Court filing

Exhibit A-14 to Declaration of Susan Fahringer — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 186-4, N.D. Cal. No. 3:21-cv-01418)

Filed March 28, 2023 in Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation; one of 127 filings from this case.

Record facts

Court	U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Filed	2023-03-28

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC · Doc. 186-4 · 2023-03-28 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

EXHIBIT A-14
REDACTED - PUBLICLY FILED VERSION OF DOC. 151-14
PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER,
DATED MARCH 21, 2023 (DOC. 178)
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 1 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

1 Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAT BROOKS and RASHEED
SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC
v.
THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,
Honorable Edward M. Chen

Defendants.

REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. RAN KIVETZ

CONFIDENTIAL
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 2 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. ASSIGNMENT AND QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................ 4
B. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ............................................ 8
C. OVERVIEW OF THE TUROW REPORT ...................................................................... 15
D. THE TUROW REPORT FAILS TO PROVIDE ANY EMPIRICAL OR
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF COMMON CLASSWIDE INJURY ALLEGEDLY
SUFFERED BY THE PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS DUE TO CLEAR, AND DR.
TUROW’S CITED RESEARCH AND ANALYSES DO NOT SUBSTANTIATE
HIS CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 20
D.1. To Evaluate Whether Consumers Derive Harm or Utility from a Product at Issue, It is
Necessary to Empirically Assess Consumers’ Perceptions and Preferences
Regarding the Challenged Product in its Relevant Context........................................ 21
D.2. Dr. Turow Inappropriately Conflates Scholars’ Definitions of Privacy with
Consumers’ (and the Putative Class Members’) Perceptions and Preferences of
Privacy ........................................................................................................................ 27
D.3. Dr. Turow’s Cited Research About Consumers’ Perceptions Does Not Substantiate
His Assumptions or Conclusions ................................................................................ 36
D.3.1. The Results from the Turow, Hennessy, and Draper (2015) Working Paper
are Irrelevant to Each of the Turow Report’s Three Assumptions ................. 39
D.3.2. The Results from the NTIA Survey Contradict Dr. Turow’s Assumptions 1
and 2................................................................................................................ 41
D.3.3. The Results from the ValuePenguin Survey Contradict Dr. Turow’s
Assumption 2 ................................................................................................... 45
D.3.4. The Results from the boyd and Marwick (2011) Conference Paper
Contradict Dr. Turow’s Assumptions 1 and 2 ................................................ 48
D.3.5. The Results from the 2015 Pew Research Center Survey Contradict Dr.
Turow’s Assumption 1 and Fail to Support Assumption 2 ............................. 50
D.3.6. The Results from the 2019 Pew Research Center Survey Contradict Dr.
Turow’s Assumptions 1 and 3, and Fail to Support Assumption 2 ................. 56
D.3.7. Conclusion: Dr. Turow’s Cited Research About Consumer Perceptions
and Preferences Do Not Substantiate His Assumptions ................................. 63
D.4. Dr. Turow Fails to Provide Evidence of Any Concrete, Specific (Actual or Likely)
Negative Outcome Suffered by a Single Putative Class Member, Let Alone
Commonly Classwide ................................................................................................. 64
D.5. Dr. Turow’s Claim that CLEAR is Not Journalism is Irrelevant to His Opinions
About the Alleged Classwide (or Individualized) Harm or About Consumers’
Supposed Perceptions or Preferences Regarding Privacy in the Context of CLEAR 73
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 3 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
E. THE TUROW REPORT IGNORES RELEVANT EMPIRICAL RESEARCH, AS
WELL AS FACTS ABOUT CLEAR AND THE MARKETPLACE, WHICH
INDICATE A LACK OF COMMON CLASSWIDE INJURY DUE TO CLEAR ........ 74
E.1. When Concluding that the Putative Class Members Were Commonly Injured, the
Turow Report Fails to Account for Relevant Contextual Factors and Empirical
Evidence that Indicate a Lack of Commonality in Consumers’ Perceptions and
Preferences Regarding Privacy and Information About Themselves ......................... 75
E.2. When Concluding that the Putative Class Members Were Commonly Injured, the
Turow Report Fails to Account for How CLEAR’s Various Use Cases (and
Potential Benefits) Can Affect Consumers’ Perceptions and Preferences .................. 83
E.3. When Concluding that the Putative Class Members Were Commonly Injured, the
Turow Report Fails to Account for How CLEAR’s Various Safeguards Can Affect
Consumers’ Perceptions and Preferences ................................................................... 89
E.4. The Turow Report Ignores the Existence in the Marketplace of Many Products
Analogous to CLEAR and the Likely Impact on Consumers’ Perceptions,
Expectations, and Preferences .................................................................................... 95
F. FSG’S MODEL TO ASSESS MONETARY RELIEF IS NOT RELATED TO DR.
TUROW’S OPINIONS, AND FSG FAILS TO PROPOSE ANY METHODOLOGY
FOR APPORTIONING MONETARY RELIEF ACROSS THE PUTATIVE
CLASS .................................................................................................................................. 99
F.1.
The FSG Report Fails to Relate an Assessment of Monetary Relief to Any
Opinions Outlined in the Turow Report ................................................................... 100
F.2.
The FSG Report Does Not Specify Any Methodology for Apportioning Monetary
Relief Across the Putative Class Members ............................................................... 102
EXHIBIT A: CURRICULUM VITAE OF DR. RAN KIVETZ ........................................... 105
EXHIBIT B: LIST OF CASES IN WHICH DR. RAN KIVETZ PROVIDED SWORN
TESTIMONY IN DEPOSITION AND/OR TRIAL DURING THE PAST FOUR
YEARS ............................................................................................................................... 133
EXHIBIT C: DOCUMENTS MADE AVAILABLE TO DR. RAN KIVETZ IN
CONNECTION WITH PREPARATION OF THIS REBUTTAL EXPERT
REPORT ............................................................................................................................. 135
EXHIBIT D: EXAMPLES OF CLEAR USE CASES ........................................................... 146

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 4 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
A.
ASSIGNMENT AND QUALIFICATIONS
1.
My name is Dr. Ran Kivetz. I have been asked by counsel for Thomson
Reuters Corporation (hereinafter, “Thomson Reuters”) to evaluate the report of Dr. Joseph
Turow (hereinafter, the “Turow Report”),1 which was submitted in this matter2 on behalf
of the Plaintiffs. I was also asked to evaluate whether the report of Mr. Terry Lloyd on
behalf of the Finance Scholars Group, Inc. (hereinafter, “FSG” and the “FSG Report”)3: (i)
relates to the opinions set forth in the Turow Report; and (ii) proposes any methodology
that could be used to apportion monetary relief across the putative class.
2.
I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this report and, if
called to testify at a hearing or trial in this matter, would so state.
3.
I am the Philip H. Geier, Jr., Professor of Marketing at Columbia
University Business School. A copy of my curriculum vitae, which includes a complete
list of my publications, is attached as Exhibit A.
4.
I earned a Ph.D. in Business from Stanford University, Graduate School of
Business; a Master’s degree in Psychology from the Stanford University Psychology
Department; and a Bachelor’s degree from Tel Aviv University with majors in
Economics and Psychology.
5.
My field of expertise encompasses consumer psychology and behavior;
survey methods; marketing management; behavioral economics; human judgment,
perception, and decision making; consumer and sales incentives; and branding. Most of
my research has focused on buyers’ purchase behavior; survey design; and the effect of
product characteristics (e.g., brand, features, quality, price), the competitive context, and
marketing activities (e.g., promotions, incentives, loyalty programs, advertising,
branding) on purchase decisions and perceptions.

