notice and the costs of
administering the Settlement, as set forth in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 below; (2) any Attorneys’ Fees
(which may include separate awards for fees and expenses) to Class Counsel, as set forth in
4
Sections 9.1 and 9.2 below; and (3) any Service Awards provided to Named Plaintiffs with the
authorization of the Court.
1.19 “Notice Date” means the date set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order for
commencing the transmission of the Email Notice.
1.20 “Parties” means Apple and the Named Plaintiffs.
1.21 “Proceeds” means a Developer’s net revenues on the U.S. App Store storefront,
after subtracting out any commission paid to Apple.
1.22 “Preliminary Approval Order” means an order preliminarily approving the
Settlement, providing for notice to the Settlement Class, and preliminarily approving a proposed
disposition of the Small Developer Assistance Fund.
1.23 “Released Parties” means (a) Apple and its past, present, and future parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, joint ventures, licensees, franchisees, and any other legal entities,
whether foreign or domestic, that are owned or controlled by Apple; and (b) the past, present, and
future shareholders, officers, directors, members, agents, employees, independent contractors,
consultants, administrators, representatives, fiduciaries, insurers, predecessors, successors, and
assigns of the entities in part (a) of this paragraph.
1.24 “Service Award” means a payment from the Small Developer Assistance Fund to
either or both of the two Named Plaintiffs, in an amount not to exceed $5,000.00, in recognition
of their service in prosecuting this action as developer businesses, exclusive of any other payments
to which they might be entitled under this Agreement, if approved by the Court.
1.25 “Settlement” and “Settlement Agreement” mean the settlement described in this
Stipulation of Settlement.
5
1.26 “Settlement Administrator” means Angeion Group, which shall provide settlement
notice and administration services pursuant to the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
1.27 “Settlement Class” means all former or current U.S. Developers of any Apple iOS
application or in-app product (including subscriptions) sold for a non-zero price via Apple’s iOS
App Store that earned, through all Associated Developer Accounts, Proceeds equal to or less than
$1,000,000.00 through the App Store U.S. storefront in every calendar year in which the U.S.
Developer had a Developer Account between June 4, 2015 to the date of this Agreement. For class
definition purposes, the 2015 calendar year shall consist of June 4, 2015 through December 31,
2015. The 2021 calendar year shall consist of January 1, 2021 through April 26, 2021, the last
date in 2021 for which there are available developer transactional data as produced in this Action.
Additionally, excluded from the Settlement Class are (a) directors, officers, and employees of
Apple or its subsidiaries and affiliated companies, as well as Apple’s legal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns, (b) the Court, the Court staff, as well as any appellate court to which this
matter is ever assigned and its staff, (c) Defense Counsel, as well as their immediate family
members, legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, (d) any Developers who validly
request exclusion (“opt out”) from the Settlement Class, and (e) any other individuals whose
claims already have been adjudicated to a final judgment.
1.28 “Settlement Class Member” means and includes every member of the Settlement
Class who does not validly and timely request exclusion (“opt out”) from the Settlement Class.
1.29 “Small Developer Assistance Fund” means a non-reversionary cash fund total of
$100,000,000.00 to be paid by Apple and administered by the Settlement Administrator in
accordance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
6
1.30 “Settlement Website” means an Internet website that the Settlement Administrator
shall establish to inform the Settlement Class of the terms of this Settlement, their rights, dates,
deadlines, and related information.
1.31 “Summary Notice” means the Summary Notice of Settlement in a form mutually
agreeable to the parties, to be attached as an exhibit to the Motion for Preliminary Approval.
2. RECITALS
This Agreement is made for the following purposes and with reference to the following
facts:
2.1 On June 4, 2019, plaintiffs Donald Cameron and Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc. filed
the first complaint in the Action in the United State District Court for the Northern District of
California. On September 30, 2019, Named Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint.
The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that Apple had monopolized an alleged iOS app
and in-app-product distribution services market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; that
Apple had attempted to monopolize an alleged iOS app and in-app-product distribution services
market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; and that Apple’s conduct violated Section
17200 of the California Business and Professions Code.
2.2 The Parties engaged in extensive discovery in the Action, which was consolidated
with Epic v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR, and In re Apple iPhone Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 4:11-cv-06714-YGR, for purposes of discovery. Apple produced more than
20 million pages of documents and the Parties deposed almost 50 individuals.
2.3 On January 1, 2021, Apple introduced the App Store Small Business Program
(“SBP”). The structure and timing of the SBP was driven by Apple’s desire to accelerate
innovation and help propel small businesses forward with the next generation of groundbreaking
7
apps on the App Store, in light of the Coronavirus pandemic. Apple also acknowledges that the
pendency of this lawsuit was a factor in its decision to adopt the SBP. Under the Small Business
Program:
• Existing developers who made up to $1,000,000.00 in proceeds in 2020 for all their
apps, as well as developers new to the App Store, can qualify for the program and
a reduced commission rate of fifteen percent (15%) on paid apps and in-app
purchases.
• If a participating developer surpasses the $1,000,000.00 threshold, Apple’s
standard commission rate will apply to future sales.
• If a developer’s proceeds fall below the $1,000,000.00 threshold in a future
calendar year, they can requalify for the fifteen percent (15%) commission the year
after.
• Developers must identify any Associated Developer Accounts to determine
proceeds eligibility.
2.4 On June 1, 2021, Named Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the
Action, seeking certification of a class of all U.S. developers of any Apple iOS application or in-
app product (including subscriptions) sold for a non-zero price via Apple’s iOS App Store at any
time on or after June 4, 2015. On August 10, 2021, Apple filed its opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion
for class certification, along with a motion to exclude Plaintiffs’ experts and a motion to compel a
trial plan.
2.5 The Parties engaged in extensive, arm’s-length negotiations over the course of the
Action, with the assistance of the Hon. Layn R. Phillips (Ret.) of Phillips ADR, a former United
States District Court Judge and one of the most experienced mediators in the United States. As a
8
result of these arm’s-length negotiations, the Parties reached the Settlement set forth in this
Settlement Agreement, which memorializes the Parties’ agreement. The Parties intend that this
Settlement completely resolve any and all claims that were, or could have been, asserted in the
Action on behalf of the Settlement Class.
2.6 Apple vigorously disputes the claims alleged in the Action and is entering into this
Settlement to avoid burdensome and costly litigation. The Settlement is not an admission of
wrongdoing, fault, liability, or damage of any kind. Among other things, Apple disputes that
Named Plaintiffs’ claims have merit, that Named Plaintiffs will be able to certify any class in this
Action for litigation purposes, and that Named Plaintiffs and the putative class would be entitled
to any relief. Without admitting any of the allegations made in the Action or any liability
whatsoever, Apple is willing to enter into this Settlement solely in order to eliminate the burdens,
distractions, expense and uncertainty of protracted litigation and in order to obtain the releases and
final judgment contemplated by this Settlement, and to provide additional assistance to the small
developer community that is an integral part of the iOS ecosystem.
2.7 Class Counsel and the Named Plaintiffs believe that the claims asserted in the
Action have merit and have examined and considered the benefits to be obtained under this
Settlement, the risks associated with the continued prosecution of this complex and potentially
time-consuming litigation, and the likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, and have
concluded that the Settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable and in the best interests of the
Settlement Class.
2.8 The Parties desire to settle the Action in its entirety with respect to all potential
claims arising out of the same facts alleged in the complaints filed in the Action. The Parties
9
intend this Settlement Agreement to bind Apple, the Named Plaintiffs, and all other Settlement
Class Members.
3. CONFIDENTIALITY
3.1 The Parties must comply with all portions of the Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt.
252) (as well as all Supplemental Protective Orders entered in the Action), including but not
limited to Section 14 of the Stipulated Protective Order, which requires the return, destruction, or
deletion of Protected Material (as defined in the Protective Order) within sixty (60) days of the
final disposition of the Action.
3.2 This Settlement Agreement and its terms, including the fact of the proposed
Settlement, shall remain completely confidential until all documents are executed and the Motion
for Preliminary Approval is filed with the Court. Pending the filing of that Motion, Class Counsel
may disclose this Settlement Agreement and its terms to their respective clients and experts as
necessary for the implementation of this Settlement Agreement, who will also maintain the
complete confidentiality of this Settlement Agreement and its terms, including the fact of the
proposed Settlement.
4. CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS
4.1 The Parties stipulate and agree that, subject to Court approval, the Settlement Class
should be conditionally certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
solely for purposes of the Settlement embodied in this Settlement Agreement. If, for any reason,
this Settlement Agreement is not approved by the Court, the stipulation for certification and all of
the agreements contained herein shall be considered null and void as provided in Section 8.5.
4.2 Apple does not consent to certification of the Settlement Class (or to the propriety
of class treatment) for any purpose other than to effectuate this Settlement. For the avoidance of
10
doubt, Apple does not agree that this (or any) class of Developers could be certified for litigation
purposes or that a trial of these claims would be manageable. Apple’s agreement to provisional
certification for purposes of settlement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing, fault,
liability, or damage of any kind, or that any class certification would be appropriate for litigation
or any other purpose other than to effectuate this Settlement.
4.3 If for any reason the Effective Date does not occur or this Settlement Agreement is
terminated, disapproved by any court (including any appellate court), or not consummated for any
reason, the order certifying the Settlement Class for purposes of effectuating the Settlement (and
all preliminary and final findings regarding that class certification order) shall be automatically
vacated upon notice of the same to the Court. The Action shall then proceed as though the
Settlement Class had never been certified pursuant to this Settlement Agreement and such findings
had never been made, and the Action shall return to their procedural postures on the date this
Settlement Agreement was signed. Additionally, the Parties and their counsel shall not contend
that certification (or agreement to certification) of the Settlement Class supports certification of
any litigation class if this Settlement Agreement is not consummated and the Action is later
litigated and certification is contested by Apple under Rule 23 or any equivalent statute or rule.
5. SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATION
5.1 Structural Relief. In consideration of the releases and dismissals set forth in this
Settlement Agreement, subject to Court approval, and subject to the other terms and conditions of
this Settlement Agreement, Apple agrees that for a period of at least three (3) years following the
Final Approval Order, Apple shall:
5.1.1 Maintain a commission rate of no greater than fifteen percent (15%) for U.S.
Developers who are enrolled participants in the Small Business Program,
11
pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Small Business Program and subject
to program participation requirements.
5.1.2 Continue to drive App Store search results primarily by objective
characteristics, including but not limited to downloads, star ratings, text
relevance, and user behavior signals. Apple may also continue to include apps
based on other characteristics, such as similar goals or developer association,
as well as to give new and high-quality apps a chance to be found. Apple will
also continue to conduct robust experimentation to drive continuous
improvement.
5.1.3 Permit all U.S. Developers to communicate with their customers via email and
other communication services outside their app about purchasing methods other
than in-app purchase, provided that the customer consents to the
communication and has the right to opt out. In-app communications, including
via Apple Push Notification service, are outside the scope of this provision.
Apple will revise its App Store Guidelines to permit the foregoing for all app
categories, including by deleting from Guideline 3.1.3 the following language:
“Developers cannot use information obtained within the app to target individual
users outside of the app to use purchasing methods other than in-app purchase (such
as sending an individual user an email about other purchasing methods after that
individual signs up for an account within the app).”
5.1.4 Expand the choice of price points for subscriptions, in-app purchases, and paid
apps from fewer than 100 to more than 500 (by December 31, 2022).
12
5.1.5 Maintain the option for U.S. Developers to appeal the rejection of an app based
on unfair treatment and add online content to the app review portion of Apple’s
developer website (https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/) to explicitly
note that a developer can appeal the rejection of an app when the developer
believes that there has been unfair treatment by Apple in the review of any of
the U.S. Developer’s apps, in-app products, or updates.
5.1.6 Publish an annual transparency report that, at a minimum, will convey
meaningful statistics such as the number of apps rejected for different reasons,
the number of customer and developer accounts deactivated, objective data
regarding search queries and results, and the number of apps removed from the
App Store.
5.2 Covenant Not to Sue. The members of the Settlement Class expressly agree to the
appropriateness of Apple’s commission structure, including but not limited to the Small Business
Program, as it applies to the Settlement Class. In light of the structural and monetary relief
afforded by Apple pursuant to this Settlement Agreement, the members of the Settlement Class
covenant not to sue Apple on any claim that was or could have been asserted in the Action.
5.3 Small Developer Assistance Fund. In light of the contributions made by
Settlement Class Members to the app economy, particularly as the economy continues to suffer
the effects of the Coronavirus pandemic, and in further consideration of the releases and dismissals
set forth in this Settlement Agreement, subject to Court approval, and subject to the other terms
and conditions of this Settlement Agreement, Apple shall establish a Small Developer Assistance
Fund (“Small Developer Assistance Fund”).
13
5.3.1 Within thirty (30) days after an Order granting Preliminary Approval, Apple
shall transfer $2,000,000.00 into an account established by the Settlement
Administrator for payment of the costs of settlement administration. Within
thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, Apple shall transfer $98,000,000.00
into an account established by the Settlement Administrator for the Small
Developer Assistance Fund. Apple’s total financial commitment under this
Settlement Agreement shall be $100,000,000.00.
5.3.2 The Settlement Administrator shall agree to hold the Small Developer
Assistance Fund in an interest-bearing account and administer the Small
Developer Assistance Fund, subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the Court
and from the earliest possible date, as a qualified settlement fund as defined in
Treasury Regulation § 1.468B-1 et seq. Any taxes owed by the Small
Developer Assistance Fund shall be paid by the Settlement Administrator out
of the Small Developer Assistance Fund. The interest earned in the
aforementioned account shall be added to the Small Developer Assistance
Fund.
6. DISPOSITION OF THE SMALL DEVELOPER ASSISTANCE FUND
6.1 The Small Developer Assistance Fund shall be applied as follows:
6.1.1 to pay the costs of notice and the costs of administering the Settlement, as set
forth in Section 7 below;
6.1.2 to pay any approved Attorneys’ Fees to Class Counsel as set forth in Section 9
below;
6.1.3 to pay any Court-approved Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs; and
14
6.1.4 to distribute the Net Small Developer Assistance Fund to Settlement Class
Members as set forth in Section 6.2 and 6.3 below.
6.2 The Small Developer Assistance Fund will be distributed to all Settlement Class
Members who have Approved Claims, with each such U.S. Developer entitled to a
minimum payment of $250.00 from the Net Small Developer Assistance Fund. U.S.
Developers may qualify for a higher payment based on their historic participation in
the App Store ecosystem. For all Approved Claims, the following amounts will be
calculated based on Settlement Class Members’ Proceeds from June 4, 2015 to
December 31, 2020:
6.2.1 A Settlement Class Member who earned Proceeds of no more than $100.00
from all of their Associated Developer Accounts will receive a minimum
payment of $250.00.
6.2.2 A Settlement Class Member who earned Proceeds of between $100.01 and
$1,000.00 from all of their Associated Developer Accounts will receive a
minimum payment of $500.00.
6.2.3 A Settlement Class Member who earned Proceeds of between $1,000.01 and
minimum payment of $1,000.00.
15
$100,000 from all of their Associated Developer Accounts will receive a
$1,000,000.00 from all of their Associated Developer Accounts will receive a
6.2.10 A Settlement Class Member who earned Proceeds of over $1,000,000.01 from
all of their Associated Developer Accounts will receive a minimum payment of
$30,000.00.
6.3 The minimum payment amounts set forth in Section 6.2 above assume that one
hundred percent (100%) of Settlement Class Members have an Approved Claim. If
not all Settlement Class Members have an Approved Claim, then the minimum
payment amounts to Settlement Class Members with Approved Claims shall increase
16
proportionally in correspondence with the same categories of Developer Proceeds as
contained in Section 6.2.
6.4 The minimum payment amounts set forth in Section 6.2 above assume that the Net
Small Developer Assistance Fund is approximately $68 million. The actual amount
could be greater or less depending on the costs of administration, any Service Awards,
and the amounts awarded by the Court for attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to
Section 9.1.
6.5 Within sixty (60) days after receiving the Small Developer Assistance Funds pursuant
to Section 5.3, the Settlement Administrator shall have substantially completed the
issuance of the initial payments to the Settlement Class Members with Approved
Claims, which shall be sent to Settlement Class Members through electronic
distribution, or in the form of physical checks mailed to the Settlement Class Member’s
mailing address as contained in Apple’s company records or set forth on the Claim
