Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re Quantcast Advertising Cookie Litig.

June 13, 2011

IN RE QUANTCAST ADVERTISING COOKIE LITIG. IN RE CLEARSPRING FLASH COOKIE LITIG.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: George H. WU Judge of the United States District Court

JS -6

FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT

WHEREAS defendants American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.; Demand Media, Inc.; ESPN, Inc.; Fox Entertainment Group; Hulu, LLC; JibJab Media, Inc.; MTV Networks, a division of Viacom International Inc.; MySpace, Inc.; NBC Universal, Inc; Scribd, Inc.; Soapnet, LLC; Walt Disney Internet Group; and Warner Bros. Records Inc.; as well as nonparties News Corporation, an affiliate and the ultimate parent of Defendants Fox Entertainment Group and MySpace, Inc.; Viacom Inc., of which Defendant MTV Networks is a division of a subsidiary, Viacom International Inc.; The Walt Disney Company, an affiliate and the ultimate parent of Defendants American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., ESPN, Inc., Soapnet, LLC and Walt Disney Internet Group; and Warner Music Inc. (these entities together being referred to herein as the "Undertaking Parties"), operate or service a large number of internet websites.

WHEREAS defendants Quantcast Corporation ("Quantcast") and Clearspring Technologies, Inc. ("Clearspring") employ technologies used by the Undertaking Parties and many other companies on their internet websites.

WHEREAS Defendants (defined herein as American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.; Demand Media, Inc.; ESPN, Inc.; Fox Entertainment Group; Hulu, LLC; JibJab Media, Inc.; MTV Networks, a division of Viacom International Inc.; MySpace, Inc.; NBC Universal, Inc; Scribd, Inc.; Soapnet, LLC; Walt Disney Internet Group; and Warner Bros. Records Inc.,; Quantcast; and Clearspring) and the Undertaking Parties may use local shared objects that may be stored on computers or other devices in Adobe Flash Media local storage ("LSOs").

WHEREAS Plaintiffs contend that Defendants used or deposited LSOs and HTTP "cookies" ("Cookies") on the computers or devices of website visitors without adequate disclosure; used LSOs to regenerate or redeposit Cookies after a user deleted those Cookies; used Cookies, LSOs to obtain or provide information from or about a user contrary to either the user's consent or intent; and tracked users, shared their information or displayed advertising to them without sufficient notice.

WHEREAS, on July 23, 2010 and July 30, 2010, the Valdez, et al. v. Quantcast Corporation, et al. and Aguirre v. Quantcast Corporation, et al. complaints were filed against Quantcast (and other defendants). Collectively, these complaints alleged violations of (i) the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030; (ii) the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510; (iii) the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710; (iv) California's Computer Crime Law, Penal Code § 502; (v) California's Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code § 630; (vi) the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code § 17200; (vii) the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (viii) Unjust Enrichment; and (ix) California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, California Civil Code § 3426. On September 21, 2010, the Valdez, et al. v. Quantcast Corporation, et al. and Aguirre v. Quantcast Corporation, et al. actions were consolidated by order of the court in the Central District of California as In Re Quantcast Advertising Cookie Litig., No. 2:10-cv-05484-GW and in which an amended complaint as to all related matters against Quantcast was filed on December 6, 2010.

WHEREAS, the complaints in White, et al. v. Clearspring Technologies, Inc., et al., Intzekostas v. Fox Entertainment Group, et al., and Rona v. Clearspring Technologies, Inc. were filed respectively on August 10, 2010, September 10, 2010, and October 18, 2010 alleging claims against Clearspring (and other defendants). Collectively these complaints alleged violations of (i) the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030; (ii) California's Computer Crime Law, Penal Code § 502; (iii) California's Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code § 630; (iv) the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750; (v) the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code § 17200; (vi) Trespass to Personal Property/Chattels; (vii) Unjust Enrichment; and (viii) the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510. On October 13, 2010, the White, et al. v. Clearspring Technologies, Inc., et al. and Intzekostas v. Fox Entertainment Group, et al. actions were consolidated by order of the court in the Central District of California as In Re Clearspring Flash Cookie Litig., No. 2:10-cv-05948-GW, and in which an amended complaint as to all related matters against Clearspring was filed on December 6, 2010.

WHEREAS, commencing in October 2010, certain of the Parties conducted a series of settlement negotiations including, among other things, an in-person mediation conducted by the Mediator on October 19, 2010, during which those Parties each represent that they have candidly aired the strengths and weaknesses in their respective litigation positions.

WHEREAS, Defendants and their affiliated Undertaking Parties deny any and all wrongdoing whatsoever.

WHEREAS, Class Counsel have conducted extensive research and investigation relating to the claims and the underlying events and transactions alleged in the Complaint during the prosecution of the Litigation which included: (a) the interview of the Representative Plaintiffs and analysis of their computers to assess the potential claims of each individual; (b) the review of public statements, including consumer-facing statements on Defendants' websites, press releases attributed to Defendants, and articles about Defendants; (c) analysis of Defendants' interactions with web browsers; and (d) research of the applicable law with respect to the claims asserted in the Complaint and arguments asserted by Defendants. Although Class Counsel believe that the claims asserted against Defendants in the Litigation have substantial merit, Class Counsel recognize and acknowledge that continued prosecution of the Litigation through trial and possible appeal would be protracted and expensive.