1 “Report of Professor Joseph Turow,” signed June 1, 2022 (hereinafter, the “Turow Report”).
2 “Class Action Complaint,” in the matter of Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz v. Thomson Reuters
Corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC (hereinafter, “Complaint”).
3 “Report of Finance Scholars Groups, Inc.,” signed June 1, 2022 (hereinafter, the “FSG Report”).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 5 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
6.
I have received multiple research awards and nominations, including: (i) the
“Ferber Award” from the Association for Consumer Research, which is the largest
association of consumer researchers in the world; (ii) the “Best Competitive Paper
Award” from the Society of Consumer Psychology, which is the premier association of
consumer psychologists in the world; (iii) the “Early Contribution Award” from the
Society of Consumer Psychology; (iv) five finalist nominations, for the 2016, 2011, 2009,
2007, and 2005 “O’Dell Award,” given to the article in the Journal of Marketing
Research (the major journal on marketing research issues) that has had the greatest
impact on the marketing field in the previous five years; (v) two finalist nominations for
the 2007 and the 2005 “Green Award,” given to the Journal of Marketing Research
article published in the prior year that “demonstrates the most potential to contribute
significantly to the practice of marketing research and research in marketing”; (vi) three
finalist nominations for the awards for the “Best Article” published in the Journal of
Consumer Research between 2002 and 2005, between 2006 and 2009, and between 2011
and 2014; (vii) having my research selected by The New York Times in its Annual Year in
Ideas as one of the “Best Ideas in 2006”; (viii) being rated as the third most prolific
scholar in the leading marketing journals during 1982 – 2006;4 and (ix) being ranked by
the American Marketing Association as one of the Top 50 most productive scholars in the
premier marketing journals during 2009 – 2013 and during 2010 – 2014.
7.
At Columbia University, I have taught MBA and Executive MBA courses
on Marketing Strategy and Management, Customer Centricity and Innovation, High-
Technology Marketing and Entrepreneurship, and Marketing of a Nation, covering such
topics as developing marketing strategies, buyer behavior, customer segmentation,
customer acquisition and retention, competitive strategies, branding, pricing, advertising,

4 Seggie, Steven H. and David A. Griffith (2009), “What Does It Take to Get Promoted in Marketing
Academia? Understanding Exceptional Publication Productivity in the Leading Marketing Journals,”
Journal of Marketing, 73(1), 122 – 132.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 6 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
sales promotions, and behavioral economics. In addition to teaching MBA and Executive
MBA courses, I have guided and supervised numerous MBA student teams in their work
on company and industry projects dealing with a variety of markets. I also have taught in
various executive education programs, including programs for senior executives,
programs for marketing managers in high-technology companies, programs for marketing
managers in pharmaceuticals, programs in entrepreneurship, programs on marketing and
innovation, and programs on customer centricity.
8.
I have taught several doctoral courses at Columbia University. One
doctoral course, titled “Bridging Behavioral Economics and Marketing Science,”
examines human judgment and decision-making and its application to marketing science.
The course focuses on understanding, predicting, and quantitatively modeling (including
by employing conjoint analysis models) different phenomena and biases in judgment and
decision making. A second doctoral course deals with consumer behavior, covering such
topics as the processes underlying choices and judgments, and their influence on
purchase decisions, attitudes, and persuasion. Both of these courses focus on modeling
the various stages involved in a research project, including defining the problem to be
investigated, selecting and developing the research approach, data collection and
analysis, and deriving conclusions. I have guided and supervised numerous Ph.D.
students in their research. I have also served as the advisor for multiple Ph.D. students
who are or were professors at such institutions as University of Chicago Booth School of
Business, Harvard Business School, National University of Singapore (NUS), Tsinghua
University, and The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
9.
I have conducted, supervised, and evaluated well over 1,000 marketing
research surveys, including many related to consumer behavior and decision making,
likelihood of confusion, sales promotions, marketing strategies, branding, trademark, and
advertising-related issues.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 7 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
10.
I serve on three editorial boards and as a frequent reviewer, including for
leading journals in our field, such as the Journal of Marketing Research. I have served as
a Guest Editor for the Journal of Marketing Research and as a Guest Associate Editor for
Marketing Science and Management Science. I have served on the editorial board of, and
received the “Outstanding Reviewer Award” from, the Journal of Consumer Research. I
have also served on the editorial boards of the Journal of Consumer Psychology and the
International Journal of Research in Marketing. I am a frequent reviewer of articles
submitted to journals in other fields, such as psychology, decision making, and
economics. As a reviewer, I am asked to evaluate the research of scholars wishing to
publish their articles in leading scholarly journals.
11.
I have served as an expert witness for the Federal Trade Commission.
12.
I have worked as a consultant for companies and organizations on a variety
of topics, including strategy, marketing, consumer behavior and perception, promotions,
branding, advertising, and incentives. Additionally, I have served as an expert in
litigation and adversarial proceedings, including in front of the National Advertising
Division of the Better Business Bureau National Programs (“NAD”), involving various
marketing and buyer behavior issues, false advertising, market surveys, patent
infringement, trademark and trade dress related matters, branding, retailing, promotions,
and other areas. I have also been invited to present at the annual NAD Law Conference.
13.
My opinions and testimony have been favorably cited and relied upon by
courts across the U.S.5

5 See, e.g., The People of the State of California v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. et al., Case No.
BC643037 (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles 2021) (noting, e.g., that: “As
carefully reviewed by Kohl’s rebuttal expert, Ran Kivetz, Ph.D., who the Court found highly competent and
entirely credible based on his outstanding academic credentials, his thorough research into Dr. Compeau’s
reports and his appearance and candor while testifying […]”; and “[t]he Court accepts as entirely credible
and supported by sound scientific analysis, the conclusion of Dr. Kivetz, that none of the articles referenced
in Dr. Compeau’s reports provide valid scientific evidence for [Dr. Compeau’s] opinion […]”); Dyson, Inc.
v. Bissell Homecare, Inc., 951 F.Supp.2d 1009, 1019 (N.D. Illinois, 2013) (upholding the methodology,
questions, and coding of my survey and denying Bissell’s motion to exclude my expert report).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 8 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
14.
A list of cases in which I provided sworn testimony at trial and/or by
deposition during the past four years is included in Exhibit B. I am being compensated in
this matter at a rate of $1,000 an hour. My compensation does not depend in any way on
my opinion or the outcome of this matter.
15.
My analyses are based on, inter alia, the brands, products, advertising, and
websites relevant to the data aggregation and online investigation software market;
existing scientific research and treatises regarding survey design, consumer behavior, and
decision making; general principles of marketing and psychology; deposition testimony;
industry research; and materials produced by the parties in this litigation. In conducting
my analysis, I, or support staff at my direction, reviewed certain documents, including, but
not limited to, documents that were made available to me in connection with the
preparation of this Rebuttal Expert Report. Those documents are referenced herein and/or
listed in Exhibit C. I also held a conference call with Kevin Appold, Vice President of
Investigations and Public Records at Thomson Reuters.6
16.
Any, and all, of the opinions expressed herein are held to a reasonable
degree of professional certainty. The information on which I relied consists of the type of
information that is reasonably relied upon in my field of expertise.
B.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
17.
I understand that the Plaintiffs allege that Thomson Reuters’s CLEAR
product, an online investigation software platform, violates Californians’ privacy by
collecting, disseminating, and/or selling individuals’ “personal information” without their
consent and without compensating them. For example, the Complaint states:7
Thomson Reuters’ appropriation and sale of the plaintiffs’ and class members’ names,
photographs, likenesses, and personal information without seeking permission or consent
injured the class members by violating their right to exercise control over the commercial
use of their identities.

6 Interview held on September 1, 2022, with outside counsel (Susan Fahringer and Nicola Menaldo) also
present on the call (hereinafter, “September 1, 2022 Interview”).
7 Complaint, ¶ 101.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 9 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
And:8
Thomson Reuters’ appropriation of the class members’ names, photographs, and other
identifying information was to the company’s economic and commercial advantage. […]
At no time has Thomson Reuters affirmatively sought consent from class members before
appropriating and selling their personal data, nor does it have a process for doing so.
The class members received no compensation for Thomson Reuters’ use of their names,
images, likenesses, and other personal identifying information.
18.
According to the Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class consisting
of (hereinafter, the “putative class”):9
All persons residing in the state of California whose name, photographs, personal
identifying information, or other personal data is or was included in the CLEAR database
during the limitations period [emphasis added].
19.
This report discusses that putative class. To the extent that the Plaintiffs
may subsequently seek certification of a subset of that class, such as a class consisting of
Californians whose personal data is or was disseminated through CLEAR during the
limitations period, my analyses of the Turow Report’s opinions set forth herein also apply
to such a potential narrower putative class.
20.
I understand that CLEAR is a search platform offered by Thomson Reuters
that provides access to data from “records that have been licensed or otherwise acquired
from third-party sources”10 (and accompanying data analytics capabilities) to facilitate
authorized customers’ investigative research for their “own internal business or
government purpose.”11 According to documents produced in this litigation, “authorized
customers” refers to credentialed government organizations and businesses who must (for
each search) certify that they are using CLEAR for a “permissible” use12 and who must