Form for those Settlement Class Members for whom electronic distribution is not
available. To the extent economically and practically feasible, the Settlement
Administrator shall follow up and communicate with Settlement Class Members who
have not cashed their checks within sixty (60) days of distribution. Unused checks
shall expire not later than the first anniversary of the initial date of distribution.
6.6 Following distribution of the Small Developer Assistance Fund as set forth in Sections
6.1-6.3, if approved by the Court, any remaining funds (including any funds from
uncashed checks) will be used as a cy pres distribution to Girls Who Code, a nonprofit
organization working to close the gender gap in technology and to change the image
of what a programmer looks like and does, or another similar charitable organization
17
as approved by the Court. Under no circumstances will Small Developer Assistance
Funds revert to Apple.
7. NOTICE AND SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION.
7.1 Neutral Settlement Administrator. Subject to Court approval, the Settlement
Administrator shall provide settlement notice and administration services, in accordance with the
terms of this Settlement Agreement and as ordered by the Court in the Preliminary Approval Order.
As provided in Section 6.1.1, the reasonable costs of notice and the costs of administering the
Settlement shall be paid out of the Small Developer Assistance Fund.
7.2 Notice Procedures. The Parties agree to the following forms and methods of
notice to the Settlement Class:
7.2.1 A copy of the Class Notice, together with the Claim Form, the Settlement, the
motions for Final Approval Order and Final Judgment, and Attorneys’ Fees,
and Court orders pertaining to the Settlement, shall be posted and available for
download on the Settlement Website maintained by the Settlement
Administrator.
7.2.2 The Settlement Administrator shall send a copy of the Summary Notice to the
email and physical addresses for Associated Developer Accounts of developers
who are or reasonably may be members of the Settlement Class. The electronic
version of the Summary Notice shall contain a direct link to the Settlement
Website and the instructions for the Claim Form. To facilitate the distribution
of the Summary Notice, within thirty (30) days of the date of execution of the
Settlement Agreement, Apple shall provide the Settlement Administrator with
the email and physical addresses for Associated Developer Accounts of
18
developers who are or reasonably may be members of the Settlement Class,
along with transactional data produced in this Action sufficient to calculate
Proceeds for purposes of implementing this Agreement.
7.2.3 The names, email addresses, physical mailing addresses, and Proceeds of
Associated Developer Accounts are personal information about the potential
members of the Settlement Class and shall be provided to the Settlement
Administrator solely for the purposes of providing notice, processing requests
for exclusion, and administering payment. The Settlement Administrator shall
execute the Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. 252), treat all such information as
“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” and take all reasonable steps to
ensure that all such information is used solely for the purpose of administering
this Settlement.
7.2.4 The Settlement Administrator shall commence the notice by the Notice Date.
If, despite using best efforts, the Settlement Administrator is unable to
commence the notice by the Notice Date, the Settlement Administrator shall
inform the Parties of the status of the notice, and notify the Parties when the
notice has been commenced.
7.2.5 In addition to the notice required by the Court, the Parties may jointly agree to
provide additional notice to the members of the Settlement Class, although
Class Counsel and Apple must both approve any additional notice.
7.2.6 If this notice plan is not approved, or is modified in a material way by the Court,
the Parties shall have the right to terminate the Settlement.
19
7.3 Claim Form. Settlement Class Members who wish to receive a cash payment will
be required to submit a Claim Form. The Claim Form shall, among other things, require the
Settlement Class Member to certify, under penalty of perjury, that (a) they have only one
Associated Developer Account, or (b) if they have more than one Associated Developer Account,
that they have identified all Associated Developer Accounts in a manner to be specified in the
Claim Form. The Claim Forms shall be submitted to the Settlement Administrator via U.S. mail
or electronically through the Settlement Website.
7.4 Claims Period. To be valid, Claim Forms, requests to opt out, and objections must
be received by the Settlement Administrator within one hundred and twenty (120) days from the
Notice Date.
7.5 Process for Opting Out of Settlement. The Class Notice shall provide a
procedure whereby members of the Settlement Class may exclude themselves from the Settlement.
The members of the Settlement Class shall have no less than sixty (60) days following the Notice
Date to exclude themselves. Any member of the Settlement Class who does not timely and validly
request exclusion shall be a Settlement Class Member and shall be bound by the terms of this
Settlement. As soon as practicable after the opt-out deadline, the Settlement Administrator shall
provide the Court and the Parties with a list of Settlement Class Members who timely and validly
requested exclusion from the Settlement.
7.6 Process for Objections. The Class Notice shall provide a procedure whereby
Settlement Class Members may object to the Settlement. All objections shall be filed with the
Court and served on Class Counsel and Defense Counsel within sixty (60) days from the Notice
Date. Any objection shall, at a minimum, require the individual to provide: (a) a detailed
statement of such Settlement Class Member’s specific objections to any matters before the Court;
20
(b) the grounds for such objections and the reason such Settlement Class Member desires to appear
and to be heard; and (c) proof of membership in the Settlement Class, as well as all other materials
the Settlement Class Member wants the Court to consider.
7.7 Review of Claims Submitted. The Settlement Administrator shall determine
whether a submitted Claim Form meets the requirements set forth in this Settlement Agreement.
Each Claim Form shall be submitted to and reviewed by the Settlement Administrator, who shall
determine whether each Claim shall be allowed. The Settlement Administrator shall use best
practices and all reasonable efforts and means to identify and reject duplicate and/or fraudulent
claims.
7.8 Rejection of Claims Forms. Claim Forms that do not meet the requirements set
forth in this Settlement and/or in the Claim Form instructions shall be rejected by the Settlement
Administrator. The Settlement Administrator shall have thirty (30) days from the end of the
Claims Period to exercise the right of rejection. The Settlement Administrator shall notify the
claimant using the contact information provided in the Claim Form of the rejection. Class Counsel
and Defense Counsel shall be provided with copies of all such notifications of rejection, provided
that the copies do not contain the name, email address, mailing address, or other personal
identifying information of the claimant. If any claimant whose Claim Form has been rejected, in
whole or in part, desires to contest such rejection, the claimant must, within ten (10) days from
receipt of the rejection, transmit to the Settlement Administrator by email or U.S. mail a notice
and statement of reasons indicating the claimant’s grounds for contesting the rejection, along with
any supporting documentation, and requesting further review by the Settlement Administrator, in
consultation with Class Counsel and Defense Counsel, of the denial of the Claim. If Class Counsel
and Defense Counsel cannot agree on a resolution of the claimant’s notice contesting the rejection,
21
the disputed Claim shall be presented to the Court or a referee appointed by the Court for summary
and non-appealable resolution. No person shall have any claim against Apple, Defense Counsel,
the Named Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, and/or the Settlement Administrator based on any eligibility
determinations, distributions, or awards made in accordance with this Settlement. This provision
does not affect or limit in any way the right of review by the Court or referee of any disputed Claim
Forms as provided in this Settlement.
7.9 Information Regarding Claims Submitted, Approved, and Rejected. Within
forty-five (45) days from the end of the Claims Period, the Settlement Administrator shall provide
a spreadsheet to Class Counsel and Defense Counsel that contains information sufficient to
determine: (a) the number of Settlement Class Members that submitted a claim; (b) the number of
submitted Claim Forms that are valid and timely and the number that were not valid and/or timely;
(c) the number of submitted Claim Forms the Settlement Administrator intends to treat as
Approved Claims; and (d) the number of submitted Claim Forms the Settlement Administrator has
denied and the reason(s) for the denials. The Settlement Administrator shall provide supplemental
spreadsheets with respect to the resolution of any rejected claims or any Claim Forms submitted
after the expiration of the deadline, within a reasonable time after such resolution or receiving such
Claim Forms. The materials that the Settlement Administrator provides to Class Counsel pursuant
to this paragraph shall not contain the names, email addresses, mailing addresses, or other personal
identifying information of the Settlement Class Members. The Settlement Administrator shall
retain the originals of all Claim Forms (including envelopes with postmarks, as applicable), and
shall make copies available to Class Counsel or Defense Counsel (with redactions to remove the
names, email addresses, mailing addresses, or other personal identifying information of the
Settlement Class Members) upon request. All such spreadsheets and related materials (including
22
Claim Forms) shall be designated as “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” as provided in
Section 7.2.3. Should Class Counsel believe they require the name, email address, mailing
address, or other personal identifying information of any particular Settlement Class Member, the
Parties shall meet-and-confer, on a case-by-case basis, to determine whether the release of such
personal identifying information is necessary. Any disputes regarding whether such information
may be released to Class Counsel shall be presented to the Court or a referee appointed by the
Court for summary and non-appealable resolution. The Settlement Administrator shall only
release personal identifying information upon authorization of Apple and/or the authorization of
the Court or referee.
7.10 Opportunity for Review. Defense Counsel and Class Counsel shall have fourteen
(14) days after receiving the spreadsheet(s) and information specified in Section 7.9 to contest the
Settlement Administrator’s determination with respect to any of the submitted Claims. Defense
Counsel and Class Counsel shall meet and confer in good faith within ten (10) days to reach
resolution of any such disputed Claim(s). If Class Counsel and Defense Counsel cannot agree on
a resolution of any such disputed Claim(s), the disputed Claim(s) shall be presented to the Court
or a referee appointed by the Court for summary and non-appealable resolution.
8. COURT APPROVAL
8.1 The Parties agree to recommend approval of the Settlement to the Court as fair and
reasonable and to undertake their best efforts to obtain such approval. “Best efforts” includes that
the Parties may not oppose any application for appellate review by one of the Parties in the event
the Court denies preliminary or final approval. The Parties therefore agree that, at 5:00 PM Pacific
time on August 26, 2021, the Named Plaintiffs shall submit this Settlement Agreement to the Court
and shall apply for entry of the Preliminary Approval Order.
23
8.2 Class Counsel shall draft the Motion for Preliminary Approval requesting issuance
of the Preliminary Approval Order as soon as practicable after execution of this Settlement
Agreement, and shall provide that draft to Defense Counsel on or before August 24, 2021. The
Motion for Preliminary Approval shall be written in a neutral manner that does not contain
inflammatory language about the Parties or their perceived conduct in the Action. The Parties
shall agree on the form of all exhibits attached to the Motion for Preliminary Approval, including
but not limited to the Notice, the Summary Notice, and the Claims Form.
8.3 Upon filing of the Motion for Preliminary Approval, Apple shall provide timely
notice of the Settlement as required by the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1711, et seq.
8.4 In accordance with the schedule set in the Preliminary Approval Order, Class
Counsel shall draft the motion for Final Approval Order and Final Judgment and shall provide that
draft to Defense Counsel at least seven (7) days before filing such motion with the Court.
8.5 In the event that the Settlement is not approved (following the exhaustion of any
appellate review), then (a) this Settlement Agreement shall be null and void and of no force or
effect, (b) any payments made to the Settlement Administrator, including any and all interest
earned thereon less monies expended toward settlement administration and/or Small Developer
Assistance Fund, shall be returned to Apple within ten (10) days from the date the Settlement
Agreement becomes null and void, (c) any release shall be of no force or effect, and (d) neither the
Settlement Agreement nor any facts concerning its negotiation, discussion, terms or documentation
shall be referred to or used as evidence or for any other purpose whatsoever in the Action or in any
other action or proceeding. In such event, the Action will proceed as if no settlement has been
attempted, and the Parties shall be returned to their respective procedural postures existing on the
date the Settlement is executed, so that the Parties may take such litigation steps that they otherwise
24
would have been able to take absent the pendency of this Settlement. However, any reversal,
vacatur, or modification on appeal of (a) any amount of the Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses awarded
by the Court to Class Counsel, or (b) any determination by the Court to award less than the amounts
requested in Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses or Named Plaintiff Service Awards shall not give rise
to any right of termination or otherwise serve as a basis for termination of this Settlement.
9. ATTORNEYS’ FEES
9.1 Class Counsel may submit an application or applications to the Court for
distribution to them from the Small Developer Assistance Fund of an award of attorneys’ fees and
expenses incurred in connection with prosecuting the Action and as may be awarded by the Court
(the “Fee and Expense Award”). Apple reserves the right to object to or oppose a request for
attorneys’ fees and expenses.
9.2 The Fee and Expense Award, as approved by the Court, shall be paid solely from
the Small Developer Assistance Fund to an account designated by Class Counsel within forty-five
(45) days after the Effective Date.
9.3 Class Counsel has the authority and responsibility to allocate and distribute the
awarded funds to other counsel based, in its sole discretion, on counsel’s efforts and contributions
in the Action, provided that the allocation and distribution is consistent with the Court’s order(s)
regarding the Fee and Expense Award. Apple and Defense Counsel shall have no liability or other
responsibility for allocation of any such awarded funds, and, in the event that any dispute arises
relating to the allocation of fees or costs, Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator agree to
hold Apple and Defense Counsel harmless from any and all such liabilities, costs, and expenses of
such dispute.
25
9.4 Apple shall not be liable for any additional fees or expenses of the Named Plaintiffs
or any Settlement Class Member in connection with the Action. Class Counsel agree that they
will not seek any additional fees, expenses, or costs from Apple in connection with the Action or
the settlement of the Action beyond the approved Fee and Expense Award. Apple expressly agrees
that it will not seek to recover its attorneys’ fees, expenses, or costs from the Named Plaintiffs or
Class Counsel once this Settlement Agreement becomes effective pursuant to the Effective Date.
9.5 The Court’s Fee and Expense Award shall be separate from its determination of
whether to approve the Settlement. In the event the Court approves the Settlement, but declines
to award Class Counsel’s attorneys’ fees or expenses in the amounts requested by Class Counsel,
the Settlement will nevertheless be binding on the Parties.
10. RELEASES AND DISMISSAL OF ACTION
10.1 As of the Effective Date, the Settlement Class Members and their respective heirs,
executors, administrators, representatives, agents, partners, successors, and assigns shall have
fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged any and all past, present, and
future claims, actions, demands, causes of action, suits, debts, obligations, damages, rights and
liabilities, that were brought, could have been brought, or are related to the same facts underlying
the claims asserted in the Action, known or unknown, recognized now or hereafter, existing or
preexisting, expected or unexpected, pursuant to any theory of recovery (including, but not limited
to, those based in contract or tort, common law or equity, federal, state, territorial, or local law,
statute, ordinance, or regulation), against the Released Parties, for any type of relief that can be
released as a matter of law, including, without limitation, claims for monetary relief, damages
(whether compensatory, consequential, punitive, exemplary, liquidated, and/or statutory), costs,
penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, restitution, or equitable relief. By example only,
26
and without limitation, the Settlement Class Members expressly release any claim, contention,
argument, or theory that the commissions charged by Apple on paid downloads or in-app purchases
of digital content (including subscriptions) through the App Store are supracompetitive, inflated,
or otherwise set at unlawful amounts. Accordingly, the Settlement shall terminate the Action.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the release shall not include any claims relating to the continued
enforcement of the Settlement or the Protective Orders.
10.2 As of the Effective Date, the Named Plaintiffs and their respective heirs, executors,
administrators, representatives, agents, partners, successors, and assigns shall have fully, finally,
and forever released, relinquished, and discharged any and all past, present, and future claims,
actions, demands, causes of action, suits, debts, obligations, damages, rights and liabilities, that
were brought, could have been brought, or are related to the same facts underlying the claims
asserted in the Action regarding the App Store, known or unknown, recognized now or hereafter,
existing or preexisting, expected or unexpected, pursuant to any theory of recovery (including, but
not limited to, those based in contract or tort, common law or equity, federal, state, territorial, or
local law, statute, ordinance, or regulation), against the Released Parties, for any type of relief that
can be released as a matter of law, including, without limitation, claims for monetary relief,
damages (whether compensatory, consequential, punitive, exemplary, liquidated, and/or
statutory), costs, penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, restitution, or equitable relief.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the release shall not include any claims relating to the continued
enforcement of the Settlement or the Protective Orders.
10.3 After entering into this Settlement, the Settlement Class Members and/or Named
Plaintiffs may discover facts other than, different from, or in addition to, those that they know or
believe to be true with respect to the claims released by this Settlement, but they intend to release
27
fully, finally and forever any and all such claims. The Settlement Class Members and Named
Plaintiffs expressly agree that, upon the Effective Date, they waive and forever release any and all
provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by:
(a) Section 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads:
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS THAT THE

CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT
TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE
RELEASE AND THAT, IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER, WOULD HAVE
MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE
DEBTOR OR RELEASED PARTY.
and
(b) any law of any state, territory, or possession of the United States (or for the non-
U.S. Named Plaintiffs, their respective country, province, or state), or principle of
common law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to Section 1542 of the
California Civil Code.
10.4 Upon the Effective Date, the Action shall be dismissed with prejudice. Class
Counsel shall have the responsibility for ensuring that the Action is dismissed with prejudice in
accordance with the terms of this Settlement.
10.5 The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this Action to enforce the terms of this
Settlement. In the event that any applications for relief are made, such applications shall be made
to the Court. To avoid doubt, the Final Judgment applies to and is binding upon the Parties, the
Settlement Class Members, and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns.
11. DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF LIABILITY; AGREEMENT AS DEFENSE IN

FUTURE PROCEEDINGS
11.1 Apple has indicated its intent to vigorously contest each and every claim in the
Action, and denies all of the material allegations in the Action. Apple enters into this Settlement
28
Agreement without in any way acknowledging any fault, liability, or wrongdoing of any kind.
Apple nonetheless has concluded that it is in its best interests that the Action be settled on the
terms and conditions set forth herein in light of the expense that would be necessary to defend the
Action, the benefits of disposing of protracted and complex litigation, and the desire of Apple to
conduct its business and provide additional assistance to the small developer community
unhampered by the distractions of continued litigation.
11.2 Neither this Settlement Agreement, nor any of its terms or provisions, nor any of
the negotiation or proceedings connected with it, shall be construed as an admission or concession
by Apple of the truth of any of the allegations in the Action, or of any liability, fault, or wrongdoing
of any kind.
11.3 To the extent permitted by law, this Settlement Agreement may be pleaded as a full
and complete defense to, and may be used as the basis for an injunction against, any action, suit,
or other proceeding which may be instituted, prosecuted, or attempted for claims, causes of action,
and/or theories of relief covered by the covenant not to sue and/or the releases in this Settlement
Agreement.
12. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION OF THE SETTLEMENT
12.1 Apple may, at its sole discretion, terminate this Settlement Agreement if the number
of Developers who seek exclusion from the Settlement Class exceeds 10% of the total number of
Developers in the Settlement Class.
12.2 The terms and provisions of this Settlement Agreement may be amended, modified,
or expanded by written agreement of the Parties and approval of the Court; provided, however,
that after entry of the Final Approval Order and Final Judgment, the Parties may by written
agreement effect such amendments, modifications, or expansions of this Settlement Agreement
29
and its implementing documents (including all exhibits) without further notice to the Settlement
Class or approval by the Court if such changes are consistent with the Court’s Final Approval
Order and Final Judgment and do not materially alter, reduce, or limit the rights of Settlement
Class Members.
12.3 If any of the non-monetary terms of this Agreement are affected by a change in
legislation, regulation, law, court or agency order, or any material change in circumstances, the
Parties agree to meet and confer in good faith regarding an appropriate modification of the
Agreement.
12.4 In the event the terms or conditions of this Settlement Agreement, other than terms
pertaining to the Attorneys’ Fees, are materially modified by any court, the Parties may within
thirty (30) days of such material modification, declare this Settlement null and void as provided in
Section 8.5. For purposes of this paragraph, material modifications include any modifications to
the definitions of the Settlement Class, Settlement Class Members, Released Parties, or the scope
of the releases (as provided in Sections 10.1 and 10.2), any modifications to the terms of the
Settlement consideration (as provided in Sections 5.1 - 5.3). In the event of any modification by
any court, and in the event Apple does not exercise its unilateral option to withdraw from this
Settlement, the Parties shall meet and confer within fourteen (14) days of such modification to
attempt to reach an agreement as to how best to effectuate the court-ordered modification.
12.5 If the Effective Date is not reached, this Settlement Agreement is without prejudice
to the rights of any party hereto, and all terms, negotiations, and proceedings connected therewith
shall not be deemed or construed to be an admission by any Party or evidence of any kind in this
Action or any other action or proceeding.
13. NOTICES
30
13.1 All notices to Named Plaintiffs shall be delivered to:
Steve W. Berman
Robert F. Lopez
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
1301 Second Ave., Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
13.2 All notices to Apple shall be delivered to:
Heather Grenier
Senior Director, Commercial Litigation
Apple Inc.
One Apple Park Way, MS 60-1AL
Cupertino, CA 95014
With a copy to:
Mark A. Perry
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
1050 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
13.3 The notice recipients and addresses designated in paragraphs 13.1 and 13.2 may be
changed upon written notice provided to all individuals identified in those paragraphs.
14. MISCELLANEOUS
14.1 This Settlement Agreement may not be modified in any respect except upon the
written consent of the Parties.
14.2 The undersigned each represent and warrant that each has authority to enter into
this Settlement Agreement on behalf of the Party indicated below his or her name.
14.3 If, prior to the Effective Date, Class Counsel knows, or has reason to know, of any
Named Plaintiff who intends to exclude himself or herself from the Settlement or who intends to
submit an objection to the Settlement, Class Counsel shall promptly notify Defense Counsel within
three (3) days. The Parties shall thereafter meet and confer within seven (7) days of such
31
notification to determine whether any modifications to the Settlement, or any other actions or
filings, are required.
14.4 Class Counsel and the Named Plaintiffs represent and warrant that they have not
assigned or transferred, or purported to assign or transfer, to any person or entity, any claim or any
portion thereof or interest therein, including, but not limited to, any interest in the Action or any
related action, and they further represent and warrant that they know of no such assignments or
transfers on the part of any member of the Settlement Class.
14.5 The Parties, together with Class Counsel and Defense Counsel, have jointly
participated in the drafting of this Settlement Agreement. No Party hereto shall be considered the
drafter of this Settlement Agreement or any provision hereof for the purpose of any statute, case
law or rule of interpretation or construction that would or might cause any provision to be
construed against the drafter hereof.
14.6 As used in this Settlement Agreement, the masculine, feminine, or neutral gender,
and the singular or plural wording, shall each be deemed to include the others whenever the context
so indicates.
14.7 Unless otherwise noted, all references to “days” in this Settlement Agreement shall
be to calendar days. In the event any date or deadline set forth in this Settlement Agreement falls
on a weekend or federal legal holiday, such date or deadline shall be on the first business day
thereafter.
14.8 Any and all disputes arising from or related to this Settlement Agreement must be
brought by the Parties, Class Counsel, Defense Counsel, and/or members of the Settlement Class
exclusively to the Court. The Parties, Class Counsel, Defense Counsel and members of the
Settlement Class irrevocably submit to the exclusive and continuing jurisdiction of the Court for
32
any suit, action, proceeding, or dispute arising out of or relating to this Settlement Agreement. All
terms of this Settlement Agreement and any suit, action, proceeding, or dispute arising out of or
relating to this Settlement Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted according to the
substantive laws of the State of California without regard to choice of law or conflicts of laws
principles; however, nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall operate as a waiver of any Party’s
position regarding the applicable law governing the underlying claims at issue in the Action.
14.9 Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the Parties may jointly agree to reasonable
extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of this Settlement Agreement.
14.10 Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, all motions, discovery, and other
proceedings in the Action shall be stayed until the Court enters the Final Approval Order and Final
Judgment, or this Settlement Agreement is otherwise terminated.
14.11 Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall alter or abrogate any prior Court orders
entered in the Action.
14.12 This Settlement Agreement may be executed in counterparts. Facsimile or PDF
signatures shall be considered valid as of the date they bear.
14.13 The Parties, together with Class Counsel and Defense Counsel, agree to prepare
and execute all documents, to seek Court approvals, to defend Court approvals, and to do all things
reasonably necessary to complete the Settlement.
14.14 This Settlement Agreement is executed voluntarily by each of the Parties without
any duress or undue influence on the part, or on behalf, of any of them. The Parties represent and
warrant to each other that they have read and fully understand the provisions of this Settlement
Agreement and have relied on the advice and representation of legal counsel of their own choosing.
33
14.15 This Settlement Agreement may be amended or modified only by a written
instrument signed by Defense Counsel and Class Counsel and approved by the Court.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
34
August 24, 2021


3 OAKLAND DIVISION
4
5
DONALD R. CAMERON, a California resident; Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR
6 PURE SWEAT BASKETBALL, INC., an Illinois
corporation; and BARRY SERMONS, a Georgia DECLARATION OF STEVEN
7 resident, on behalf of themselves and all others WEISBROT OF ANGEION GROUP
similarly situated, REGARDING THE PROPOSED
8
Plaintiffs, NOTICE PROGRAM
9
v.
10
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
11
Defendant.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF STEVEN WEISBROT
1 I, Steven Weisbrot, hereby declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that
2 the following is true and correct:
3 1. I am the President and Chief Executive Officer at the class action notice and claims
4 administration firm Angeion Group, LLC (“Angeion”). Angeion specializes in designing,
5 developing, analyzing and implementing large-scale, un-biased, legal notification plans.
6 2. I am fully familiar with the facts contained herein based upon my personal knowledge.
7 3. I have been responsible in whole or in part for the design and implementation of
8 hundreds of court-approved notice and administration programs, including some of the largest and
9 most complex notice plans in recent history. I have taught numerous accredited Continuing Legal
10 Education courses on the Ethics of Legal Notification in Class Action Settlements, using Digital
11 Media in Due Process Notice Programs, as well as Claims Administration, generally. I am the author
12 of multiple articles on Class Action Notice, Claims Administration, and Notice Design in
13 publications such as Bloomberg, BNA Class Action Litigation Report, Law360, the ABA Class
14 Action and Derivative Section Newsletter, and I am a frequent speaker on notice issues at
15 conferences throughout the United States and internationally.
16 4. I was certified as a professional in digital media sales by the Interactive Advertising
17 Bureau (“IAB”) and I am co-author of the Digital Media section of Duke Law’s Guidelines and Best
18 Practices—Implementing 2018 Amendments to Rule 23 and the soon to be published George
19 Washington Law School Best Practices Guide to Class Action Litigation.
20 5. I have given public comment and written guidance to the Judicial Conference
21 Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure on the role of direct mail, email, broadcast media,
22 digital media and print publication, in effecting Due Process notice, and I have met with
23 representatives of the Federal Judicial Center to discuss the 2018 amendments to Rule 23 and offered
24 an educational curriculum for the judiciary concerning notice procedures.
25 6. Prior to joining Angeion’s executive team, I was employed as Director of Class
26 Action services at Kurtzman Carson Consultants, an experienced notice and settlement administrator.
27 Prior to my notice and claims administration experience, I was employed in private law practice.
28
DECLARATION OF STEVEN WEISBROT 1
1 7. My notice work comprises a wide range of class actions that include data breach, mass
2 disasters, product defect, false advertising, employment discrimination, antitrust, tobacco, banking,
3 firearm, insurance, and bankruptcy cases.
4 8. I have been at the forefront of infusing digital media, as well as big data and advanced
5 targeting, into class action notice programs. Courts have repeatedly recognized my work in the design
6 of class action notice programs. A comprehensive summary of judicial recognition Angeion has
7 received is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
8 9. By way of background, Angeion is an experienced class action notice and claims
9 administration company formed by a team of executives that have had extensive tenures at five other
10 nationally recognized claims administration companies. Collectively, the management team at
11 Angeion has overseen more than 2,000 class action settlements and distributed over $15 billion to
12 class members. The executive profiles as well as the company overview are available at
13 https://www.angeiongroup.com/our_team.php.
14 10. As a class action administrator, Angeion has regularly been approved by both federal
15 and state courts throughout the United States and abroad to provide notice of class actions and claims
16 processing services.
17 11. This declaration will describe the Notice Program that, if approved by the Court, we
18 will implement in this matter, including the considerations that informed the development of the plan
19 and why we believe it will provide due process to the Class. In my professional opinion and that of
20 my team, the Notice Program described herein is the best practicable notice under the circumstances
21 and fulfills all due process requirements, fully comporting with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and the Northern
22 District’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements
23 OVERVIEW OF THE NOTICE PROGRAM
24 12. The proposed Notice Program provides individual direct notice to all reasonably
25 identifiable Settlement Class Members via email and mail, combined the creation of a dedicated
26 website and toll-free telephone line where Settlement Class Members can learn more about their
27 rights and options pursuant to the terms of the Settlement.
28
1 DIRECT NOTICE
2 13. Angeion has been advised that it will be provided with contact information, including
3 email and mailing addresses, for all or nearly all of the approximately 67,000 Settlement Class
4 Members. The direct notice effort in this matter will consist of sending individual notice via email
5 and mail to the Settlement Class Member email addresses and US Postal addresses that will be
6 provided to Angeion.
7 Email Notice
8 14. As an initial matter, Angeion designs the email notice to avoid many common “red
9 flags” that might otherwise cause a potential Settlement Class Member’s spam filter to block or
10 identify the email notice as spam. For instance, Angeion does not include attachments to the email
11 notice because attachments are often interpreted by various Internet Service Providers (“ISP”) as
12 spam. Rather, in accordance with industry best practices, Angeion includes a link to all operative
13 documents so that Settlement Class Members can easily access this information.
14 15. Angeion will employ additional methods to help ensure that as many Settlement
15 Class Members as possible receive notice via email. Specifically, prior to distributing email notice,
16 Angeion will engage in an email updating process to help ensure the accuracy of recipient email
17 addresses. Angeion also reviews email addresses for mis-transcribed characters and performs other
18 hygiene, as appropriate.
19 16. Angeion also accounts for the real-world reality that some emails will inevitably fail
20 to be delivered during the initial delivery attempt. Therefore, after the initial noticing campaign is
21 complete, Angeion, after an approximate 24-72-hour rest period, which allows any temporary block
22 at the ISP level to expire, causes a second round of email noticing to continue to any email addresses
23 that were previously identified as soft bounces and not delivered. In our experience, this minimizes
24 emails that may have erroneously failed to deliver due to sensitive servers and optimizes delivery.
25 17. At the completion of the email campaign, Angeion will report to the Court
26 concerning the rate of delivered emails accounting for any emails that are blocked at the ISP level.
27 In short, the Court will possess a detailed, verified account of the success rate of the entire direct
28
1 email notice campaign.
2 Mailed Notice
3 18. Angeion will cause a postcard notice (“Postcard Notice”) of the Settlement to be
4 mailed to each Settlement Class Member for whom Angeion is provided with a physical mailing
5 address. The postcard notice will be sent via the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) first-class
6 mail, postage prepaid.
7 19. In administering the Notice Program in this action, Angeion will employ the
8 following best practices to increase the deliverability rate of the mailed Notices. Angeion will cause
9 the mailing address information for members of the Settlement Class to be updated utilizing the
10 National Change of Address (“NCOA”) database, which provides updated address information for
11 individuals or entities who have moved during the previous four years and filed a change of address
12 with the USPS.
13 20. Notices returned to Angeion by the USPS with a forwarding address will be re-mailed
14 to the new address provided by the USPS and the class member database will be updated accordingly.
15 21. Notices returned to Angeion by the USPS without forwarding addresses will be
16 subjected to an address verification search (commonly referred to as “skip tracing”) utilizing a wide
17 variety of data sources, including public records, real estate records, electronic directory assistance
18 listings, etc., to locate updated addresses.
19 22. For any Settlement Class Members where a new address is identified through the skip
20 trace process, the class member database will be updated with the new address information and a
21 Notice will be re-mailed to that address.
22 RESPONSE MECHANISMS
23 23. The Notice Program will also implement the creation of a case-specific Settlement
24 Website, where Settlement Class Members can easily view general information about this class
25 action, review relevant Court documents, and view important dates and deadlines pertinent to the
26 Settlement. The Settlement Website will be designed to be user-friendly and make it easy for
27 Settlement Class Members to find information about the Settlement and will also have a “Contact
28
1 Us” page whereby Settlement Class Members can send an email with any additional questions to a
2 dedicated email address.
3 24. Using a tool displayed prominently on the Settlement Website, Settlement Class
4 Members will be able to determine the Settlement payment tier to which they are assigned prior to
5 submitting their personalized Claim Form directly on the Settlement Website. Settlement Class
6 Members will be provided with a unique claimant code via the mail and email notice which they
7 can use to view a pre-populated Claim Form that is streamlined for ease of submission.
8 25. Settlement Class Members will have the ability to download the Class Notice, Email
9 Notice, Postcard Notice, and Claim Form from the Settlement Website. Copies of the Class Notice,
10 Email Notice, Postcard Notice, and Claim Form are attached hereto as Exhibits B, C, D, and E,
11 respectively.
12 26. A toll-free hotline devoted to this case will be implemented to further apprise
13 Settlement Class Members of the rights and options in the Settlement. The toll-free hotline will
14 utilize an interactive voice response (“IVR”) system to provide Settlement Class Members with
15 responses to frequently asked questions and provide essential information regarding the Settlement.
16 This hotline will be accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Settlement Class Members will be
17 able to request a Class Notice or Claim Form be mailed to them via the hotline.
18 PLAIN LANGUAGE NOTICE DESIGN
19 27. The proposed Notice forms used in this matter are designed to be “noticed,” reviewed,
20 and by presenting the information in plain language, understood by members of the Settlement Class.
21 The design of the notices follows the principles embodied in the Federal Judicial Center’s illustrative
22 “model” notices posted at www.fjc.gov. The notice forms contain plain-language summaries of key
23 information about the rights and options of members of the Settlement Class pursuant to the
24 Settlement. Consistent with normal practice, prior to being delivered and published, all notice
25 documents will undergo a final edit for accuracy.
26 28. Rule 23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires class action notices to
27 be written in “plain, easily understood language.” Angeion Group maintains a strong commitment
28
1 to adhering to this requirement, drawing on its experience and expertise to craft notices that
2 effectively convey the necessary information to members of the Settlement Class in plain language.
3 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CLAIM SUBMISSIONS
4 29. While actual claim rates may vary, for purposes of Angeion’s cost estimate, we
5 assumed there will be an approximate 35% claims filing rate. The estimated 35% claims filing rate
6 is based on comparisons to similar settlements as well as other factors, including: the comprehensive
7 direct notice efforts via email and mail to Settlement Class Members; the supplemental state-of-the-
8 art media notice and reminder notice efforts; the simplicity of the Claim Form and claim submission
9 process; and the anticipated earned media that this Settlement will garner.
10 PAYMENT OPTIONS
11 30. The parties propose giving claimants several digital payment options such as PayPal,
12 Venmo and a Virtual Prepaid Card, which will provide Settlement Class Members with convenient
13 access to their settlement funds while greatly reducing the transaction costs associated with mailing
14 paper checks. However, claimants will also have the option to request payment in the form of a
15 paper check.
16 NOTICE PURSUANT TO THE CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2005
17 31. Within ten (10) days of the filing of the Settlement Agreement with this Court,
18 Angeion will cause notice to be disseminated pursuant to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1715.
19 CONCLUSION
20 32. The Notice Program outlined above provides for direct notice, at least once, but in
21 many cases, twice, to all reasonably identifiable Settlement Class Members via email and mail. The
22 Notice Program further provides for the creation and implementation of a dedicated Settlement
23 Website and toll-free hotline to further inform Settlement Class Members of their rights and options
24 pursuant to the terms of the Settlement.
25 33. The estimated cost for this notice and administration is anticipated to be $125,000,
26 however the actual costs will depend on numerous factors such as the quality of the data received,
27 the claims rate, any additional outreach to class members, changes to the scope of the engagement
28
1 and whether a second distribution will be undertaken.
2 34. It is my opinion, based on my expertise and experience, and that of my team, that the
3 methods of notice outlined herein will provide full and proper notice to Settlement Class Members
4 before any applicable deadlines, and that the Notice Program is the best notice that is practicable
5 under the circumstances and fully comports with due process, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and the Northern
6 District’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements. After the Notice Plan has concluded,
7 Angeion will provide a final report verifying its effective implementation.
8 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
9 Dated: August 26, 2021
10 /s/ Steven Weisbrot