WHEREAS, Class Counsel and Defendants recognize and acknowledge that continued prosecution of the Litigation through trial and possible appeal would be protracted and expensive, and the outcome uncertain.

WHEREAS, each of the Parties and counsel believes, in consideration of all the circumstances and after substantial arms' length settlement negotiations between counsel, that its interests are best served by entering into the settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and that this proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class.

WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement defines "Protected Persons" as Defendants and the Undertaking Parties, and each of their respective past and present officers, directors, employees, insurers, agents, representatives, investors, customers, partners, joint-venturers, parents, subsidiaries (defined as any entity in which a Defendant or Undertaking Party owns or controls at least 50% of the voting securities or the right to elect a majority of the members of the board of directors or by contract or otherwise controls such entity), affiliates, attorneys, successors and assigns; as well as all Persons that used, deployed or caused the deployment of, in online interactions with Class Members Clearspring's Launchpad and/or Add This products; and all Persons in connection with whom defendants Quantcast, Clearspring, or an Undertaking Party deposited a Cookie, LSO or similar technology on a Class Member's browser, computer or device.

WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement among the parties defines "Released Claims" as "Any and all claims for payment, non-economic or injunctive relief of any kind or nature and any and all liabilities, demands, obligations, losses, actions, causes of action, damages, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and any and all other claims of any nature whatsoever, based on any of the laws, regulations, statutes or rules cited, evidenced or referenced by such allegations and statements, or any other claims, including but not limited to: all claims, including unknown claims, as set forth in Section 5.3 below, arising from or relating to (i) any of the allegations, facts or statements set out in, or to any claim that was or could have been brought in any of the Complaints; (ii) Defendants', the Undertaking Parties' and their subsidiaries' and affiliates' use of LSOs; alleged depositing of Cookies or LSOs on the computers of persons who accessed one or more of Defendants', the Undertaking Parties' or their subsidiaries' or affiliates' websites or other online content (in the case of the Undertaking Parties, their subsidiaries and affiliates, whether such Cookies or LSOs were deposited by or through an Undertaking Party, a subsidiary or affiliate thereof, Quantcast, Clearspring or any other Person); the regeneration or redeposit of Cookies after a user deleted those Cookies; or the alleged obtaining or provision of information from or about a user contrary to either the user's consent or intent; and (iii) claims that Defendants, the Undertaking Parties or their subsidiaries or affiliates allegedly tracked users, shared their information or displayed advertising to them without sufficient notice. Without limiting the foregoing, for avoidance of doubt, the definition of Released Claims is intended to provide any Protected Person that is an Undertaking Party or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof with a full release from all claims Class Counsel presently is pursuing involving LSOs and similar technologies in other cases, specifically:

Davis v. VideoEgg, Inc., No. CV 10 7112 (C.D. Cal.); La Court v. Specific Media, Inc., No. 10-CV-1256 JVS (C.D. Cal.); Aughenbaugh v. Ringleader Digital, Inc., No. 10-CV-1407-CJC-RNB (C.D. Cal.); and Hillman v. Ringleader Digital, Inc., No. 10-CV-8315 (S.D.N.Y.); and such other similar case(s) as to which the Parties may agree in writing from time to time prior to the date approved by the Court for persons to object to or exclude themselves from the Settlement, which agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld by any Party and which writing(s) shall be deemed as amending and incorporated into this section 1.1. Notwithstanding the foregoing, excluded from Released Claims are all claims related to the use or deployment of non-Quantcast and nonClearspring LSOs by any Person other than the Defendants or the Undertaking Parties."

WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement provides for the release of Released Claims against all Protected Persons.

WHEREAS, the Parties have engaged in intensive, complex, difficult and hard-fought arm's-length negotiations; and

WHEREAS, as a result of those lengthy negotiations, the Parties have been able to reach an agreement to settle these Actions; and

WHEREAS, by the terms of the proposed Settlement of this Action, in exchange for the dismissal of the Action with prejudice, dismissal of all Released Claims with prejudice, and for entry of this Final Order and Judgment, the Defendants and Undertaking Parties shall take all the actions required by the Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to the establishment of the Settlement Fund, the terms of which are expressly incorporated by reference herein, in accordance with the procedures set forth therein.

WHEREAS, on March 3, 2011, this Court entered a Hearing Order (the "Hearing Order"), which, inter alia:

(a) conditionally certified, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a class consisting of all persons in the United States who, during the Class Period, used any web browsing program on any device to access one or more internet sites controlled, operated or sponsored by Defendants, Undertaking Parties News Corporation, Viacom Inc. or The Walt Disney Company or subsidiaries of affiliates thereof; or any other internet site employing any of Clearspring's or Quantcast's technologies involving the use of HTTP "cookies" ("Cookies") or local shared objects stored in Adobe Flash Media local storage ("LSOs");

(b) appointed Jennifer Aguirre; A.A., a minor, by and through her parent Guardian Ad Litem, Jose Aguirre; Alan Bonebrake; Alejandro Godoy; Byron Griffith; J.H., a minor, by and through his parent, Guardian Ad Litem, Jeff Hall; R.H., a minor by and through her parent Guardian Ad Litem, Jeff Hall; Mary Huebner; Erica Intzekostas; Jose Marquez; Kira Miles; Toni Miles; Terrie J. Moore; Austin Muhs; David Rona; Brittany ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.