8 Id., ¶¶ 97 – 99; see also id., ¶ 106 (“Thomson Reuters has wrongfully and unlawfully sold the named
plaintiffs’ and the class members’ names, photographs, personal identifying information, and other
personal data without their consent for substantial profits.”).
9 Id., ¶ 70.
10 April 4, 2022 “Defendant Thomson Reuters Corporation’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ First
Set of Interrogatories to Defendant” (hereinafter, “Thomson Reuters’s Responses to First Set of
Interrogatories”), Attachment A, p. 1.
11 Ibid.; September 1, 2022 Interview.
12 See, e.g., Thomson Reuters’s Responses to First Set of Interrogatories, Attachment A, pp. 1 – 2; TR-
BROOKS001363; May 16, 2022 Deposition of Steven Fox (Director of Product Management at Thomson
Reuters; hereinafter, “Fox Deposition”), pp. 159 – 160.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 10 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
undergo continuous, routine audit and compliance requirements.13 I further understand
that CLEAR’s “use cases” (i.e., purposes for which CLEAR is utilized)14 include:
preventing fraud (e.g., identify theft, healthcare fraud, financial fraud); finding missing
persons (e.g., kidnapped children, absentee parents); assisting law enforcement with
criminal investigations (e.g., homicides, rape, drug trafficking, human/sex trafficking,
child exploitation and abuse); supporting compliance with anti-money laundering
regulations; verifying the identity of vendors; and assisting vulnerable individuals (e.g.,
locating relatives of children who would otherwise go to foster care, providing benefits to
veterans).15
21.
It is also my understanding that no data made available to customers
through CLEAR is collected directly from consumers; that nearly all data accessible
through CLEAR was licensed or acquired from a third party (e.g., a government or
commercial entity); and that Thomson Reuters has a licensing agreement with every
third-party vendor from whom it obtains data.16 Throughout this Rebuttal Expert Report,
I use the terms “consumers” to refer to “individuals” and to “the public” (including
Californians). In the context of Thomson Reuters’s CLEAR product, I use “customers”
to refer to users of the CLEAR platform. Further, I use “collected” to refer to a

13 See, e.g., Thomson Reuters’s Responses to First Set of Interrogatories, Attachment A, pp. 2 & 5.
14 See, e.g., May 6, 2022 Deposition of Paul Godlewski (Senior Director of Outbound Product Marketing
at Thomson Reuters; hereinafter, “Godlewski Deposition”), p. 24; May 18, 2022 Deposition of Dori
Buckethal (Vice President of Inbound Product Marketing, Risk and Fraud, at Thomson Reuters;
hereinafter, “Buckethal Deposition”), p. 63.
15 See, e.g., https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/products/clear-investigation-software; Thomson
Reuters’s Responses to First Set of Interrogatories, Attachment A, pp. 2 – 5. I understand that at a higher
level, the CLEAR platform is intended to help customers “prevent” (ex-ante), “detect” (in real time), and
“investigate” (after the fact) crime and fraud, frequently in the context of financial fraud or risk
management; September 1, 2022 Interview. See also https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/products/clear-
investigation-software.
16 See, e.g., September 1, 2022 Interview; TR-BROOKS001363; TR-BROOKS035826; TR-
BROOKS037031; TR-BROOKS037466; TR-BROOKS037609; TR-BROOKS038817; TR-
BROOKS039253. I also understand that Thomson Reuters has certain standards with respect to licensing
contracts with third parties (e.g., such that the terms provide reasonable confidence that a vendor has a
right to license its data and is complying with all applicable rules or regulations); September 1, 2022
Interview.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 11 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
consumer’s information being made available through the CLEAR platform (which the
Plaintiffs have described as the “CLEAR database”17) and “disseminated” to refer to a
consumer’s information being accessed by customers based on the searches they conduct
on the CLEAR platform.
22.
Based on my review and analysis of Dr. Turow’s report and source
materials, as well as the other materials and analyses on which I have relied, along with
my background and expertise, I have reached the following conclusions:
23.
The Turow Report fails to provide any empirical or scientific evidence of
common injury allegedly suffered by the putative class members due to CLEAR, and Dr.
Turow’s cited research and analyses do not substantiate his conclusions. Dr. Turow
argues that all Californians were harmed by CLEAR in the same way because their
“fundamental privacy right”18—which he conceptualizes as “the right to control one’s
information”19 and “the right to be let alone”20—was violated. However, to evaluate
whether consumers derive harm or utility21 from a product at issue, it is necessary to
empirically assess consumers’ perceptions and preferences regarding the challenged
product (in its relevant context). More specifically, although never discussed in his report,
Dr. Turow testified at his deposition that the underlying “privacy rights” he opined on
refer to “ethical and social” rights,22 and that violation of such “ethical and social” rights
does not correspond to any physical injury, financial consequences, loss of property, or
other quantification scheme.23 Dr. Turow’s own deposition testimony and logic therefore

17 E.g., Complaint, ¶ 70.
18 E.g., Turow Report, p. 8.
19 E.g., id., p. 6.
20 E.g., id., p. 9.
21 Utility (in economic terms) refers to the benefit (e.g., satisfaction or usefulness) a consumer derives
from a good or service. See also, e.g., Mankiw, N. Gregory (2012), Principles of Economics, Mason,
OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, p. 447 (“Another common way to represent [consumer]
preferences is with the concept of utility. Utility is an abstract measure of the satisfaction or happiness
that a consumer receives from a bundle of goods. Economics say that a consumer prefers one bundle of
goods to another if one provides more utility than the other.”).
22 August 26, 2022 Deposition of Joseph Turow (hereinafter, “Turow Deposition”), p. 174.
23 See id., pp. 177 – 185 & 188.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 12 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
indicate that any “privacy harms” allegedly caused by CLEAR must exist in consumers’
minds and accordingly be measured according to consumers’ perceptions and preferences.
24.
In reaching his conclusion of common harm, Dr. Turow did not conduct any
survey or empirical research to assess consumers’ perceptions or preferences regarding the
use of their information in a product like CLEAR. Instead, Dr. Turow inappropriately
speculated and extrapolated from various sources to the current litigation. These sources,
as summarized below, do not substantiate (and in many cases directly contradict) the
notion that the putative class members allegedly suffered common harm (including any
“ethical or social”24 harm, to the extent that Dr. Turow relies on such a characterization).
Further, the Turow Report fails to provide any concrete evidence that even a single
putative class member was injured by CLEAR.
25.
First, Dr. Turow inappropriately conflates scholars’ (e.g., legal and
theoretical) definitions of privacy with consumers’ (and the putative class members’)
perceptions and preferences regarding privacy. In particular, the Turow Report invokes
multiple legal, as well as other theoretical, sources to support the conceptualization of
privacy as the right to “control one’s personal information” (and to be “left alone”).25
However, not only do these sources fail to empirically test how consumers would
interpret privacy or how they would respond to having their information be collected or
otherwise used in a product like CLEAR, but, if anything, they contradict Dr. Turow’s
narrow definition of privacy. Any conclusions derived from the Turow Report based on
scholars’ conceptions of privacy would therefore be irrelevant to the putative class
members in this litigation.
26.
Second, the few sources cited in the Turow Report that relate to consumers’
perceptions and preferences do not substantiate Dr. Turow’s assumptions or conclusions.