STEVEN WEISBROT
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT A
Judicial Recognition
© Angeion Group, LLC

IN RE: APPLE INC. DEVICE PERFORMANCE LITIGATION

Case No. 5:18-md-02827
The Honorable Edward J. Davila, United States District Court, Northern District of California (March
17, 2021): Angeion undertook a comprehensive notice campaign…The notice program was well
executed, far-reaching, and exceeded both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B)’s
requirement to provide the “best notice that is practicable under the circumstances” and Rule
23(e)(1)(B)’s requirement to provide “direct notice in a reasonable manner.”
IN RE: GOOGLE PLUS PROFILE LITIGATION

Case No. 5:18-cv-06164
The Honorable Edward J. Davila, United States District Court, Northern District of California
(January 25, 2021): The Court further finds that the program for disseminating notice to
Settlement Class Members provided for in the Settlement, and previously approved and directed
by the Court (hereinafter, the “Notice Program”), has been implemented by the Settlement
Administrator and the Parties, and such Notice Program, including the approved forms of notice,
is reasonable and appropriate and satisfies all applicable due process and other requirements,
and constitutes best notice reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise Settlement
Class Members…
NELSON ET AL. v. IDAHO CENTRAL CREDIT UNION

Case No. CV03-20-00831, CV03-20-03221
The Honorable Robert C. Naftz, Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bannock County (January 19,
2021): The Court finds that the Proposed Notice here is tailored to this Class and designed to
ensure broad and effective reach to it…The Parties represent that the operative notice plan is the
best notice practicable and is reasonably designed to reach the settlement class members. The
Court agrees.
IN RE: HANNA ANDERSSON AND SALESFORCE.COM DATA BREACH LITIGATION

Case No. 3:20-cv-00812
The Honorable Edward M. Chen, United States District Court, Northern District of California
(December 29, 2020): The Court finds that the Class Notice and Notice Program satisfy the
requirements of due process and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and provide the
best notice practicable under the circumstances.
IN RE: PEANUT FARMERS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Case No. 2:19-cv-00463
The Honorable Raymond A. Jackson, United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia
(December 23, 2020): The Court finds that the Notice Program…constitutes the best notice that
is practicable under the circumstances and is valid, due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled
thereto and complies fully with the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2) and the due process
requirements of the Constitution of the United States.
BENTLEY ET AL. v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.

Case No. 2:19-cv-13554
The Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo, United States District Court, District of New Jersey (December
18, 2020): The Court finds that notice of this Settlement was given to Settlement Class Members
in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order and constituted the best notice practicable of
the proceedings and matters set forth therein, including the Litigation, the Settlement, and the
Settlement Class Members’ rights to object to the Settlement or opt out of the Settlement Class,
to all Persons entitled to such notice, and that this notice satisfied the requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and of due process.
IN RE: ALLURA FIBER CEMENT SIDING PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

Case No. 2:19-mn-02886
The Honorable David C. Norton, United States District Court, District of South Carolina (December
18, 2020): The proposed Notice provides the best notice practicable under the circumstances. It
allows Settlement Class Members a full and fair opportunity to consider the proposed settlement.
The proposed plan for distributing the Notice likewise is a reasonable method calculated to reach
all members of the Settlement Class who would be bound by the settlement. There is no additional
method of distribution that would be reasonably likely to notify Settlement Class Members who
may not receive notice pursuant to the proposed distribution plan.
ADKINS ET AL. v. FACEBOOK, INC.

Case No. 3:18-cv-05982
The Honorable William Alsup, United States District Court, Northern District of California
(November 15, 2020): Notice to the class is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances,
to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to
present their objections.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 399 U.S. 306, 314 (1650).
IN RE: 21ST CENTURY ONCOLOGY CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION

Case No. 8:16-md-02737
The Honorable Mary S. Scriven, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida (November
2, 2020): The Court finds and determines that mailing the Summary Notice and publication of
the Settlement Agreement, Long Form Notice, Summary Notice, and Claim Form on the
Settlement Website, all pursuant to this Order, constitute the best notice practicable under the
circumstances, constitute due and sufficient notice of the matters set forth in the notices to all
persons entitled to receive such notices, and fully satisfies the of due process, Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, and all other applicable laws and rules. The
Court further finds that all of the notices are written in plain language and are readily
understandable by Class Members.
MARINO ET AL. v. COACH INC.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01122
The Honorable Valerie Caproni, United States District Court, Southern District of New York (August
24, 2020): The Court finds that the form, content, and method of giving notice to the Settlement
Class as described in paragraph 8 of this Order: (a) will constitute the best practicable notice; (b)
are reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise the Settlement Class Members of
the pendency of the Action, the terms of the proposed Settlement, and their rights under the
proposed Settlement, including but not limited to their rights to object to or exclude themselves
from the proposed Settlement and other rights under the terms of the Settlement Agreement; (c)
are reasonable and constitute due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all Settlement Class
Members and other persons entitled to receive notice; and (d) meet all applicable requirements
of law, including but not limited to 28 U.S.C. § 1715, Rule 23(c) and (e), and the Due Process
Clause(s) of the United States Constitution. The Court further finds that all of the notices are
written in plain language, are readily understandable by Settlement Class Members, and are
materially consistent with the Federal Judicial Center’s illustrative class action notices.
BROWN v. DIRECTV, LLC

Case No. 2:13-cv-01170
The Honorable Dolly M. Gee, United States District Court, Central District of California (July 23,
2020): Given the nature and size of the class, the fact that the class has no geographical
limitations, and the sheer number of calls at issue, the Court determines that these methods
constitute the best and most reasonable form of notice under the circumstances.
IN RE: SSA BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Case No. 1:16-cv-03711
The Honorable Edgardo Ramos, United States District Court, Southern District of New York (July
15, 2020): The Court finds that the mailing and distribution of the Notice and the publication of
the Summary Notice substantially in the manner set forth below meet the requirements of Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due process and constitute the best notice
practicable under the circumstances, and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all Persons
entitled to notice.
KJESSLER ET AL. v. ZAAPPAAZ, INC. ET AL.

Case No. 4:18-cv-00430
The Honorable Nancy F. Atlas, United States District Court, Southern District of Texas (July 14,
2020): The Court also preliminarily approves the proposed manner of communicating the Notice
and Summary Notice to the putative Settlement Class, as set out below, and finds it is the best
notice practicable under the circumstances, constitutes due and sufficient notice to all persons
and entities entitled to receive such notice, and fully satisfies the requirements of applicable laws,
including due process and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
HESTER ET AL. v. WALMART, INC.

Case No. 5:18-cv-05225
The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Court, Western District of Arkansas (July
9, 2020): The Court finds that the Notice and Notice Plan substantially in the manner and form
set forth in this Order and the Agreement meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 and due process, is the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and shall constitute
due and sufficient notice to all Persons entitled thereto.
CLAY ET AL. v. CYTOSPORT INC.

Case No. 3:15-cv-00165
The Honorable M. James Lorenz, United States District Court, Southern District of California (June
17, 2020): The Court approves the proposed Notice Plan for giving notice to the Settlement Class
through publication, both print and digital, and through the establishment of a Settlement
Website, as more fully described in the Agreement and the Claims Administrator’s affidavits (docs.
no. 222-9, 224, 224-1, and 232-3 through 232-6). The Notice Plan, in form, method, and content,
complies with the requirements of Rule 23 and due process, and constitutes the best notice
practicable under the circumstances.
GROGAN v. AARON’S INC.

Case No. 1:18-cv-02821
The Honorable J.P. Boulee, United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia (May 1, 2020):
The Court finds that the Notice Plan as set forth in the Settlement Agreement meets the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and constitutes the best notice practicable under the
circumstances, including direct individual notice by mail and email to Settlement Class Members
where feasible and a nationwide publication website-based notice program, as well as establishing
a Settlement Website at the web address of www.AaronsTCPASettlement.com, and satisfies fully
the requirements the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the U.S. Constitution, and any other
applicable law, such that the Settlement Agreement and Final Order and Judgment will be binding
on all Settlement Class Members.
CUMMINGS v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, ET AL.

Case No. D-202-CV-2001-00579
The Honorable Carl Butkus, Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, State of New
Mexico (March 30, 2020): The Court has reviewed the Class Notice, the Plan of Allocation and
Distribution and Claim Form, each of which it approves in form and substance. The Court finds
that the form and methods of notice set forth in the Agreement: (i) are reasonable and the best
practicable notice under the circumstances; (ii) are reasonably calculated to apprise Settlement
Class Members of the pendency of the Lawsuit, of their rights to object to or opt-out of the
Settlement, and of the Final Approval Hearing; (iii) constitute due, adequate, and sufficient notice
to all persons entitled to receive notice; and (iv) meet the requirements of the New Mexico Rules
of Civil Procedure, the requirements of due process under the New Mexico and United States
Constitutions, and the requirements of any other applicable rules or laws.
SCHNEIDER, ET AL. v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.

Case No. 4:16-cv-02200
The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Court, Northern District of California
(January 31, 2020): Given that direct notice appears to be infeasible, the third-party settlement
administrator will implement a digital media campaign and provide for publication notice in
People magazine, a nationwide publication, and the East Bay Times. SA § IV.A, C; Dkt. No. 205-12
at ¶¶ 13–23. The publication notices will run for four consecutive weeks. Dkt. No. 205 at ¶ 23. The
digital media campaign includes an internet banner notice implemented using a 60-day desktop
and mobile campaign. Dkt. No. 205-12 at ¶ 18. It will rely on “Programmatic Display Advertising”
to reach the “Target Audience,” Dkt. No. 216-1 at ¶ 6, which is estimated to include 30,100,000
people and identified using the target definition of “Fast Food & Drive-In Restaurants Total
Restaurants Last 6 Months [Chipotle Mexican Grill],” Dkt. No. 205-12 at ¶ 13. Programmatic display
advertising utilizes “search targeting,” “category contextual targeting,” “keyword contextual
targeting,” and “site targeting,” to place ads. Dkt. No. 216-1 at ¶¶ 9–12. And through “learning”
technology, it continues placing ads on websites where the ad is performing well. Id. ¶ 7. Put
simply, prospective Class Members will see a banner ad notifying them of the settlement when
they search for terms or websites that are similar to or related to Chipotle, when they browse
websites that are categorically relevant to Chipotle (for example, a website related to fast casual
dining or Mexican food), and when they browse websites that include a relevant keyword (for
example, a fitness website with ads comparing fast casual choices). Id. ¶¶ 9–12. By using this
technology, the banner notice is “designed to result in serving approximately 59,598,000
impressions.” Dkt. No. 205-12 at ¶ 18.
The Court finds that the proposed notice process is “‘reasonably calculated, under all the
circumstances,’ to apprise all class members of the proposed settlement.” Roes, 944 F.3d at 1045
(citation omitted).
HANLEY v. TAMPA BAY SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT LLC

Case No. 8:19-cv-00550
The Honorable Charlene Edwards Honeywell, United States District Court, Middle District of
Florida (January 7, 2020): The Court approves the form and content of the Class notices and claim
forms substantially in the forms attached as Exhibits A-D to the Settlement. The Court further finds
that the Class Notice program described in the Settlement is the best practicable under the
circumstances. The Class Notice program is reasonably calculated under the circumstances to
inform the Settlement Class of the pendency of the Action, certification of a Settlement Class, the
terms of the Settlement, Class Counsel’s attorney’s fees application and the request for a service
award for Plaintiff, and their rights to opt-out of the Settlement Class or object to the Settlement.
The Class notices and Class Notice program constitute sufficient notice to all persons entitled to
notice. The Class notices and Class Notice program satisfy all applicable requirements of law,
including, but not limited to, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the Constitutional requirement
of Due Process.
CORCORAN, ET AL. v. CVS HEALTH, ET AL.

Case No. 4:15-cv-03504
The Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, United States District Court, Northern District of
California (November 22, 2019): Having reviewed the parties’ briefings, plaintiffs’ declarations
regarding the selection process for a notice provider in this matter and regarding Angeion Group
LLC’s experience and qualifications, and in light of defendants’ non-opposition, the Court
APPROVES Angeion Group LLC as the notice provider. Thus, the Court GRANTS the motion for
approval of class notice provider and class notice program on this basis.
Having considered the parties’ revised proposed notice program, the Court agrees that the
parties’ proposed notice program is the “best notice that is practicable under the circumstances.”
The Court is satisfied with the representations made regarding Angeion Group LLC’s methods for
ascertaining email addresses from existing information in the possession of defendants. Rule 23
further contemplates and permits electronic notice to class members in certain situations. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). The Court finds, in light of the representations made by the parties, that
this is a situation that permits electronic notification via email, in addition to notice via United
States Postal Service. Thus, the Court APPROVES the parties’ revised proposed class notice
program, and GRANTS the motion for approval of class notice provider and class notice program
as to notification via email and United States Postal Service mail.
PATORA v. TARTE, INC.