24 Id., p. 174.
25 E.g., Turow Report, pp. 8 (“These quotes reflect California’s long-standing public policy in favor of
individual privacy through the right to control one’s personal information […]”) & 9 (“California
legislators have also described the right to privacy as ‘the right to be left alone,’ […]).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 13 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Specifically, the six articles that Dr. Turow references are irrelevant to, directly refute, or
simply do not support his key assumptions and opinions. These articles do not support Dr.
Turow’s assumptions and opinions that: (i) consumers commonly conceive privacy as the
right to control their information about them; (ii) consumers are commonly concerned
about controlling their information about them and/or others using that information
(through a CLEAR-like product); and (iii) consumers commonly agree that the harm from
a product like CLEAR outweighs its benefits. Contrary to the Turow Report’s
characterization of privacy, multiple empirical surveys cited by Dr. Turow reveal
considerable variation in how consumers understand privacy, with little to no consensus
among consumers in their concerns or preferences related to the collection and/or
dissemination of information about them.
27.
Third, Dr. Turow fails to provide evidence of any concrete, specific, actual,
or likely negative outcomes suffered by even a single putative class member, let alone
commonly classwide. In fact, Dr. Turow fails to even specify what such harm could entail,
instead asserting (without substantiation) that all Californians have suffered “privacy
harms of lack of control or violation of the right to be let alone”26 due to CLEAR. The
Turow Report’s discussion of alleged classwide injury attributable to CLEAR is
fundamentally unscientific, lacks any empirical basis, and suggests a lack of objectivity.
28.
Fourth, Dr. Turow’s claim that CLEAR is not journalism is irrelevant to his
conclusions about alleged classwide (or individualized) harm or about consumers’
supposed perceptions of privacy in the context of CLEAR.
29.
The Turow Report ignores relevant empirical evidence and facts about
CLEAR and the marketplace that indicate a lack of common classwide injury due to
CLEAR. More specifically: (i) Dr. Turow fails to account for how individual and
contextual factors related to CLEAR—including the specific nature of information

26 Id., p. 4.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 14 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
collected or disseminated—can affect consumers’ perceptions and preferences; (ii) Dr.
Turow fails to account for CLEAR’s various use cases and potential benefits for individual
class members and society as a whole; (iii) Dr. Turow fails to account for CLEAR’s
various safeguards; and (iv) Dr. Turow ignores the prevalence in the marketplace of
products analogous to CLEAR and their likely impact on consumers’ perceptions,
expectations, and preferences. The existence of varying views (and preferences) related to
privacy and the use of information about an individual—particularly when considering
numerous, specific aspects of the CLEAR product—renders the Turow Report’s “blanket”
assertion of common classwide harm invalid, unreliable, and unscientific.
30.
FSG’s model to assess monetary relief is not related to Dr. Turow’s
opinions, and FSG fails to propose any methodology for apportioning monetary relief
across the putative class members. The FSG Report attempts to estimate monetary relief
by calculating Thomson Reuters’s “net profits” that are due to the alleged misconduct. In
arriving at his estimate, Mr. Lloyd (on behalf of FSG) does not rely on or even cite any of
Dr. Turow’s conclusions and in fact does not mention “privacy” or “control [of personal
information]” even once. Rather than citing to any empirical findings that could
ostensibly indicate that common, classwide harm has in fact been inflicted (as the Turow
Report purports to show), the FSG Report does not appear to measure harm at all.
31.
Relatedly, the fact that the putative class members are highly likely to be
heterogenous (i.e., varied) in their perceptions and preferences regarding CLEAR poses a
serious, if not insurmountable, barrier for calculating or assessing monetary relief in this
litigation. In order to apportion such relief across the putative class, an individualized
inquiry into each class member would be necessary. However, Mr. Lloyd has failed to
identify any method (if it even exists) that could plausibly apportion monetary relief in
this litigation.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 15 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
C.
OVERVIEW OF THE TUROW REPORT
32.
In evaluating the reliability and validity of the Turow Report and the
opinions expressed in that report, it is useful to overview Dr. Turow’s stated objectives,
methodology, conclusions, and empirical evidence used to support his opinions.
33.
According to the Turow Report, Dr. Turow attempted to, inter alia:27
[…] apply the methodologies and techniques used in my field of study to the case materials,
discovery to date, academic literature, and other sources detailed in my reliance list in order
to assist the Court in evaluating, at this stage of the case, whether Thomson Reuters’
operation of the CLEAR product affects a privacy interest of Californians in such a way
that all Californians whose information is accessible through CLEAR could claim to
be harmed in the same way [emphasis added].
34.
In formulating his opinions, Dr. Turow did not conduct any empirical survey
designed to test the specific question at issue in this litigation. Instead, Dr. Turow’s
approach purportedly uses “methodologies and techniques [that] include synthesizing
primary source research and academic studies, and contextualizing those findings […].”28
35.
Dr. Turow begins by defining privacy,29 stating that “[i]ndividual privacy
has long included the right to control one’s information and the right to be let alone”30 and
that “[t]hese rights are prominent in the academic literature surrounding individual privacy
and present in California law and policy.”31
36.
In Section III of his report, Dr. Turow proceeds to describe the importance
of individuals’ right to privacy by invoking Greek philosophy,32 human history,33 and
American law since the 19th century.34 The Turow Report argues that individual privacy

27 Turow Report, p. 4.
28 Ibid.
29 I use the terms “privacy,” “individual privacy,” and “information[al] privacy” interchangeably
throughout this Rebuttal Expert Report.
30 Turow Report, pp. 4 – 5.
31 Ibid.
32 Id., p. 6 (“The issue of individuals’ right to privacy, a protected sphere of human existence and a
bedrock concept underlying human dignity and autonomy, is present in scholarly writings as far back as
Socrates and other Greek philosophers.”).
33 Ibid. (“The concept itself is as old as human society, and ties in to those most intimate aspects of
personhood.”).
34 Ibid. (“In American law, and in particular since the late 1800s, informational privacy has centered
around the control of one’s information.”).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 16 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
was not only important historically but is also perceived and valued similarly in the
modern age, ostensibly based on legal scholarship, empirical studies, and qualitative
evidence related to the literature on privacy.35
37.
Citing a 1967 book by the late Alan Westin, lawyer and professor of law and
government (as well as an obituary on the life and work of Westin), Dr. Turow defends
the school of thought that conceptualizes privacy as the right to control access to “one’s
personal information.”36 Dr. Turow then quotes law professor Ari Waldman to argue for
the importance of privacy rights today,37 concluding: “Strip away a lot of privacy, and you
strip away the belief in relationships that keeps the society together.”38
38.
Dr. Turow next cites six (6) academic and industry sources to purportedly
show that consumers’ conceptions and preferences about privacy align with the definition
(based on control of information)39 proposed in the Turow Report.40 Specifically, the
Turow Report references the following: (i) an unpublished working paper coauthored by
Dr. Turow;41 (ii) an online article summarizing results from a survey by the National

35 Id., p. 7.
36 Ibid. (“[…] Alan F. Westin discussed privacy as ‘the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to
determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to
others’ in his widely-cited 1967 work ‘Privacy and Freedom.’ This conception of individual privacy—'the
right to determine how much of [one’s] personal information is disclosed and to whom, how it should be
maintained and how disseminated…became the cornerstone of our modern right to privacy.’ This remains
‘[p]erhaps the most commonly accepted definition of information privacy’” [FNs omitted]).
37 Id., p. 8 (“As Northeastern University law professor Ari Waldman writes, privacy is ‘a facet of social
life that gives people the confidence and moral space to share information with others’” [FN omitted]).
38 Ibid.
39 The Turow Report cites only to legal opinions (i.e., California legislators and a conceptual legal paper)
when discussing the right to be left (or let) alone and does not define exactly what this right entails.
40 Note that Dr. Turow cites to an industry whitepaper from The Rise of Privacy Tech to support his
assumption that consumers view the right to control information as a central part of privacy. See
Turrecha, Lourdes M. and Emily Ashley (2021), “Defining the Privacy Tech Landscape 2021,” The Rise
of Privacy Tech (quoted by Dr. Turow as indicating that control over personal information remains
“[p]erhaps the most commonly accepted definition of information privacy”; Turow Report, p. 7 & FN 9).
However, as I discuss in Subsection D.2, this industry whitepaper includes a summary of surveys in the
appendix that elicited opinions from entrepreneurs at privacy tech startups, and did not test consumer
perceptions or preferences; see Turrecha and Ashley (2021), pp. 44 – 71.
41 Turow, Joseph, Michael Hennessy, and Nora A. Draper (2015), “The Tradeoff Fallacy: How Marketers
Are Misrepresenting American Consumers and Opening Them Up to Exploitation,” Annenberg School
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 17 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA);42 (iii) an online article
summarizing results from a survey by ValuePenguin;43 (iv) an unpublished conference
paper by boyd44 and Marwick (2011) describing qualitative research about teens’ attitudes
toward privacy;45 (v) a 2015 Pew Research Center survey;46 and (vi) a 2019 Pew Research
Center survey.47
39.
After ostensibly establishing that consumers today care about privacy rights,
Dr. Turow opines that “the right to control one’s information is also deeply rooted in
California law.”48 Specifically, describing this right as a “fundamental privacy right,”49 the
Turow Report quotes from a 1972 argument in favor of California’s Proposition 11;50