Case No. 7:18-cv-11760
The Honorable Kenneth M. Karas, United States District Court, Southern District of New York
(October 2, 2019): The Court finds that the form, content, and method of giving notice to the
Class as described in Paragraph 9 of this Order: (a) will constitute the best practicable notice; (b)
are reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise the Settlement Class Members of
the pendency of the Action, the terms of the Proposed Settlement, and their rights under the
Proposed Settlement, including but not limited to their rights to object to or exclude themselves
from the Proposed Settlement and other rights under the terms of the Settlement Agreement; (c)
are reasonable and constitute due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all Settlement Class
Members and other persons entitled to receive notice; and (d) meet all applicable requirements
of law, including but not limited to 28 U.S.C. § 1715, Rule 23(c) and (e), and the Due Process
Clauses of the United States Constitution. The Court further finds that all of the notices are written
in simple terminology, are readily understandable by Settlement Class Members, and are
materially consistent with the Federal Judicial Center's illustrative class action notices.
CARTER, ET AL. v. GENERAL NUTRITION CENTERS, INC., and GNC HOLDINGS, INC.
Case No. 2:16-cv-00633
The Honorable Mark R. Hornak, United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania
(September 9, 2019): The Court finds that the Class Notice and the manner of its dissemination
described in Paragraph 7 above and Section VII of the Agreement constitutes the best practicable
notice under the circumstances and is reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to
apprise proposed Settlement Class Members of the pendency of this action, the terms of the
Agreement, and their right to object to or exclude themselves from the proposed Settlement
Class. The Court finds that the notice is reasonable, that it constitutes due, adequate and sufficient
notice to all persons entitled to receive notice, and that it meets the requirements of due process,
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Ci vii Procedure, and any other applicable laws.
CORZINE v. MAYTAG CORPORATION, ET AL.

Case No. 5:15-cv-05764
The Honorable Beth L. Freeman, United States District Court, Northern District of California
(August 21, 2019): The Court, having reviewed the proposed Summary Notice, the proposed FAQ,
the proposed Publication Notice, the proposed Claim Form, and the proposed plan for distributing
and disseminating each of them, finds and concludes that the proposed plan will provide the best
notice practicable under the circumstances and satisfies all requirements of federal and state laws
and due process.
MEDNICK v. PRECOR, INC.

Case No. 1:14-cv-03624
The Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
(June 12, 2019): Notice provided to Class Members pursuant to the Preliminary Class Settlement
Approval Order constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances, including
individual email and mail notice to all Class Members who could be identified through reasonable
effort, including information provided by authorized third-party retailers of Precor. Said notice
provided full and adequate notice of these proceedings and of the matter set forth therein,
including the proposed Settlement set forth in the Agreement, to all persons entitled to such
notice, and said notice fully satisfied the requirements of F.R.C.P. Rule 23 (e) and (h) and the
requirements of due process under the United States and California Constitutions.
GONZALEZ v. TCR SPORTS BROADCASTING HOLDING LLP, ET AL.

Case No. 1:18-cv-20048
The Honorable Darrin P. Gayles, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida (May 24,
2019): The Court finds that notice to the class was reasonable and the best notice practicable
under the circumstances, consistent with Rule 23(e)(1) and Rule 23(c)(2)(B).
ANDREWS ET AL. v. THE GAP, INC., ET AL.

Case No. CGC-18-567237
The Honorable Richard B. Ulmer Jr., Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco (May 10, 2019): The Court finds that (a) the Full Notice, Email Notice, and Publication
constitute the best notice practicable under the circumstances, (b) they constitute valid, due, and
sufficient notice to all members of the Class, and (c) they comply fully with the requirements of
California Code of Civil Procedure section 382, California Rules of Court 3.766 and 3.769, the
California and United States Constitutions, and other applicable law.
COLE, ET AL. v. NIBCO, INC.

Case No. 3:13-cv-07871
The Honorable Freda L. Wolfson, United States District Court, District of New Jersey (April 11,
2019): The record shows, and the Court finds, that the Notice Plan has been implemented in the
manner approved by the Court in its Preliminary Approval Order. The Court finds that the Notice
Plan constitutes: (i) the best notice practicable to the Settlement Class under the circumstances;
(ii) was reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise the Settlement Class of the
pendency of this…, (iii) due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all Persons entitled to receive notice;
and (iv) notice that fully satisfies the requirements of the United States Constitution (including the
Due Process Clause), Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and any other applicable law.
DIFRANCESCO, ET AL. v. UTZ QUALITY FOODS, INC.

Case No. 1:14-cv-14744
The Honorable Douglas P. Woodlock, United States District Court, District of Massachusetts
(March 15, 2019): The Court finds that the Notice plan and all forms of Notice to the Class as set
forth in the Settlement Agreement and Exhibits 2 and 6 thereto, as amended (the "Notice
Program"), is reasonably calculated to, under all circumstances, apprise the members of the
Settlement Class of the pendency of this action, the certification of the Settlement Class, the terms
of the Settlement Agreement, and the right of members to object to the settlement or to exclude
themselves from the Class. The Notice Program is consistent with the requirements of Rule 23 and
due process, and constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances.
IN RE: CHRYSLER-DODGE-JEEP ECODIESEL MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION
Case No. 3:17-md-02777
The Honorable Edward M. Chen, United States District Court, Northern District of California
(February 11, 2019): Also, the parties went through a sufficiently rigorous selection process to
select a settlement administrator. See Proc. Guidance for Class Action Sett. ¶ 2; see also Cabraser
Decl. ¶¶ 9-10. While the settlement administration costs are significant – an estimated $1.5 million
– they are adequately justified given the size of the class and the relief being provided.
In addition, the Court finds that the language of the class notices (short and long-form) is
appropriate and that the means of notice – which includes mail notice, electronic notice,
publication notice, and social media “marketing” – is the “best notice…practicable under the
circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B); see also Proc. Guidance for Class Action Sett. ¶¶ 3-5, 9
(addressing class notice, opt-outs, and objections). The Court notes that the means of notice has
changed somewhat, as explained in the Supplemental Weisbrot Declaration filed on February 8,
2019, so that notice will be more targeted and effective. See generally Docket No. 525 (Supp.
Weisbrot Decl.) (addressing, inter alia, press release to be distributed via national newswire service,
digital and social media marketing designed to enhance notice, and “reminder” first-class mail
notice when AEM becomes available).
Finally, the parties have noted that the proposed settlement bears similarity to the settlement in
the Volkswagen MDL. See Proc. Guidance for Class Action Sett. ¶ 11.
RYSEWYK, ET AL. v. SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION and SEARS, ROEBUCK AND

COMPANY
Case No. 1:15-cv-04519
The Honorable Manish S. Shah, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois (January
29, 2019): The Court holds that the Notice and notice plan as carried out satisfy the requirements
of Rule 23(e) and due process. This Court has previously held the Notice and notice plan to be
reasonable and the best practicable under the circumstances in its Preliminary Approval Order
dated August 6, 2018. (Dkt. 191) Based on the declaration of Steven Weisbrot, Esq. of Angeion
Group (Dkt. No. 209-2), which sets forth compliance with the Notice Plan and related matters, the
Court finds that the multi-pronged notice strategy as implemented has successfully reached the
putative Settlement Class, thus constituting the best practicable notice and satisfying due process.
MAYHEW, ET AL. v. KAS DIRECT, LLC, and S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC.
Case No. 7:16-cv-06981
The Honorable Vincent J. Briccetti, United States District Court, Southern District of New York (June
26, 2018): In connection with their motion, plaintiffs provide the declaration of Steven Weisbrot,
Esq., a principal at the firm Angeion Group, LLC, which will serve as the notice and settlement
administrator in this case. (Doc. #101, Ex. F: Weisbrot Decl.) According to Mr. Weisbrot, he has
been responsible for the design and implementation of hundreds of class action administration
plans, has taught courses on class action claims administration, and has given testimony to the
Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure on the role of direct mail,
email, and digital media in due process notice. Mr. Weisbrot states that the internet banner
advertisement campaign will be responsive to search terms relevant to “baby wipes, baby
products, baby care products, detergents, sanitizers, baby lotion, [and] diapers,” and will target
users who are currently browsing or recently browsed categories “such as parenting, toddlers,
baby care, [and] organic products.” (Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 18). According to Mr. Weisbrot, the internet
banner advertising campaign will reach seventy percent of the proposed class members at least
three times each. (Id. ¶ 9). Accordingly, the Court approves of the manner of notice proposed by
the parties as it is reasonable and the best practicable option for confirming the class members
receive notice.
IN RE: OUTER BANKS POWER OUTAGE LITIGATION

Case No. 4:17-cv-00141
The Honorable James C. Dever III, United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina
(May 2, 2018): The court has reviewed the proposed notice plan and finds that the notice plan
provides the best practicable notice under the circumstances and, when completed, shall
constitute fair, reasonable, and adequate notice of the settlement to all persons and entities
affected by or entitled to participate in the settlement, in full compliance with the notice
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) and due process. Thus, the court approves the proposed
notice plan.
GOLDEMBERG, ET AL. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.

Case No. 7:13-cv-03073
The Honorable Nelson S. Roman, United States District Court, Southern District of New York
(November 1, 2017): Notice of the pendency of the Action as a class action and of the proposed
Settlement, as set forth in the Settlement Notices, was given to all Class Members who could be
identified with reasonable effort, consistent with the terms of the Preliminary Approval Order. The
form and method of notifying the Class of the pendency of the Action as a class action and of the
terms and conditions of the proposed Settlement met the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, due process, and any other applicable law in the United States. Such
notice constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constituted due and
sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled thereto.
HALVORSON v. TALENTBIN, INC.

Case No. 3:15-cv-05166
The Honorable Joseph C. Spero, United States District Court, Northern District of California (July
25, 2017): The Court finds that the Notice provided for in the Order of Preliminary Approval of
Settlement has been provided to the Settlement Class, and the Notice provided to the Settlement
Class constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and was in full compliance
with the notice requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due process, the
United States Constitution, and any other applicable law. The Notice apprised the members of the
Settlement Class of the pendency of the litigation; of all material elements of the proposed
settlement, including but not limited to the relief afforded the Settlement Class under the
Settlement Agreement; of the res judicata effect on members of the Settlement Class and of their
opportunity to object to, comment on, or opt-out of, the Settlement; of the identity of Settlement
Class Counsel and of information necessary to contact Settlement Class Counsel; and of the right
to appear at the Fairness Hearing. Full opportunity has been afforded to members of the
Settlement Class to participate in the Fairness Hearing. Accordingly, the Court determines that all
Final Settlement Class Members are bound by this Final Judgment in accordance with the terms
provided herein.
IN RE: ASHLEY MADISON CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION

MDL No. 2669/Case No. 4:15-md-02669
The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri (July 21,
2017): The Court further finds that the method of disseminating Notice, as set forth in the Motion,
the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot, Esq. on Adequacy of Notice Program, dated July 13, 2017,
and the Parties’ Stipulation—including an extensive and targeted publication campaign
composed of both consumer magazine publications in People and Sports Illustrated, as well as
serving 11,484,000 highly targeted digital banner ads to reach the prospective class members that
will deliver approximately 75.3% reach with an average frequency of 3.04 —is the best method of
notice practicable under the circumstances and satisfies all requirements provided in Rule
23(c)(2)(B) and all Constitutional requirements including those of due process.
The Court further finds that the Notice fully satisfies Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the requirements of due process; provided, that the Parties, by agreement, may revise the
Notice, the Claim Form, and other exhibits to the Stipulation, in ways that are not material or ways
that are appropriate to update those documents for purposes of accuracy.
TRAXLER, ET AL. v. PPG INDUSTRIES INC., ET AL.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00912
The Honorable Dan Aaron Polster, United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio (April 27,
2017): The Court hereby approves the form and procedure for disseminating notice of the
proposed settlement to the Settlement Class as set forth in the Agreement. The Court finds that
the proposed Notice Plan contemplated constitutes the best notice practicable under the
circumstances and is reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Settlement Class
Members of the pendency of the Action and their right to object to the proposed settlement or
opt out of the Settlement Class in full compliance with the requirements of applicable law,
including the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and Rules 23(c) and (e). In
addition, Class Notice clearly and concisely states in plain, easily understood language: (i) the
nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the certified Settlement Class; (iii) the claims and issues
of the Settlement Class; (iv) that a Settlement Class Member may enter an appearance through an
attorney if the member so desires; (v) that the Court will exclude from the Settlement Class any
member who requests exclusion; (vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii) the
binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3).
IN RE: THE HOME DEPOT, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION
Case No. 1:14-md-02583
The Honorable Thomas W. Thrash Jr., United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia
(March 10, 2017): The Court finds that the form, content, and method of giving notice to the
settlement class as described in the settlement agreement and exhibits: (a) constitute the best
practicable notice to the settlement class; (b) are reasonably calculated, under the circumstances,
to apprise settlement class members of the pendency of the action, the terms of the proposed
settlement, and their rights under the proposed settlement; (c) are reasonable and constitute due,
adequate, and sufficient notice to those persons entitled to receive notice; and (d) satisfy the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the constitutional requirement of due process,
and any other legal requirements. The Court further finds that the notice is written in plain
language, uses simple terminology, and is designed to be readily understandable by settlement
class members.
ROY v. TITEFLEX CORPORATION t/a GASTITE and WARD MANUFACTURING, LLC

Case No. 384003V
The Honorable Ronald B. Rubin, Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland (February 24,
2017): What is impressive to me about this settlement is in addition to all the usual recitation of
road racing litanies is that there is going to be a) public notice of a real nature and b) about a
matter concerning not just money but public safety and then folks will have the knowledge to
decide for themselves whether to take steps to protect themselves or not. And that’s probably the
best thing a government can do is to arm their citizens with knowledge and then the citizens can
make decision. To me that is a key piece of this deal. I think the notice provisions are exquisite
[emphasis added].
IN RE: LG FRONT LOADING WASHING MACHINE CLASS ACTION LITIGATION

Case No. 2:08-cv-00051
The Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo, United States District Court, District of New Jersey (June 17,
2016): This Court further approves the proposed methods for giving notice of the Settlement to
the Members of the Settlement Class, as reflected in the Settlement Agreement and the joint
motion for preliminary approval. The Court has reviewed the notices attached as exhibits to the
Settlement, the plan for distributing the Summary Notices to the Settlement Class, and the plan
for the Publication Notice's publication in print periodicals and on the internet, and finds that the
Members of the Settlement Class will receive the best notice practicable under the circumstances.
The Court specifically approves the Parties' proposal to use reasonable diligence to identify
potential class members and an associated mailing and/or email address in the Company's
records, and their proposal to direct the ICA to use this information to send absent class members
notice both via first class mail and email. The Court further approves the plan for the Publication
Notice's publication in two national print magazines and on the internet. The Court also approves
payment of notice costs as provided in the Settlement. The Court finds that these procedures,
carried out with reasonable diligence, will constitute the best notice practicable under the
circumstances and will satisfy.
FENLEY v. APPLIED CONSULTANTS, INC.

Case No. 2:15-cv-00259
The Honorable Mark R. Hornak, United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania (June
16, 2016): The Court would note that it approved notice provisions of the settlement agreement
in the proceedings today. That was all handled by the settlement and administrator Angeion. The
notices were sent. The class list utilized the Postal Service's national change of address database
along with using certain proprietary and other public resources to verify addresses. the
requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e) (l), and Due Process....
The Court finds and concludes that the mechanisms and methods of notice to the class as
identified were reasonably calculated to provide all notice required by the due process clause, the
applicable rules and statutory provisions, and that the results of the efforts of Angeion were
highly successful and fulfilled all of those requirements [emphasis added].
FUENTES, ET AL. v. UNIRUSH, LLC d/b/a UNIRUSH FINANCIAL SERVICES, ET AL.

Case No. 1:15-cv-08372
The Honorable J. Paul Oetken, United States District Court, Southern District of New York (May
16, 2016): The Court approves, as to form, content, and distribution, the Claim Form attached to
the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit A, the Notice Plan, and all forms of Notice to the Settlement
Class as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Exhibits B-D, thereto, and finds that such
Notice is the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and that the Notice complies fully
with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court also finds that the Notice
constitutes valid, due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto, and meets the
requirements of Due Process. The Court further finds that the Notice is reasonably calculated to,
under all circumstances, reasonably apprise members of the Settlement Class of the pendency of
the Actions, the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the right to object to the settlement and
to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class. The Parties, by agreement, may revise the
Notices and Claim Form in ways that are not material, or in ways that are appropriate to update
those documents for purposes of accuracy or formatting for publication.
IN RE: WHIRLPOOL CORP. FRONTLOADING WASHER PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2001/Case No. 1:08-wp-65000
The Honorable Christopher A. Boyko, United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio (May
12, 2016): The Court, having reviewed the proposed Summary Notices, the proposed FAQ, the
proposed Publication Notice, the proposed Claim Form, and the proposed plan for distributing
and disseminating each of them, finds and concludes that the proposed plan for distributing and
disseminating each of them will provide the best notice practicable under the circumstances and
satisfies all requirements of federal and state laws and due process.
SATERIALE, ET AL. v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO.

Case No. 2:09-cv-08394
The Honorable Christina A. Snyder, United States District Court, Central District of California (May
3, 2016): The Court finds that the Notice provided to the Settlement Class pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement and the Preliminary Approval Order has been successful, was the best
notice practicable under the circumstances and (1) constituted notice that was reasonably
calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise members of the Settlement Class of the pendency
of the Action, their right to object to the Settlement, and their right to appear at the Final Approval
Hearing; (2) was reasonable and constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons
entitled to receive notice; and (3) met all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Due Process, and the rules of the Court.
FERRERA, ET AL. v. SNYDER’S-LANCE, INC.

Case No. 0:13-cv-62496
The Honorable Joan A. Lenard, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida (February
12, 2016): The Court approves, as to form and content, the Long-Form Notice and Short- Form
Publication Notice attached to the Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Class Action Settlement as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Stipulation of Settlement. The Court also
approves the procedure for disseminating notice of the proposed settlement to the Settlement
Class and the Claim Form, as set forth in the Notice and Media Plan attached to the Memorandum
in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement as Exhibits G. The Court
finds that the notice to be given constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances,
and constitutes valid, due, and sufficient notice to the Settlement Class in full compliance with the
requirements of applicable law, including the Due Process Clause of the United States
Constitution.
IN RE: POOL PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTION MARKET ANTITRUST LITIGATION

MDL No. 2328/Case No. 2:12-md-02328
The Honorable Sarah S. Vance, United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
(December 31, 2014): To make up for the lack of individual notice to the remainder of the class,
the parties propose a print and web-based plan for publicizing notice. The Court welcomes the
inclusion of web- based forms of communication in the plan. The Court finds that the proposed
method of notice satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and due process. The direct
emailing of notice to those potential class members for whom Hayward and Zodiac have a valid
email address, along with publication of notice in print and on the web, is reasonably calculated
to apprise class members of the settlement. Moreover, the plan to combine notice for the Zodiac
and Hayward settlements should streamline the process and avoid confusion that might otherwise
be caused by a proliferation of notices for different settlements. Therefore, the Court approves
the proposed notice forms and the plan of notice.
SOTO, ET AL. v. THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION, INC.

Case No. 0:13-cv-61747
The Honorable Marcia G. Cooke, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida (June 16,
2015): The Court approves the form and substance of the notice of class action settlement
described in ¶ 8 of the Agreement and attached to the Agreement as Exhibits A, C and D. The
proposed form and method for notifying the Settlement Class Members of the settlement and its
terms and conditions meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) and due process,
constitute the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and shall constitute due and
sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled to the notice. The Court finds that the proposed
notice is clearly designed to advise the Settlement Class Members of their rights.
OTT v. MORTGAGE INVESTORS CORPORATION OF OHIO, INC.

Case No. 3:14-cv-00645
The Honorable Janice M. Stewart, United States District Court, District of Oregon (July 20, 2015):
The Notice Plan, in form, method, and content, fully complies with the requirements of Rule 23
and due process, constitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and is due and
sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto. The Court finds that the Notice Plan is reasonably
calculated to, under all circumstances, reasonably apprise the persons in the Settlement Class of
the pendency of this action, the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the right to object to
the Settlement and to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class.
EXHIBIT B
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
If You Are A U.S. iOS App Developer

You Could Get a Payment from a Settlement with Apple
A court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation.
 A settlement has been reached with Apple Inc. (“Apple”) in an antitrust class action lawsuit brought
by U.S. app developers about Apple’s App Store. The lawsuit alleged that Apple monopolized (or
attempted to monopolize) an alleged iOS app and in-app product distribution services market in
violation of U.S. and California antitrust laws. Apple denies all allegations and is entering into this
settlement to avoid burdensome and costly litigation and to provide additional assistance to the small
app developer community. The Settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing by Apple.
 You are a “Settlement Class Member” if you are a former or current U.S. Developer of any Apple iOS
application or in-app product (including subscriptions) sold for a non-zero price via Apple’s iOS App
Store that earned, through all Associated Developer Accounts, Proceeds equal to or less than
$1,000,000.00 through the App Store U.S. storefront in every calendar year in which you had a
Developer Account from 2015 to 2021. For class definition purposes, the 2015 calendar year shall
consist of June 4, 2015 through December 31, 2015. The 2021 calendar year shall consist of January
1, 2021 through April 26, 2021, the last date in 2021 for which there are available developer
transactional data as produced in this Action. The criteria to be a “Settlement Class Member” are
defined more fully in the answers to Question 4 below.
 Your legal rights are affected whether you act or don’t act. Read this notice carefully.
YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT

STAY IN THE CLASS A $100 million Small Developer Assistance Fund will be established as a result
AND FILE A CLAIM of this settlement. If you received an email or mail notification from the
Settlement Administrator about this lawsuit, that means that Apple has
DEADLINE: _______
determined from its records that you may be a Settlement Class Member and may
be entitled to a cash payment from the Small Developer Assistance Fund. To
claim a settlement benefit, you must submit a timely and valid Claim Form via
http://smallappdeveloperassistance.com or by mail at the address on the Claim
Form.
If you submit a Claim Form, you will lose the ability to bring a separate lawsuit
against Apple regarding the subject matter of the claims this settlement resolves.
(See Questions 11-13.)
ASK TO BE If you decide to exclude yourself from this settlement, you will lose the ability to
EXCLUDED FROM obtain payment from the Small Developer Assistance Fund. But you may keep
THE SETTLEMENT the ability to bring a separate lawsuit against Apple regarding the subject matter
of the claims this settlement resolves. This is the only option that allows you to
DEADLINE: ______
sue, continue to sue, or be part of another lawsuit against Apple related to the
subject matter of the claims in this case. (See Questions 14-16.)
OBJECT TO THE If you do not exclude yourself from the settlement, you may still object to it by
SETTLEMENT writing to the Court to explain the basis for your objection. (See Question 20.)
1
DEADLINE: ______
PARTICIPATE IN THE You may object to the settlement and ask the Court for permission to speak at the
HEARING ON Final Approval Hearing about your objection. (See Question 24.)
________
DO NOTHING (NO If you take no action, you get no payment and you give up your legal right to
DEADLINE) continue to sue Apple for claims related to this case.
 These rights and options – and the deadlines to exercise them – are explained in this Notice.
 The Court overseeing this case still has to decide whether to grant final approval to the settlement.
 This Notice summarizes the proposed settlement. For the precise terms and conditions of the
settlement, you can review the complete settlement agreement by visiting the website at
http://smallappdeveloperassistance.com, by contacting class counsel (contact info listed under
Question 17 below), by accessing the Court docket in this case, for a fee, through the Court’s
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, or
by visiting the office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, between 9:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays.
PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK’S OFFICE TO

INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS.
2
WHAT THIS NOTICE CONTAINS
BASIC INFORMATION Page

1. Why was this notice issued? 4
2. What is this lawsuit about? 4
3. Why is there a settlement? 4
WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT? Page

4. How do I know if I am part of the settlement? 4
5. What does a “U.S. Developer” mean? 5
6. What is an “associated developer account”? 5
7. What are App Store “proceeds”? 5
8. Do I need to calculate my App Store proceeds? 5
THE SETTLEMENT’S BENEFITS Page

9. What does the settlement provide? 6
10. How much will my payment be? 7
HOW TO GET A SETTLEMENT PAYMENT Page

11. What do I have to do to get my payment? 7
12. When will I get a payment? 8
13. What rights am I giving up to get a payment? 8
EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT Page

14. How do I exclude myself from the settlement? 9
15. If I exclude myself, can I still get a payment from this settlement? 9
16. If I exclude myself from the settlement, can I sue Apple for the same claims later? 9
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING THE CLASS Page

17. Do I have a lawyer in this case? 9
18. How will the lawyers be paid? 9
19. May I get my own lawyer? 10
OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT Page

20. How do I object? 10
21. What’s the difference between objecting and excluding myself? 10
THE COURT’S FINAL APPROVAL HEARING Page

22. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the settlement? 11
23. Do I have to participate in the hearing? 11
24. May I speak at the hearing? 11
IF YOU DO NOTHING Page

25. What happens if I do nothing at all? 11
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Page

26. Are more details available? 12
3
BASIC INFORMATION
1. Why was this notice issued?
A federal Court authorized this Notice because you have a right to know about the proposed settlement
of this class action lawsuit and all of your options before the Court decides whether to approve the
proposed settlement. This Notice explains the lawsuit, the settlement, your legal rights, what benefits
are available, and who can get them.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
(the “Court”) is currently overseeing this case and will decide whether to grant final approval to the
settlement. The case is known as Cameron et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR.
2. What is this lawsuit about?
Plaintiffs Donald Cameron and Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc. (the “Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit against
Apple Inc. (the “Defendant”) claiming that Apple had monopolized (or attempted to monopolize) an
alleged iOS app and in-app-product distribution services market in violation of the federal antitrust laws,
and that Apple’s conduct violated California’s Unfair Competition Law.
Plaintiffs claim that Apple willfully acquired and maintained monopoly power, or attempted to gain and
maintain monopoly power, by refusing to allow iOS device users to purchase iOS apps and in-app
products other than through its own App Store; refusing to allow other app stores to be allowed on its
devices; and mandating that iOS developers who sell through the App Store cannot sell their apps though
any other means that are meant to reach iOS device consumers. Plaintiffs also alleged that Apple abused
its market power by charging a supra-competitive commission, or by making artificially low payments
to iOS developers for digital products sold in the App Store. Plaintiffs also challenged Apple’s end-in
$.99 pricing tiers as anticompetitive.
3. Why is there a Settlement?
The Court did not decide in favor of the Plaintiffs or Apple. Instead, the Plaintiffs and Apple agreed to
a settlement. This way, the Parties avoid the cost, burden, and uncertainty of litigation. The Class
Representatives and their attorneys think the settlement is best for all Settlement Class Members. Apple
denies that it did anything wrong and denies that its conduct harmed developers but has agreed to the
Settlement to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty associated with further litigation. In addition,
Apple agreed to this Settlement to provide additional assistance to the small developer community that
is an integral part of the iOS ecosystem.
WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT?
4. How do I know if I am part of the settlement?
The Court decided that everyone who fits this description and chooses not to request to be excluded is
a member of the Settlement Class:
4
All former or current U.S. Developers of any Apple iOS application or in-app product (including
subscriptions) sold for a non-zero price via Apple’s iOS App Store that earned, through all Associated
Developer Accounts, Proceeds equal to or less than $1,000,000.00 through the App Store U.S. storefront
in every calendar year in which the U.S. Developer had a Developer Account from 2015-2021. For class
definition purposes, the 2015 calendar year shall consist of June 4, 2015 through December 31, 2015.
The 2021 calendar year shall consist of January 1, 2021 through April 26, 2021, the last date in 2021
for which there are available developer transactional data as produced in this Action.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (a) directors, officers, and employees of Apple or its subsidiaries
and affiliated companies, as well as Apple’s legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, (b) the
Court, the Court staff, as well as any appellate court to which this matter is ever assigned and its staff,
(c) Defense Counsel, as well as their immediate family members, legal representatives, heirs, successors,
or assigns, (d) any Developers who validly request exclusion (“opt out”) from the Settlement Class, and
(e) any other individuals whose claims already have been adjudicated to a final judgment.
Based on the records obtained by Class Counsel, there are approximately 67,000 potential Class
Members.
5. What does a “U.S. Developer” mean?
A U.S. Developer is an app developer who self-identified as U.S.-based when registering for a Developer
Program Account with Apple.
If you received a notice by email or postcard, it means that according to Apple’s records, you identified
as a U.S.-based app developer when registering for your developer account.
6. What is an “associated developer account”?
An Associated Developer Account means any U.S. Apple Developer Program account that you own or
control, or any U.S. Apple Developer Program account that owns or controls your account.
You must identify any and all Associated Developer Accounts on your Claim Form.
7. What are App Store “proceeds”?
App Store proceeds mean a developer’s net revenues on the U.S. App Store storefront, after subtracting
out any commissions paid to Apple.
8. Do I need to calculate my App Store proceeds?
No. The App Store proceeds for your developer account and any Associated Developer Accounts will
be calculated based on Apple’s records to confirm that you are eligible to receive a payment from the
settlement. Only U.S.-based developers who earned, through all of their Associated Developer
Accounts, proceeds equal to or less than $1,000,000.00 through the App Store U.S. storefront in every
calendar year in which those developers had developer accounts between 2015 and 2021 are eligible.
For purposes of calculating proceeds to determine eligibility, the 2015 calendar year shall consist of June
5
4, 2015 through December 31, 2015. The 2021 calendar year shall consist of January 1, 2021 to April
26, 2021.
If you believe that your proceeds have not been calculated correctly, please contact the Settlement
Administrator at [[email]] or [[phone number]].
If you are still unsure if you are a Settlement Class Member, please visit
http://smallappdeveloperassistance.com, email [[email address]], or call [[number]].
If you did not receive a notice, but think you may be a Settlement Class Member, you can still file a
Claim Form. More information on how to do so is available at http://smallappdeveloperassistance.com.
THE SETTLEMENT’S BENEFITS
9. What does the settlement provide?
Under the settlement, if approved, Apple has agreed to the following commitments:
 Maintain a commission rate of no greater than 15% for U.S. Developers who are enrolled
participants in the Small Business Program, subject to program participation requirements.
 Continue to drive App Store search results primarily by objective characteristics, including but
not limited to downloads, star ratings, text relevance, and user behavior signals. Apple may also
continue to include apps based on other characteristics, such as similar goals or developer
association, as well as to give new and high-quality apps a chance to be found. Apple will also
continue to conduct robust experimentation to drive continuous improvement.
 Permit all U.S. Developers to communicate with their customers via email and other
communication services outside their app about purchasing methods other than in-app purchase,
provided that the customer consents to the communication and has the right to opt out. In-app
communications, including via Apple Push Notification service, are outside the scope of this
provision. Apple will revise its App Store Guidelines to permit the foregoing for all app
categories, including by deleting from Guideline 3.1.3 the following language: “Developers
cannot use information obtained within the app to target individual users outside of the app to use
purchasing methods other than in-app purchase (such as sending an individual user an email about other
purchasing methods after that individual signs up for an account within the app).”
 Expand the choice of price points for subscriptions, in-app purchases, and paid apps from fewer
than 100 to more than 500 (by December 31, 2022).
 Maintain the option for U.S. Developers to appeal the rejection of an app based on unfair
treatment and add online content to the app review portion of Apple’s developer website
(https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/) to explicitly note that a developer can appeal the
rejection of an app when the developer believes that there has been unfair treatment by Apple in
the review of any of the U.S. Developer’s apps, in-app products, or updates.
 Publish an annual transparency report that will convey meaningful statistics such as the number
of apps rejected for different reasons, the number of customer and developer accounts
6
deactivated, objective data regarding search queries and results, and the number of apps removed
from the App Store.
In light of the contributions made by small developers to the app economy, particularly as the economy
continues to suffer the effects of the Coronavirus pandemic, Apple also has established a $100 million
Small Developer Assistance Fund as part of this settlement. After deducting any Court-approved
attorneys’ fees and expenses, service awards, and the costs of settlement notice and administration, the
net Small Developer Assistance Fund will be made available to Settlement Class Members who submit
timely and valid Claim Forms.
10. How much will my payment be?
The Small Developer Assistance Fund will be distributed to all Settlement Class Members who submit
timely and valid Claim Forms. Each such U.S. Developer will be entitled to a minimum payment of
$250.00. U.S. Developers may qualify for a higher payment based on their total proceeds during the
relevant period (from June 4, 2015-April 26, 2021).
Total U.S. App Store Proceeds Potential Minimum Payment