for Communication, Working Paper. Cited in the Turow Report as finding that “84% of adult Americans
want to have control over what businesses can learn about them online”; id., p. 7 & FN 6.
42 Cao (2021), “Nearly Three-Fourths of Online Households Continue to Have Digital Privacy and
Security Concerns,” National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Internet Use
Survey. Cited by Dr. Turow as supporting the notion that “[t]he majority of Americans believe that
privacy and confidentiality are very important aspects of their lives”; id., pp. 6 – 7 & FN 6.
43 Fitzpatrick (2019), “Beware! Survey Finds 43% of Americans Have Been Victim of a Cybercrime,”
ValuePenguin; cited for the idea that “[c]ontemporary research continues to support the principle that
consumers view the right to control their information as central to individual privacy” and quoted for the
finding that “‘51% of Americans list their top data concern as companies selling their personal
information or using it against them”; ibid.
44 The author’s legal name, “danah boyd,” is styled in lowercase.
45 boyd, danah and Alice Marwick (2011), “Social Privacy in Networked Publics: Teens’ Attitudes,
Practices, and Strategies,” A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and
Society. Used by Dr. Turow to also support the notion that consumers perceive the right to control their
information as important to privacy; Turow Report, pp. 7 – 8 & FN 9.
46 Madden, Mary and Lee Rainie (2015), “Americans’ Attitudes About Privacy, Security and
Surveillance,” Pew Research Center. Referenced in the Turow Report as indicating, inter alia, that “93%
of American adult report that ‘being in control of who can get information about them is important,’ and
‘90% say that controlling what information about them is important’”; id., pp. 6 – 7 & FN 6.
47 Auxier, Brooke, Lee Rainie, Monica Anderson, Andrew Perrin, Madhu Kumar, and Erica Turner
(2019), “Americans and Privacy: Concerned, Confused and Feeling Lack of Control Over Their Personal
Information,” Pew Research Center. Quoted by Dr. Turow as “noting that when Americans were asked
for their own definitions of the words ‘privacy’ and ‘digital privacy,’ they ‘most often mention about the
role other people and organizations can play in learning about them, their desire to shield their personal
activities and possessions, and their interest in controlling who is given access to their personal
information’”; id., p. 7 & FN 9.
48 Id. p. 8.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid. (“These quotes reflect California’s long-standing public policy in favor of individual privacy
through the right to control one’s personal information—a public policy that extends to law enforcement
use of personal information.”).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 18 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
relatedly, to support the legal basis for the second part of his conception of privacy (i.e., the
right “to be left [or let] alone”), Dr. Turow references Californian legislators51 and a 1890
Harvard Law Review article by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis.52 However, Dr.
Turow does not directly define this right to be “let alone,” and does not draw any clear
distinctions between such a right and the right to control “one’s personal information.”
40.
Section IV of the Turow Report seeks to develop Dr. Turow’s key
conclusion, namely, that Thomson Reuters’s CLEAR product has caused “privacy and
economic harm”53 by “diminish[ing] Californians’ right to control their personal
information and to be let alone.”54 In characterizing the harm that could arise from
CLEAR, Dr. Turow contends:55
[E]very Californian whose information is accessible through CLEAR has suffered the
same fundamental privacy harm of a lack of control and violation of their right to be let
alone. Regardless of how expansive an individual’s report may be, no Californian has
control over the information in or use of dossiers about them. In these critical ways, all
Californians face these same harms. [Emphasis added]
41.
Asserting that he has not seen any evidence that Thomson Reuters
“investigates that a customer’s use is, in fact, permissible,”56 Dr. Turow briefly discusses
CLEAR’s purported inability to prevent authorized customers from viewing information
about individuals irrelevant to the focus of their investigation.57 Dr. Turow then attempts
to argue that “permissible use” on the CLEAR platform is irrelevant, claiming that:58

51 Id. p. 9 (“It is a fundamental and compelling interest. It protects our homes, our families, our thoughts,
our emotions, our expressions, our personalities, our freedom of communion and our freedom to associate
with the people we choose. It prevents government and business interests from collecting and stockpiling
unnecessary information about us and from misusing information gathered for one purpose in order to
serve other purposes or to embarrass us.”).
52 Warren, Samuel D. and Louis D. Brandeis (1890), “The Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review, 4(5),
193 – 220; see ibid.
53 Id., p. 5.
54 Id., p. 9.
55 Id. p. 13.
56 Id., p. 14.
57 Ibid. (“In addition, although it seems that the ‘permissible use’ may be tied to the person the customer
initially looks up, a customer may nevertheless run a ‘person search’ in a way that results in that customer
viewing information that pertains to other individuals unrelated to the target of their investigation (and
accordingly, unrelated to the customer’s selected permissible use).”).
58 Id., pp. 14 – 15.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 19 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
[W]hether a person has consented to the sale of their data has nothing to do with whether
Thomson Reuters lists the use as permissible. And so, whatever the function of a customer
certifying a purportedly permissible use, it does nothing to solve the privacy harms of lack
of control or violation of the right to be let alone. […]
In addition, the right to be let alone, as mentioned, protects against “business interests from
collecting and stockpiling unnecessary information about us and from misusing
information gathered for one purpose in order to serve other purposes.” That aptly
describes Thomson Reuters’ CLEAR, even if Thomson Reuters places certain limitations
on the use of its product. Ultimately, Californians are harmed in these ways, whether
their profiles are used for what Thomson Reuters deems a permissible use or not,
because Thomson Reuters controls the CLEAR profiles of Californians for its own
commercial purposes. [Emphasis added; FNs omitted]
42.
After opining on Thomson Reuters’s alleged lack of effort to inform the
public about CLEAR or to give Californians control to correct or remove their
information,59 the Turow Report reiterates its conclusion that CLEAR “deprives all
Californians of the right to control their personal data,”60 claiming further that the harms
inflicted by CLEAR are “particularly worrisome” according to privacy scholars,61
“concrete,”62 and have “material” (i.e., economic) consequences.63 Dr. Turow also likens
CLEAR’s aggregation of data and its “dossiers” to “theft of a person’s persona,” which is
“[a]kin to theft of personal property,”64 and which causes the same harm regardless of

59 See, e.g., id., pp. 15 (“With its CLEAR product, Thomson Reuters fails to follow the social importance
of ensuring individuals are not blindsided by the unknown and unwanted collection and use of
information about themselves. In fact, discovery demonstrates that Thomson Reuters is disinterested in
helping members of the public learning about the data Thomson Reuters amasses about them, who uses it,
and whether or how they could stop it. There is no public campaign to inform Californians that CLEAR
exists or to give them an opportunity to control the information about them within CLEAR.”) & 16
(“Discovery to date suggests that the steps outlined by [Thomson Reuters’s Public Records Privacy
Policy] are convoluted, and I have not seen any evidence that this policy is at all effective in giving
Californians control over their information, whether to correct that information or to remove it.”).
60 Id. p. 17.
61 Id. p. 18.
62 Ibid.
63 Id. p. 19.
64 Id. p. 18 (“Dossiers or profiles of individuals such as those Thomson Reuters makes available through
CLEAR inflict concrete privacy harms, amounting to a theft of a person’s persona in that information
taken from that individual is exploited to create a data-picture of the individual that is not sanctioned
by the person and might well be at odds with the picture the individual has been trying to create, or
has actually created if all accurate facts were included in CLEAR’s dossiers, of herself or himself
within society. Akin to theft of personal property, the theft of one’s persona in this way works such a
harm upon the taking, connecting, or making available of the data; stripping the person of their right to
control their own information even if they have not yet realized that it has occurred, and independent of
what particular information has been taken, when or how it is made available to others, or for what
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 20 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
what information was “taken,” when or how that information was made available, and for
what purposes that information was used.65
43.
In the final substantive section of his report (Section V), Dr. Turow asserts
that CLEAR is “not journalism,” arguing that the CLEAR product does not conform with
core “principles” that characterize good journalistic practices (e.g., the “obligation to
truth and verification”).66
44.
Based on the analyses outlined in his report, Dr. Turow concludes that:67
Thomson Reuters’ operation of the CLEAR product affects Californians’ right to control
personal information and to be let alone such that all Californians whose information is
accessible through CLEAR are so harmed. [Emphasis added]
And:68
The very availability of CLEAR to invade Californians’ privacy with unwanted profiling
harms all Californians whose information is available through CLEAR by diminishing
their rights to control information and to be let alone. [Emphasis added]
D.
THE TUROW REPORT FAILS TO PROVIDE ANY EMPIRICAL OR
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF COMMON CLASSWIDE INJURY ALLEGEDLY
SUFFERED BY THE PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS DUE TO CLEAR, AND
DR. TUROW’S CITED RESEARCH AND ANALYSES DO NOT SUBSTANTIATE
HIS CONCLUSIONS
45.
In his report, Dr. Turow claims that by virtue of their information being
accessible through CLEAR, all Californians’ right to privacy (i.e., defined by Dr. Turow
as the right to control their information and to be “let alone”) is violated and that,
therefore, all Californians are harmed in the same way.69 To reach this conclusion, Dr.
Turow did not conduct any survey or empirical research in this litigation70 to test how