(during relevant time period)
Less than $100 $250
$100 - $1,000 $500
$1,000 - $5,000 $1,000
$5,000 - $10,000 $1,500
$10,000 - $50,000 $2,000
$50,000 - $100,000 $3,500
$100,000 - $250,000 $5,000
$250,000 - $500,000 $10,000
$500,000 - $1,000,000 $20,000
Over $1,000,000 $30,000
These minimum payments are subject to change based on the total number of approved claims, among
other factors. Settlement Class Members may visit http://smallappdeveloperassistance.com for their
specific estimated payment amounts from the settlement.
HOW TO GET A SETTLEMENT PAYMENT
11. What do I have to do to get my payment?
If you received a notice by email and/or mail indicating that Apple believes that you may be a Settlement
Class member, you can submit a claim by online or by mail. You must fill out and submit a complete
an accurate Claim Form so that it is received by [deadline date]. Claim Forms can be found and
submitted electronically at http://smallappdeveloperassistance.com. Settlement Class Members also
7
have the option of downloading a Claim Form and submitting by U.S. mail to [address]. If your Claim
Form is incomplete, contains false information, or is not received by the deadline, your claim will be
rejected. The Settlement Administrator may contact you to request more information to verify your
claim. The information you provide will be treated as confidential and used for the purpose of this
Settlement only.
If you did not receive a notice by email and/or mail but believe that your are a Settlement Class member,
you may obtain and submit a Claim Form available at http://smallappdeveloperassistance.com.
12. When will I get a payment?
The Court will hold a hearing at ______ on ______ to decide whether to grant final approval to the
settlement. If the Court approves the settlement, there may be objections. It is always uncertain whether
objections will be filed and, if so, how long it will take to resolve them. Settlement payments will be
distributed to Settlement Class Members who have submitted timely and valid Claim Forms as soon as
possible, if and when the Court grants final approval to the settlement and all objections (if any) have
been resolved.
We expect most payments on approved claims will be made via electronic distribution. However, you
will also have the opportunity to request that a check be mailed to you by the Settlement
Administrator. Following distribution of funds from the Small Developer Assistance Funds to
Settlement Class Members that submitted approved claims, funds remaining from the distribution may,
with approval of the Court, be donated to Girls Who Code, a nonprofit organization working to close
the gender gap in technology, or to another similar charitable organization as agreed on by the Parties
and approved by the Court.
Note that the Court may also elect to move the Final Approval Hearing to a different date or time in its
sole discretion. The date and time of the Final Approval Hearing can be confirmed at
http://smallappdeveloperassistance.com.
13. What rights am I giving up to get a payment?
Unless you exclude yourself, regardless of whether or not you submit a Claim Form, you will be part of
the Settlement Class. If the settlement is approved and becomes final, all of the Court’s orders will apply
to you and legally bind you. You won’t be able to sue, or be part of any other lawsuit against Apple
related to the subject matter of this lawsuit or the claims released by the Settlement Agreement. The
specific claims you will be releasing are described in more detail in paragraph 10.1 of the Settlement
Agreement, available at http://smallappdeveloperassistance.com.
EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT
If you want to keep any ability to sue Apple related to the subject matter of this lawsuit or the claims
released by the Settlement Agreement, and you do not want to receive a payment from this lawsuit, then
you must take steps to get out of the Settlement. This is called excluding yourself or “opting out” of the
settlement.
8
14. How do I exclude myself from the settlement?
To exclude yourself from the settlement, you must mail or otherwise deliver a letter (or request for
exclusion) stating that you want to be excluded from the Cameron et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:19-
cv-03074-YGR (N.D. Cal.) settlement. Your letter or request for exclusion must include your name and
address, and identify all of your Apple Developer Accounts. You must mail or otherwise deliver your
exclusion request no later than [DATE], to:
Cameron et al. v. Apple Inc., Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
15. If I exclude myself from the settlement, can I still get a payment from this settlement?
No. You will not be eligible for any payment from the Small Developer Assistance Fund if you exclude
yourself from the settlement. You can only get a payment if you stay in the Settlement Class.
16. If I exclude myself from the settlement, can I sue Apple for the same claim later?
If you exclude yourself, you may be able to sue Apple regarding the subject matter of this lawsuit or the
claims released by the Settlement Agreement. If you do not exclude yourself, you give up your right to
sue Apple related to the subject matter of this lawsuit or the claims released by the Settlement Agreement.
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING THE CLASS
17. Do I have a lawyer in this case?
The Court appointed the following attorneys to represent potential class members as “Class Counsel”:
Steve W. Berman
Robert F. Lopez
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
1301 Second Ave., Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
[email protected]
They are experienced in handling similar class action cases. More information about these lawyers, their
law firm, and their experience is available at www.hbsslaw.com. They believe, after conducting an
extensive investigation, that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the
Settlement Class. You will not be charged for these lawyers.
18. How will the lawyers be paid?
9
Class Counsel attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses will be paid from the Small Developer Assistance
Fund in amounts to be determined and awarded by the Court. The petition for attorneys’ fees will seek
no more than 30% of the Small Developer Assistance Fund for Class Counsel, and the petition for costs
will seek no more than $3.5 million. The Court may award less than the sums requested. Under the
Settlement, any amount awarded to Class Counsel will be paid out of the Small Developer Assistance
Fund.
Subject to approval by the Court, each Class Representative will be paid up to $5,000.00 from the
Settlement Fund.
A copy of Class Counsel’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and for Named plaintiff Service
Awards will be available at http://smallappdeveloperassistance.com by [[DATE]].
19. May I get my own lawyer?
You are not required to hire your own lawyer because Class Counsel is working on your behalf.
However, if you want your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.
OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
20. How do I object?
If you are a Settlement Class Member and have not excluded yourself from the settlement, you can ask
the Court to deny approval of the settlement by submitting an objection. You cannot ask the Court to
order a different settlement; the Court can only approve or reject the settlement agreed to by the Parties.
If the Court denies approval, no settlement payments will be sent out and the lawsuit will continue. If
that is what you want to happen, you must file an objection.
Any objection to the settlement must be in writing. If you submit a timely written objection, you may,
but are not required to, participate in the Final Approval Hearing, either in person or through your
attorney. If you appear through your own attorney, you are responsible for hiring and paying that
attorney. All written objections and supporting papers must:
 clearly identify the case name and number (Cameron et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-
03074-YGR);
 be submitted to the Court, either by mailing the objection to Clerk of Court, United States District
Court, Northern District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, or by filing it in
person at any location of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California;
and
 must be postmarked or filed on or before [[DATE]].
21. What’s the difference between objecting and excluding myself?
10
Objecting is simply telling the Court that you don’t like something about the settlement. If you are part
of the Settlement Class, you can object to the settlement only if you stay in the Settlement Class (do not
exclude yourself). Excluding yourself from the settlement is telling the Court that you don’t want to be
part of the settlement. If you exclude yourself from the settlement, you cannot object to the settlement
because it no longer affects you.
THE COURT’S FINAL APPROVAL HEARING
The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement, including the potential
payments to Settlement Class Members. You may participate and you may ask to speak, but you don’t
have to do so.
22. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the settlement?
The Court will hold a final approval hearing at _______ on __________________, at the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland,
CA 94612. The hearing may be moved to a different date or time without additional notice, so it is a
good idea to check the website at http://smallappdeveloperassistance.com to confirm the details.
At this hearing the Court will consider whether to approve the settlement, Class Counsel’s request for
attorneys’ fees and expenses, and the service awards to the Named Plaintiffs. If there are objections, the
Court will consider them at this time. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the
settlement. The Court’s decision may be appealed.
23. Do I have to participate in the hearing?
No. Class Counsel will answer questions the Court may have. However, you are welcome to participate
in the hearing at your own expense. If you send an objection, you do not have to participate in the
hearing. As long as you submitted your written objection on time, to the proper address, the Court will
consider it. You may also pay your own lawyer to participate, but that is not necessary.
24. May I speak at the hearing?
Yes. You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Final Approval Hearing.
IF YOU DO NOTHING
25. What happens if I do nothing at all?
If the Court gives final approval to the settlement, and you are a Settlement Class Member and you do
nothing, you will not receive a payment from the Small Developer Assistance Fund. This is because
you need to submit a valid and timely Claim Form in order to be eligible for a payment. Apple’s
behavioral commitments, as described in Question 9, will still apply to you. You will still give up the
rights explained in Question 13, including your right to start a lawsuit or be part of any other lawsuit
against Apple related to the subject matter of this lawsuit or for claims released by the Settlement
Agreement.
11
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
26. Are more details available?
The notice summarizes the proposed settlement. More details, including the Settlement Agreement and
other related documents, are at http://smallappdeveloperassistance.com. You may also call toll-free at
[[NUMBER]] or write to [[ADDRESS]]. Inquiries should NOT be directed to the Court.
12
EXHIBIT C
From: Settlement Administrator <<email address>>

Subject: Class Action Notice: Cameron et al. v. Apple Inc
CLAIMANT ID NUMBER: <<Claimant ID Number>>

CONFIRMATION CODE: <<Confirmation Code>>
LEGAL NOTICE
A court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation.
If you are a U.S. app developer that has not earned more than $1,000,000 per year selling
apps and digital content on Apple Inc.’s U.S. App Store in any year you had a developer
account since June 2015, you could be entitled to substantial benefits under a class action
settlement.
WHAT IS THIS NOTICE ABOUT?

In a consolidated class action lawsuit pending against Apple, Plaintiffs claimed that Apple
monopolized (or attempted to monopolize) an alleged iOS app and in-app product distribution
services market in violation of U.S. and California antitrust laws. Apple denies all allegations and
is entering into this settlement to avoid burdensome and costly litigation and to provide additional
assistance to the small app developer community. The Settlement is not an admission of
wrongdoing by Apple. This notice summarizes your legal rights. You should visit the settlement
website, www.SmallAppDeveloperAssistance.com, to obtain more detailed information about the
proposed Settlement and your rights. You also can contact the Settlement Administrator by mail,
email or by calling toll-free:
Cameron v. Apple, Inc.

c/o Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Email: [email protected]
Toll-Free: [Toll Free Number]
AM I A CLASS MEMBER?
You are a “Settlement Class Member” if you are a former or current U.S. Developer of any Apple
iOS application or in-app product (including subscriptions) sold for a non-zero price via Apple’s
iOS App Store that earned, through all Associated Developer Accounts, Proceeds equal to or less
than $1,000,000.00 through the App Store U.S. storefront in every calendar year in which you had
a Developer Account from 2015 to 2021. For class definition purposes, the 2015 calendar year
shall consist of June 4, 2015 through December 31, 2015. The 2021 calendar year shall consist of
January 1, 2021 through April 26, 2021, the last date in 2021 for which there are available
developer transactional data as produced in this Action. To claim a Settlement benefit, you must

submit a Claim Form on or before [DATE] at www.SmallAppDeveloperAssistance.com, or, after

downloading a Claim Form available on this website, returning it by mail to address on the Claim
Form, received by [DATE].
WHAT BENEFIT CAN I GET FROM THE SETTLEMENT?

Under the settlement, Apple has agreed to, among other things, (1) maintain a commission rate of
no greater than 15% for U.S. developers who are enrolled in Apple’s Small Business Program,
subject to program participation requirements; (2) permit U.S. developers to communicate with
their customers via email and other communication services outside their iOS app about
purchasing methods other than in-app purchase; and (3) expand the choice of price points for
subscriptions, in-app purchases, and paid downloads (by December 31, 2022). Apple will also
pay $100,000,000 into a Small Developer Assistance Fund. Apple will provide a cash payment
from the Fund to each eligible Class Member who submits a timely and valid Claim Form. Each
eligible Class Member with a valid claim will be entitled to a minimum payment of between $250
and $30,000, depending on the U.S. developer’s App Store proceeds. You can visit the settlement
website, www.SmallAppDeveloperAssistance.com, to determine the minimum payment for which
you may be eligible. Please note that the actual cash payment may be more depending on the total
number of approved claims and other factors.
HOW CAN I EXCLUDE MYSELF FROM THE CLASS?

If you don’t want to make a Claim and you don’t want to be legally bound by the settlement, your
request to be excluded must be received by [DATE], or you will not be able to sue, or continue to
sue, Apple over the conduct at issue in this case. Refer to the settlement website
www.SmallAppDeveloperAssistance.com and the detailed Class Notice for information and
instructions on how to exclude yourself.
HOW CAN I OBJECT?

If you want to stay in the Settlement Class, but you want to object to the settlement and/or to Class
Counsel’s request for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, your objection must be received by [DATE].
Refer to the settlement website and the detailed Class Notice for information and instructions on how
to object. The Court will consider objections at a Final Hearing in this case (Cameron, et al. v. Apple
Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR) on [Time/DATE] at the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland Courthouse, Courtroom 1, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA
94612, to consider whether to approve (1) the settlement; (2) Class Counsel’s request for Attorneys’
Fees and Expenses; and (3) Named Plaintiff Service Awards of up to $5,000. You may appear at the
Final Hearing, but you don’t need to. The date of the Final Hearing may change without further
notice and may be confirmed on the Court’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER)
site, for a fee, at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov. Information about the Final Hearing will also be
posted on the settlement website.
WHERE CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION?

Please visit the settlement website at www.SmallAppDeveloperAssistance.com, or call toll free
[NUMBER] to obtain more complete information about the proposed settlement and your rights.
You may also write to Class Counsel at: Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 1301 Second Ave.,
Suite 2000, Seattle, WA 98101 or email Class Counsel at [email protected].

Unsubscribe

EXHIBIT D
If you are a U.S. app RETURN ADDRESS

developer that has not
earned more than
$1,000,000 per year
selling apps and digital
content on Apple Inc.’s
U.S. App Store in any
year you had a «ScanString»
developer account Postal Service: Please do not mark barcode
since June 2015, you
could be entitled to
benefits under a class Claim ID: «Claim ID»
action settlement. «FirstName» «LastName»
For more information on the «Address1»
proposed settlement, to file a claim «Address2»
or objection, or to exclude yourself,
visit the settlement website or «City», «StateCd» «Zip»
contact the Claims Administrator «CountryCd»
or Class Counsel.
Do not contact the Court for

information about the
settlement.
www.SmallAppDeveloperAssistance.com
PLEASE RETAIN THIS POSTCARD FOR YOUR RECORDS

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
In a consolidated class action lawsuit pending against Apple, Plaintiffs claimed that Apple monopolized (or attempted to monopolize) an alleged iOS app and
in-app product distribution services market in violation of U.S. and California antitrust laws. Apple denies all allegations and is entering into this settlement to
avoid burdensome and costly litigation and to provide additional assistance to the small app developer community. The Settlement is not an admission of
wrongdoing by Apple. This notice summarizes your legal rights. You should visit the settlement website to obtain more detailed information about the proposed
Settlement and your rights. You also may write to the Claims Administrator at the address on the reverse side, or call toll free [NUMBER].
Am I a Class Member? Yes, if you are a current or former U.S. Developers of any Apple iOS application or in-app product (including subscriptions) sold
for a non-zero price via Apple’s iOS App Store that earned, through all Associated Developer Accounts, Proceeds equal to or less than $1,000,000.00 through
the App Store U.S. storefront in every calendar year in which the U.S. Developer had a Developer Account from 2015-2021. For class definition purposes,
the 2015 calendar year shall consist of June 4, 2015 through December 31, 2015. The 2021 calendar year shall consist of January 1, 2021 through April 26,
2021. To claim a Settlement benefit, you must submit a Claim Form on or before [DATE] at www.SmallAppDeveloperAssistance.com, or by mail at the
address on the Claim Form, received by [DATE].
What benefit can I get from the settlement? Under the settlement, Apple has agreed to, among other things, (1) maintain a commission rate of no
greater than 15% for U.S. developers who are enrolled in Apple’s Small Business Program, subject to program participation requirements; (2) permit U.S.
developers to communicate with their customers via email and other communication services outside their iOS app about purchasing methods other than in-
app purchase; and (3) expand the choice of price points for subscriptions, in-app purchases, and paid downloads. Apple will also pay $100,000,000 into a
Small Developer Assistance Fund. Apple will provide a cash payment from the Fund to each eligible Class Member who submits a timely and valid Claim
Form. Each eligible Class Member with a valid claim will be entitled to a minimum payment of between $250 and $30,000, depending on the U.S. developer’s
App Store proceeds. You can visit the settlement website to determine the minimum payment for which you may be eligible. Please note that the actual cash
payment may be more depending on the total number of approved claims and other factors.
How can I exclude myself from the class? If you don’t want to make a Claim and you don’t want to be legally bound by the settlement, your request to be
excluded must be received by [DATE], or you will not be able to sue, or continue to sue, Apple over the conduct at issue in this case. Refer to the settlement
website and the detailed Class Notice for information and instructions on how to exclude yourself.
How can I object? If you want to stay in the Settlement Class, but you want to object to the settlement and/or to Class Counsel’s request for Attorneys’ Fees and
Expenses, your objection must be received by [DATE]. Refer to the settlement website and the detailed Class Notice for information and instructions on how to
object. The Court will consider objections at a Final Hearing in this case (Cameron, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR) on [Time/DATE] at the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Courthouse, Courtroom 1, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, to consider whether to approve
(1) the settlement; (2) Class Counsel’s request for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses; and (3) Named Plaintiff Service Awards of up to $5,000. You may appear at the
Final Hearing, but you don’t need to. The date of the Final Hearing may change without further notice and may be confirmed on the Court’s Public Access to Court
Electronic Records (PACER) site, for a fee, at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov. Information about the Final Hearing will also be posted on the settlement website.

PLEASE RETAIN THIS POSTCARD FOR YOUR RECORDS

Where can I get more information? Please visit the settlement website at www.SmallAppDeveloperAssistance.com or call toll free [NUMBER] to obtain
more complete information about the proposed settlement and your rights. You may also email Class Counsel at: [email protected].

EXHIBIT E
CLAIM FORM
Your claim must be Cameron v. Apple, Inc.
submitted online or received 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 CAM
by mail no later than Philadelphia, PA 19103
[deadline date]
Claim Form and Instructions
INSTRUCTIONS
Please read these instructions carefully. If you need assistance completing the Claim Form, please visit
www.SmallAppDeveloperAssistance.com and go to the FAQ page, or reference the Class Notice available on the Important
Documents page. If you still have questions, you may send an email to the Settlement Administrator at:
[email protected].
Deadline and Submission Method. By no later than [deadline date], Claim Forms must be either (a) submitted online or
(b) printed, mailed and received by the Settlement Administrator via U.S. mail.
Eligibility. The Settlement will provide a cash payment if you are a former or current U.S. Developer of any Apple iOS
application or in-app product (including subscriptions) sold for a non-zero price (i.e., paid downloads or in-app purchases
of digital content (including subscriptions)) via Apple’s iOS App Store that earned, through all Associated Developer
Accounts, proceeds equal to or less than $1,000,000.00 through the App Store U.S. storefront in every calendar year in
which you had a developer account from 2015 to 2021. For class definition purposes, the 2015 calendar year shall consist
of June 4, 2015 through December 31, 2015. The 2021 calendar year shall consist of January 1, 2021 through April 26,
2021.
Your payment amount will be determined by the Proceeds earned from all of your Associated Developer Accounts.
You must fill out and submit a complete and accurate Claim Form so that it is received by [deadline date]. If your Claim
Form is incomplete, contains false information, or is not received by the deadline, your claim will be rejected. The
Settlement Administrator may contact you to request more information to verify your claim. The information you provide
will be treated as confidential and used for the purpose of this Settlement only.
Please retain a copy of this Claim Form for your records.

CLAIM FORM
[deadline date]
I. CLAIMANT INFORMATION
Provide your name and contact information below. You must notify the Settlement Administrator if your contact
information changes after you submit this form.
Claimant Name: ______________________________________ _____________________________________
First Name Last Name
Company Name: _______________________________________________________________________________
Current Street Address: __________________________________________________________________________
City: State: __ Zip Code: ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Phone Number: (_____) _______ - ___________________
Email Address: ____________________________________
List all of your Associated Developer Accounts below:

1 6
2 7
3 8
4 9
5 10
II. PAYMENT SELECTION & ATTESTATION
Please select one of the following payment options:
PayPal - Enter your PayPal email address: ____________________________________________________
Venmo - Enter the mobile number associated with your Venmo account: __ __ ___-__ ___ __-__ ____ __ __
Virtual Prepaid Card - Enter your email address: _______________________________________________
Physical Check - Payment will be mailed to the address provided above.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the information above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief,
and that I have provided all of my Associated Developer Accounts above. I understand that my claim is subject to audit,
review, and validation using all available information.
________________________________________________ ________________________

CLAIM FORM
[deadline date]
SIGNED DATED


10
OAKLAND DIVISION
11

13 Plaintiffs, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
14 v. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS
ACTION SETTLEMENT WITH
15 DEFENDANT APPLE INC.
APPLE INC.,
16
Defendant.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 This matter comes before the Court on Developer Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary
2 Approval of Class Action Settlement with Defendant Apple Inc. (“Motion”).
3 WHEREAS, Developer Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and of the
4 proposed stipulated settlement class (“Settlement Class”), and Defendant Apple Inc., have agreed,
5 subject to Court approval following notice to the Settlement Class and a hearing, to settle the
6 above-captioned matter (“Lawsuit”) upon the terms set forth in the Developer Plaintiff-Apple Inc.
7 Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) (attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of
8 Steve W. Berman in Support of Developer Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of
9 Settlement With Defendant Apple Inc.);
10 WHEREAS, this Court has reviewed and considered the Settlement Agreement entered
11 into between the parties, the record in this case, and the briefs and arguments of counsel;
12 WHEREAS, Developer Plaintiffs have applied for an order granting preliminary approval
13 of the settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement (“Settlement”) and directing notice to the
14 Settlement Class (defined in paragraph 3 below) in connection with the Settlement Agreement
15 pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
16 WHEREAS, this Court preliminarily finds, for purposes of settlement only, that the action
17 meets all the prerequisites of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
18 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have presented sufficient information, pursuant to the Federal
19 Rules, to justify directing notice of the Settlement to the Settlement Class;
20 WHEREAS, all defined terms contained herein shall have the same meanings as set forth
21 in the Settlement Agreement;
22 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
23 1. The Court hereby preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement and the
24 Settlement set forth therein, finding that it is likely to approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable,
25 and adequate pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2), subject to further consideration at a hearing (the “Fairness
26 Hearing”).
27 2. The Fairness Hearing shall be held before this Court on ___________, 2021, at 200
28 p.m., at the United States District Court, located in Courtroom 1 – 4th Floor, at 1301 Clay Street,
[PROP.] ORDER GRANTING DEVELOPER PLS.’ MOT. FOR
PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT WITH APPLE INC. –
-1-
1 Oakland, CA 94612 to determine whether to approve certification of the Settlement Class for
2 settlement purposes; whether the proposed settlement of the Lawsuit on the terms and conditions
3 provided for in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class
4 and should be approved by the Court; whether a final judgment should be entered herein; whether
5 the proposed plan of distribution should be approved; to determine the amount of fees and
6 expenses that should be awarded to Class Counsel; and to determine the amount of the service
7 awards that should be provided to class representatives. The Court may adjourn the Fairness
8 Hearing without further notice to the members of the Settlement Class.
9 3. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court
10 preliminarily certifies, for purposes of effectuating this settlement, a Settlement Class as follows:
11 All former or current U.S. Developers of any Apple iOS application or in-app
product (including subscriptions) sold for a non-zero price via Apple’s iOS App
12 Store that earned, through all Associated Developer Accounts, Proceeds equal to or
less than $1,000,000.00 through the App Store U.S. storefront in every calendar
13
year in which the U.S. Developer had a Developer Account from 2015-2021. For
14 class definition purposes, the 2015 calendar year shall consist of June 4, 2015
through December 31, 2015. The 2021 calendar year shall consist of January 1,
15 2021 through April 26, 2021, the last date in 2021 for which there are available
developer transactional data as produced in this Action. Additionally, excluded
16 from the Settlement Class are (a) directors, officers, and employees of Apple or its
subsidiaries and affiliated companies, as well as Apple’s legal representatives,
17
heirs, successors, or assigns, (b) the Court, the Court staff, as well as any appellate
18 court to which this matter is ever assigned and its staff, (c) Defense Counsel, as
well as their immediate family members, legal representatives, heirs, successors, or
19 assigns, (d) any Developers who validly request exclusion (“opt out”) from the
Settlement Class, and (e) any other individuals whose claims already have been
20 adjudicated to a final judgment.
21
22 4. The Court designates Donald R. Cameron and Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc. as the
23 class representatives for the Settlement Class.
24 5. The Court designates Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP as Class Counsel for the
25 Settlement Class.
26 6. Having found that it will likely approve the Settlement and certify the Settlement
27 Class for purposes of settlement with Apple Inc., the Court hereby directs Plaintiffs to give notice
28 of the Settlement to the Settlement Class.

-2-
1 7. The Court approves as to form and content the proposed notice forms, including the
2 Class Notice, Email Notice, and Postcard Notice, as well as the proposed Claim Form, attached as
3 Exhibits B to E, respectively, to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion Group Regarding
4 The Proposed Notice Program (“Weisbrot Declaration”). The Court further finds the proposed
5 contents of these notices, and the proposed plan of notice described in the Weisbrot Declaration,
6 meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process, and are the best
7 notice practicable under the circumstances and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all
8 persons entitled thereto.
9 8. The Court appoints the firm of Angeion Group LLC (“Settlement Administrator”)
10 to supervise and administer the notice procedure as well as the processing of claims as more fully
11 set forth below:
12 a. No later than 45 days from the entry of this Preliminary Approval Order,
13 the Settlement Administrator shall establish a public, case-specific website at the following web
14 address: SmallAppDeveloperAssistance.com. The website shall make available the full version of
15 the Settlement Agreement, the Preliminary Approval Order, and the Claim Form, in both an
16 electronically fillable form and in a format that may be downloaded and/or printed;
17 b. Beginning no later than 45 days from the entry of this Preliminary Approval
18 Order, the Settlement Administrator shall provide e-mail notice, substantially in the form annexed
19 as Exhibit C to the Weisbrot Declaration, to all Settlement Class Members whose email addresses
20 can be identified with reasonable effort;
21 c. Beginning no later than 45 days from the entry of this Preliminary Approval
22 Order, the Settlement Administrator shall cause the Postcard Notice to be mailed via the United
23 States Postal Service first-class mail, postage prepaid, substantially in the form annexed as Exhibit
24 D to the Weisbrot Declaration to all Settlement Class Members whose addresses can be identified
25 with reasonable effort.
26 9. The claims period shall commence 45 days from the entry of this Preliminary
27 Approval Order, and shall continue through and including 165 days from the entry of this Order.
28
-3-
1 10. Class Counsel shall file their motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards
2 for the class representatives, and all supporting documentation and papers, by 75 days from the
3 entry of this Preliminary Approval Order, or thirty days before the deadline for exclusions and
4 objections.
5 11. Any person who desires to request exclusion from the Settlement Class must do so
6 by 105 days from the entry of this Preliminary Approval Order, and such request for exclusion
7 shall be in the form of a letter mailed or otherwise delivered to the Settlement Administrator
8 stating that the person wants to be excluded from the Cameron et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:19-
9 cv-03074-YGR (N.D. Cal.) settlement, and the letter must include the person’s name and address,
10 and identify all of the person’s Apple Developer Accounts. All persons who submit valid and
11 timely requests for exclusion shall have no rights under the Settlement Agreement, shall not share
12 in the distribution of the settlement funds, and shall not be bound by the final judgments relating
13 to Defendant Apple Inc. entered in the litigation.
14 12. Any member of the Settlement Class may enter an appearance in the litigation, at
15 his or her own expense, individually or through counsel of his or her own choice. If the member
16 does not enter an appearance, he or she will be represented by Class Counsel.
17 13. Any member of the Settlement Class may appear and show cause, if he or she has
18 any reason, why the proposed settlement should or should not be approved as fair, reasonable, and
19 adequate; why a judgment should or should not be entered thereon; why the plan of distribution
20 should or should not be approved; why attorneys’ fees and expenses should or should not be
21 awarded to Class Counsel; or why the service awards should or should not be awarded to the class
22 representatives. All written objections and supporting papers must (a) clearly identify the case
23 name and number (Donald R. Cameron, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR), (b) be
24 submitted to the Court either by mailing them to the Class Action Clerk, United States District
25 Court for the Northern District of California, 1301 Clay St, Oakland, CA 94612, or by filing it in
26 person at any location of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California;
27 and (c) be filed or postmarked on or before 105 days from the entry of this Preliminary Approval
28 Order.
-4-
1 14. All papers in support of the settlement and responses by Class Counsel regarding
2 objections and exclusions shall be filed and served by 145 days from the entry of this Preliminary
3 Approval Order.
4 15. All reasonable expenses incurred in identifying and notifying members of the
5 Settlement Class, as well as administering the Settlement Fund, shall be paid for as set forth in the
6 Settlement Agreement.
7 16. Neither the Settlement Agreement, nor any of its terms or provisions, nor any of the
8 negotiations or proceedings connected with it, shall be construed as an admission or concession by
9 plaintiffs or Defendant Apple Inc., respectively, of the truth or falsity of any of the allegations in
10 the Lawsuit, or of any liability, fault or wrongdoing of any kind.
11 17. Any member of the Settlement Class who does not properly and timely request
12 exclusion from the Settlement Class, upon final approval of the Settlement, shall be bound by the
13 terms and provisions of the Settlement so approved, including, but not limited to, the releases,
14 waivers, and covenants set forth in the Settlement Agreement, whether or not such person or entity
15 objected to the Settlement Agreement and whether or not such person or entity makes a claim
16 upon the settlement funds.
17
18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
DATED: , 2021
20 HONORABLE YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-

CameronVSApple ProposedSettlement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CameronVSApple ProposedSettlement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CameronVSApple ProposedSettlement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 4:19-cv-03074-YGR Document 396 Filed 08/26/21 Page 1 of 37

1 Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice)

7 Shana E. Scarlett (SBN 217895)

16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19 DONALD R. CAMERON, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-03074-YGR

20 Plaintiffs, DEVELOPER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

6 Civil Procedure 23 for an order:

7 1) preliminarily approving the proposed class action settlement with Apple

2 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................................... 1

3 II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 2

4 A. Procedural History ............................................................................................... 2

5 B. The Settlement ..................................................................................................... 3

6 1. The Settlement Negotiations ................................................................... 3

7 2. The Settlement Consideration and Release of Claims ............................ 4

8 a. Monetary Relief ........................................................................... 4

9 b. Structural Relief........................................................................... 5

10 c. Settlement Release....................................................................... 8

1 f. Plaintiffs Intend to Request Reasonable Service Awards for

6 Allapattah Servs. Inc v. Exxon Corp.,

11 In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.,

16 Brown v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,

19 In re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig.,

24 Churchill Vill., LLC v. Gen. Elec.,

1 Garner v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.,

6 Hesse v. Sprint Corp.,

11 In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig.,

16 In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig.,

21 In re Nat’l Collegiate Athl. Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig.,

1 In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig.,

6 Staton v. Boeing Co.,

10 In re Urethane Antitrust Litig.,

12 iOS app development a more productive enterprise.

21 committed to revise its “anti-steering” Guidelines to permit app developers to communicate

26 least $35.44 million in value.

9 plan of distribution to Settlement Class members.

13 only the primary events.

18 app developers supracompetitive commissions.

26 that Developer Plaintiffs and their experts have extensively analyzed.

12 the strengths and vulnerabilities of their case.

14 1. The Settlement Negotiations

5 settlement process confirms that the settlement is non-collusive.”).

6 2. The Settlement Consideration and Release of Claims

8 claims. These elements of the Settlement are addressed in turn below.

15 historic proceeds from distributing apps in the App Store.

16 PROCEEDS TIER PERCENTAGE OF THE MINIMUM PAYMENT

8 Decl., Ex. A at § 6.3.

17 Commissions / Small Business Program. Through the Settlement, Apple acknowledges

24 See id. at § 5.1.1. This is a valuable assurance to the Settlement Class.

2 in an accompanying declaration. As Mr. Czeslawski explains, the Settlement “furthers the

17 This injunctive relief is extremely valuable. By informing customers of alternative

3 years from Final Approval.

5 “conduct robust experimentation to drive continuous improvement” in App discoverability,

4 customers plans that suit their specific needs.”).

22 [Apple’s] very large digital store.” Id.

1 3. The Notice and Distribution Plan

17 addresses. See Weisbrot Decl. at ¶¶ 14-22.