purposes Thomson Reuters makes that information available” [emphases added]).
65 Ibid.
66 Id. p. 20 (citing to an article by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel titled “The Elements of Journalism”).
67 Id., p. 22; see also id., p. 5 (“Thomson Reuters’ operation of the CLEAR product affects privacy
interests of Californians—the right to control personal information and to be let alone—in such a way that
all Californians whose information is accessible through CLEAR are harmed”).
68 Id., p. 22.
69 See, e.g., id., pp. 5, 13, & 22.
70 See also, e.g., Turow Deposition, pp. 71 – 72 (“Q. Okay. And final few questions. You didn’t – just for
clarity, you didn’t conduct a survey in connection with your engagement in this case; correct? A. Correct.
Q. You didn’t survey consumers or the American public or California residents in connection with this
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 21 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
consumers view privacy (in particular, how they would view the collection or
dissemination of information about them through CLEAR or a similar product71 and
whether they perceive this as a loss of control over their information). Nor did he conduct
any secondary data analysis on consumers’ perceptions or preferences regarding CLEAR
or a product similar to CLEAR.
46.
Absent an empirical survey or secondary data analysis, Dr. Turow should
have judiciously applied existing research, data, and evidence to the particulars of this
litigation. Instead, Dr. Turow inappropriately extrapolates the sources he cites to draw
conclusions about alleged violations of “long-held conceptions of individual privacy”72
and about alleged common, classwide economic harm. Dr. Turow’s cited sources (both
conceptual and empirical) do not substantiate and in many cases directly contradict his
conclusions. Moreover, none of Dr. Turow’s cited sources place consumers’ perceptions
and preferences in the relevant context of CLEAR. Nor does the Turow Report provide
any concrete evidence that describes how a single putative class member was specifically
harmed by CLEAR, let alone how such a harm could apply equally to all class members.
47.
I develop my aforementioned professional opinions and conclusions in the
five subsections that follow.
D.1. To Evaluate Whether Consumers Derive Harm or Utility from a Product at Issue, It
is Necessary to Empirically Assess Consumers’ Perceptions and Preferences
Regarding the Challenged Product in its Relevant Context
48.
At the outset, the Turow Report acknowledges that a key question in this
litigation involves weighing the harm incurred due to a challenged product or practice
against any utility (benefit) derived from that product or practice:73

case; correct? A. Correct. Q. And do you have any plans to conduct such a survey? A. I have no
plans.”).
71 At his deposition, Dr. Turow conceded that the nine national surveys that he has conducted of the
American public (not in connection with the current litigation) did not concern either CLEAR, Thomson
Reuters, or “a product or platform that was similar to CLEAR”; id., p. 71.
72 Turow Report, p. 4.
73 Ibid.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 22 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
I am further informed that in order to evaluate whether a business practice violates
California’s Unfair Competition Law, a court must weigh the harm to Californians
against the utility of the challenged business practice. I offer no legal opinions in this
case, but instead apply the methodologies and techniques used in my field of study to the
case materials, discovery to date, academic literature, and other sources details in my
reliance list in order to assist the Court in evaluating, at this stage of the case, whether
Thomson Reuters’s operation of the CLEAR product affects a privacy interest of
Californians in such a way that all Californians whose information is accessible through
CLEAR could claim to be harmed in the same way. [Emphases added]
49.
As I explain below, to assess whether the relevant consumers in fact derive a
harm versus benefit from a product at issue (such as CLEAR), it is necessary to evaluate,
using empirical research, these consumers’ perceptions and/or preferences of that
product. According to the Turow Report: (i) privacy is conceptualized by scholars as the
right to “control one’s personal information” and to be “let alone”;74 and (ii) CLEAR (or
Thomson Reuters’ operation thereof) has inflicted on Californians “privacy harms” in the
form of violations of their right to control information about them and to be left alone.75
Although not set forth in his report, Dr. Turow subsequently testified at his deposition that
these rights—to control information about oneself and to be left alone—refer to “ethical”
and “social” rights.76 When asked how harms to such (“ethical” and “social”) rights
manifest, Dr. Turow conceded that he had no opinions in this case as to whether the harm
caused by CLEAR resulted in any physical injury, financial consequences, or loss of
property.77 Dr. Turow similarly acknowledged that he has not “quantified the amount of

74 E.g., id., pp. 4 – 5.
75 E.g., id., pp. 14 & 18 (e.g., “Thomson Reuters’ collection of wide-ranging information about
Californians, its aggregation of that data into interconnected databases, and its selling of that information
for profit without providing Californians a meaningful right to remove or correct their information, strip
away Californians’ right to control their information and to be let alone, and thus violates the long-
standing right to informational privacy discussed above”).
76 Turow Deposition, p. 174 (“Q. All right. And you also testified that you’re not rendering a legal
opinion in this case. So what is the nature of the rights you are talking about in your report? Are they legal
rights? Moral rights? Psychological rights? What is – what type of right are you talking about? A. I
would characterize them as ethical and social.”).
77 See id., pp. 177 – 185.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 23 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
harm per person”78 and has no “systematic opinion”79 on whether “different individuals
experience different amounts of harm due to the CLEAR platform.”80
50.
Because the “privacy harms” allegedly inflicted by CLEAR (and
conceptualized by Dr. Turow as ethical and social harms) are not objectively quantified
with respect to Dr. Turow’s opinions in this litigation, and given that he does not purport to
offer any legal opinion (including with respect to these harms),81 such “harms,” to the
extent that they exist, must therefore (by Dr. Turow’s own logic) exist in the minds of
consumers and must accordingly be defined and measured based on consumers’
(subjective) perceptions and preferences.82 Indeed, as Dr. Turow testified, his opinion in
this case does purport to “reflect consumer perceptions,” specifically on the topic of “the
right to control one’s information.”83
51.
Hence, the question of whether the putative class members in this litigation
have suffered common (or even individualized) harm attributable to CLEAR depends
crucially on investigating how class members would perceive or respond to the CLEAR
product and/or Thomson Reuters’s operation thereof. Such consumer perceptions and
preferences cannot be investigated, ascertained, or substantiated on the basis of: (i) legal
opinions; (ii) personal opinions or ideologies, even those held by an expert; or (iii) research

78 Id., p. 187.
79 Id., p. 188.
80 Ibid.
81 See, e.g., id., p. 111.
82 To the extent that Dr. Turow relies on an (undefined) “societal” evaluation of harm as the metric by
which a “privacy harm” should be judged (i.e., irrespective of consumers’ opinions), such an approach
would still need to “balance” the risks or negative aspects of a challenged product with its potential
benefits and utilities to society. However, as evinced by both the Turow Report and during his
deposition, Dr. Turow disavowed any consideration of the potential benefits; see Section E of this
Rebuttal Expert Report for further discussion on this point.
83 Turow Deposition, pp. 119 – 120 (“Q. So is your opinion in this case purporting to reflect consumer
perceptions with respect – well, just consumer perceptions. And then I’ll ask on what topics. I’m going to
– A. Yes. Q. Okay. So the answer is yes? A. Yes. Q. All right. And on what topics? A. On the right to
control one’s information. Q. Where does your report discuss consumer perceptions of the right to
control one’s information? A. I discuss the – tell you in just a second. Look at Page 6 and look at
Footnote 6 and you’ll see that.”).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 24 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
or analyses that do not evaluate consumers’ perceptions and preferences in the relevant
context of the product or service at issue.
52.
Thus, it was necessary for Dr. Turow to provide a scientific, empirical basis
for his claim that the putative class members suffered common harm due to CLEAR’s
alleged violation of consumers’ privacy. Such substantiation could consist of (original)
survey data collected specifically for the current litigation, analysis of (existing) relevant
secondary data, or a careful application to the particulars of CLEAR of existing (empirical)
academic literature on consumers’ perceptions and preferences about privacy.84 For
example, Dr. Turow would have needed to ask whether consumers who discover that
information about them was collected or disseminated through the CLEAR platform…
• … commonly are concerned about their privacy rights or interests?
• …commonly believe that their privacy was violated?
• …commonly feel disappointed or dissatisfied with CLEAR and Thomson
Reuters?
• …commonly feel “blindsided” or surprised by Thomson Reuters’s operation of
CLEAR?
• …commonly feel “betrayed” by Thomson Reuters?
• …commonly perceive the use of CLEAR as unfair or unjust?
• …commonly prefer to control information about themselves in the platform?
• …commonly expect to receive some form and amount of compensation (either
monetary or otherwise) from Thomson Reuters?
• …commonly refuse to have information about them collected and/or
disseminated through the platform?
• …commonly perceive the harms from CLEAR to outweigh its benefits?

84 As Dr. Turow indicated at his deposition, “[t]he value of a survey is to find out what people think and
what they know with respect to a particular topic”; id., p. 69.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 25 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
53.
As detailed in the remaining subsections, Dr. Turow offers none of the
aforementioned empirical evidence on consumer perceptions or preferences85 that could
potentially support his conclusions in this litigation. The Turow Report does not point to
even a single class member who was harmed as a result of finding out that information
about them was collected or disseminated through CLEAR. Beyond repeating abstract
and theoretical concepts such as “privacy harm”86 and “material harm,”87 Dr. Turow does
not even identify or provide any specific descriptions or examples of how consumers
could hypothetically be harmed by CLEAR. Further, an analysis of the stated bases for
Dr. Turow’s opinions in this litigation—including sources that relate to scholars’ and
consumers’ views—indicate that these sources do not substantiate the conclusions set
forth in the Turow Report, and in fact do not support the notion that either (i) privacy
rights constitute inalienable “ethical and social” rights88 that should not be weighed
against any countervailing rights; or (ii) that these privacy rights would be violated by
CLEAR. On the contrary, Dr. Turow’s own cited evidence leads to the conclusion that the
putative class members are likely to hold varying and highly individualized perceptions of
privacy and of the level of harm, if any, caused by CLEAR.
54.
Critically, Dr. Turow also fails to cite any sources or otherwise conduct any
analyses that situate consumers’ perceptions and preferences in the specific context of
CLEAR. Such a serious omission renders the Turow Report’s conclusions fundamentally
nonprobative and irrelevant to the questions at issue, as consumers’ perceptions or
preferences regarding a stimulus (e.g., product or service) depend on considering the
relevant context of that stimulus. Seminal research in cognitive psychology and decision
making indicates that human perception is dependent on the context provided by, inter

85 Hereinafter, in the interest of brevity, I use “perceptions or [/and] preferences” to denote consumers’
attitudes, beliefs, opinions, expectations, and concerns such as those mentioned immediately above.
86 See, e.g., Turow Report, p. 18.
87 Id., p. 19.
88 Turow Deposition, p. 174.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 26 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
alia, words, visual stimuli, specific elements of a product, service, or industry, and others’
perceptions or preferences, all of which drive people’s interpretations.89
55.
Further, consumers are frequently sensitive to the information presented to
(or omitted from) them and to the framing of survey questions.90 Thus, for example,
consumers can form potentially very different (even opposing) perceptions of a focal
product depending on how, or what aspects of, that product are described or inquired about.
A survey that fails to accurately and sufficiently characterize the challenged product for
participants—or that asks questions that are not tied to the product at all—cannot yield
valid, reliable, or relevant data applicable to the product at issue. The Turow Report has
not proffered any empirical evidence that relates consumers’ perceptions or preferences
(e.g., regarding privacy) to a product that adequately approximates CLEAR. Next, I
evaluate the sources—both conceptual and empirical—on which Dr. Turow does rely.

89 See, e.g., Anderson, John R. (1985), Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications, New York, NY: W.H.
Freeman and Company. Such processing, in which context guides perception, is called “top-down
processing,” because high-level general knowledge determines the interpretation of low-level perceptual
units. See also, e.g., Simonson, Itamar and Amos Tversky (1992), “Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast
and Extremeness Aversion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 281 – 295; Kivetz, Ran, Oded Netzer,
and V. Srinivasan (2004a), “Alternative Models for Capturing the Compromise Effect,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 41(3), 237 – 257 (Lead article) (Finalist, 2009 William O’Dell Award; Finalist,
2005 Paul Green Award); Kivetz, Ran, Oded Netzer, and V. Srinivasan (2004b), “Extending
Compromise Effect Models to Complex Buying Situations and Other Context Effects,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 41(3), 262 – 268.
90 See, e.g., Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky (1981), “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology
of Choice,” Science, 211(4481), 453 – 458; Loftus, Elizabeth and Guido Zanni (1975), “Eyewitness
Testimony: The Influence of the Wording of a Question,” Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 5(1), 86 –
88. See also, e.g., Schkade, David A. and Daniel Kahneman (1998), “Does Living in California Make
People Happy? A Focusing Illusion in Judgments of Life Satisfaction,” Psychological Science, 9(5), 340
– 346; Kahneman, Daniel, Alan B. Krueger, David Schkade, Norbert Schwarz, and Arthur A. Stone
(2006), “Would You Be Happier If You Were Richer? A Focusing Illusion,” Science, 312(5782), 1908 –
1910; Wilson, Timothy D., Thalia Wheatley, Jonathan M. Meyers, Daniel T. Gilbert, and Danny Axsom
(2000), “Focalism: A Source of Durability Bias in Affective Forecasting,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78(5), 821 – 836; Kivetz, Ran and Itamar Simonson (2000), “The Effects of
Incomplete Information on Consumer Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37(4), 427 – 448 (This
article was a finalist for the 2005 O’Dell Award, given to the Journal of Marketing Research article that
has had the greatest impact on the marketing field in the previous five years).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 27 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
D.2. Dr. Turow Inappropriately Conflates Scholars’ Definitions of Privacy with
Consumers’ (and the Putative Class Members’) Perceptions and Preferences of
Privacy
56.
At his deposition, Dr. Turow testified that his opinions in this litigation
address how both scholars91 and consumers92 view privacy. However, the Turow Report
conflates the two without adequate substantiation. More specifically, as I explain below,
not only does Dr. Turow fail to show that consumers in general (or Californians in
particular) would in fact agree with scholars’ conception(s) of privacy, but also Dr.
Turow’s own cited sources indicate a lack of consensus among even scholars on this topic.
57.
The Turow Report conceptualizes privacy as the right to “control personal
information” and to be “let alone” (or “left alone”).93 For example, Dr. Turow opines in
Section III of his report: “Privacy in the digital age requires protection of the right to
exercise control over one’s personal information and the right to be let alone.”94 Referring
to the right to privacy as a “protected sphere of human existence and a bedrock concept
underlying human dignity and autonomy,”95 Dr. Turow appeals to the writings of Socrates
and other Greek philosophers,96 to human history and society at large,97 and to the
interpretation of (information) privacy in “the American legal tradition.”98 The Turow
Report recognizes the existence of other conceptualizations of privacy;99 nevertheless, Dr.

91 Turow Deposition, p. 118 (“Q. […] [A]re you addressing the way scholars view the right to control one’s
information, and the way scholars view the impacts to people when their right to control their information is
diminished? A. Yes. I’ve read both, obviously.”).
92 See id., p. 119 (“Q. Ah, okay. Are you offering opinion in this case regarding consumer perceptions? A.
Yes. […] THE WITNESS: People’s desire not to be – the desire to have their – to control their information,
yes” [objections omitted]) & p. 125 (e.g., “Q. So the question is: Is your opinion in this case intended to
address consumer preferences? A. Yes.”).
93 E.g., Turow Report, p. 5.
94 Id., p. 6 (title of the Turow Report’s Section III).
95 Ibid.
96 Ibid.
97 Ibid.
98 Id., pp. 6 – 7.
99 See id., p. 5 & FN 1 (“My opinion addresses the ways scholars view the right to control one’s information
as one important aspect of privacy, and the impacts to people when their right to control their information is
diminished. I also address the right to be let alone. There are other aspects of privacy that are present in
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 28 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Turow argues that because controlling information about the self is a fundamental part of
the definition of privacy, any violation of this right to control information is therefore a
violation of consumers’ right to privacy.
58.
Despite stating that he offers “no legal opinions in this case,”100 Dr. Turow
frequently uses legal concepts, theoretical constructs, and public policies to either
substantiate claims involving consumer perceptions or preferences, or to opine about
consumer harm without any accompanying scientific evidence. For example, the Turow
Report quotes repeatedly from California legislators to support his dual-pronged
conceptualization of privacy as the right to “control one’s personal information” and to be
“let alone.”101 As Table 1 below shows, the Turow Report relies on several sources that
discuss the idea of privacy through a legal, historical, and/or philosophical lens—but that
do not directly empirically test (i) how consumers actually understand or perceive privacy
or, more importantly, (ii) how consumers would respond to having their information
collected or disseminated through a product like CLEAR.

(Continues on the next page)

the academic literature. My opinion is not intended to foreclose the validity of these measures of privacy,
which may be relevant to Californians writ-large or individually” [emphasis added].”).
100 Id., p. 4.
101 Id., pp. 8 – 9 (citing a 1972 argument in favor of California ballot Proposition 11, a California Senate
bill, and a 1980 legal article published in the Harvard Law Review).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 29 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

29
Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Table 1: The Turow Report’s Reliance on Legal and Conceptual (Non-Empirical) Analyses of Privacy
No.
Article
Description
1
Holvast, Jay (2009), “History of Privacy,” in The Future
of Identity, International Federation for Information
Processing, Matyáš, Václav et al. (eds.), IFIP AICT
298, pp. 13 – 42
Conceptual conference paper discussing the history of privacy, including the
evolution of privacy’s definition, the conflict between privacy and advancements in
information technology, and the protection of privacy over time.
2
Moreham, Nicole (2005), “Privacy in the Common Law:
A Doctrinal and Theoretical Analysis,” Law Quarterly
Review, 121, 628 – 656
Conceptual legal article on privacy according to English common law. In
discussing the ruling of Campbell v. MGN Ltd and various formulations of privacy,
the author arrives at her own definition: “In my view, privacy is best defined as the
state of ‘desired “inaccess”’ or as ‘freedom from unwanted access.’”102
3
Delany, Hilary and Eoin Carolan (2008), “The Concept
of a Right to Privacy: The Emergence of a Right to
Privacy,” in The Right to Privacy: A Doctrinal and
Comparative Analysis, Round Hall
Conceptual chapter that reviews different conceptions of privacy (e.g., skeptical
accounts vs. intuitionist accounts) and discusses the relationships among privacy,
autonomy, control, and expression.
4
Westin, Alan F. (1967), Privacy and Freedom, New
York, NY: Athenium
Book by a lawyer and professor of law and government that discusses, inter alia, the
social value of privacy and the response of American law to greater surveillance.103
While the author espoused legislation that better protects a right to privacy, he
“advocate[d] a balanced position, generally prohibiting surveillance but allowing
limited use in cases of national security and major crimes.”104
5
Fox, Margalit (2013), “Alan F. Westin, Who
Transformed Privacy Debate Before the Web Era, Dies
at 83,” New York Times,
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/alan-f-westin-
scholarwho-defined-right-to-privacy-dies-at-83.html
Online article on the life and work of Alan Westin, who argued that individuals
have the right to determine how much information about them is disclosed and to
whom, how it should be maintained, and how disseminated. Nevertheless, Westin
is described as having “steered a middle course,” arguing in favor of wiretapping,
the Patriot Act, and targeted advertising with consumers’ permission.
6
Turrecha, Lourdes M. and Emily Ashley (2021),
“Defining the Privacy Tech Landscape 2021,” The Rise
of Privacy Tech
Industry whitepaper on various conceptions of privacy, with an emphasis on privacy
tech startups.

102 Moreham (2005), p. 636.
103 Although the Turow Report cites Alan Westin only for his proffered definition of privacy (see Turow Report, p. 7 & FN 7), Westin himself had
conducted multiple surveys/opinion polls on individuals’ perceptions regarding privacy and personal information. Such polls, if anything, support
the notion that individuals differ in the degree to which they are concerned about privacy; see, e.g., Westin, Alan F. (2003), “Social and Political
Dimensions of Privacy,” Journal of Social Issues, 59(2), 431 – 453.
104 See Bland, Robert L. (1968), “Book Notes: Privacy and Freedom,” Washington and Lee Law Review, 25(1), 166 – 167.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 30 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Table 1 (cont.): The Turow Report’s Reliance on Legal and Conceptual (Non-Empirical) Analyses of Privacy
No.
Article
Description
7
Waldman, Ari (2021), Industry Unbound: The Inside
Story of Privacy, Data, and Corporate Power, Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press
Book by a law professor and sociologist that argues that tech companies have
exploited seemingly pro-privacy corporate strategies which ultimately undermine
consumer privacy.
8
California Proposition 11 (1972),
http://repository.uchastings.edu/ca_ballot_props/762
Ballot pamphlet from 1972 presenting arguments in favor of and against amending
the state constitution of California to include privacy as an inalienable right.
9
California Senate Bill 178 (2015), Privacy: Electronic
Communications: Search Warrant,
https://openstates.org/ca/bills/20152016/SB178/
Legislation which prohibits state government entities from acquiring user data from
certain communications service providers without first obtaining a search warrant,
wiretap order, order for electronic reader records, or subpoena, except for
emergency situations.
10
ACLU Southern California (2015), “In Landmark Victory
for Digital Privacy, Gov. Brown Signs California
Electronic Communications Privacy Act Into Law Sends
Message to Nation About Importance of Saying No to
Warrantless Digital Searches,”
https://www.aclusocal.org/en/press-releases/landmark-
victory-digital-privacy-gov-brown-signs-california-
electronic-communications
Online article on the signing of California Senate Bill 178 (California Electronics
Communications Privacy Act) into law (i.e., requiring that government agencies
obtain a search warrant before requesting electronic information from certain
communications service providers).
11
Warren, Samuel D. and Louis D. Brandeis (1890), “The
Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193 – 220
Conceptual legal essay that defines privacy as the right to be “let alone,” that
discusses various case law and whether “existing law affords a principle which can
be properly invoked to protect the privacy of the individual,”105 and that attempts to
delineate limitations to this right.106
12
Lauer, Josh (2017), Creditworthy: A History of Consumer
Surveillance and Financial Identity in America, New
York, NY: Columbia University Press
Book by a communication professor on the history and evolution of the credit
reporting industry in America.
13
Post, Robert C. (2000), “Three Concepts of Privacy,”
Georgetown Law Journal, 89, 2087 – 2098
Legal essay that reviews three different conceptions of privacy: the connection
between privacy and (i) the creation of knowledge, (ii) dignity, and (iii) freedom.

105 Warren and Brandeis (1890), p. 197.
106 Such limitations include, inter alia: (i) “any publication of matter which is of public or general interest” (id., p. 214) and (ii) “upon the
publication of the facts by the individual, or with his consent” (id., p. 218).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 31 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Table 1 (cont.): The Turow Report’s Reliance on Legal and Conceptual (Non-Empirical) Analyses of Privacy
No.
Article
Description
14
Bouk, Dan (2017), “The History and Political Economy
of Personal Data over the Last Two Centuries in Three
Acts,” Osiris, 32(1), 85 – 106
Conceptual historical essay on the collection and usage of personal data over time.
The author defines the sociological concept of the “data double” as a “stand in for us
in bureaucracies”107 and seeks to categorize personal data into three periods in history.
15
Burk, Dan L. (2021), “Algorithmic Legal Metrics,”
Notre Dame Law Review, 96(3), 1147 – 1204
Conceptual legal article on the social effects of predictive legal algorithms. Argues
that concerns about algorithms extend beyond accuracy and include aggravating
tensions between equity and autonomy and undermining democratic values.
16
Fourcade, Marion and Keiran Healy (2017), “Seeing
Like a Market,” Socio-Economic Review, 15(1), 9 – 29
Conceptual sociological article on the rise of data collection and the potential value
derived from aggregated data (so-called “übercapital”108). The author speculates on
the (moral) consequences of targeting and segmentation using such data.
17
Laudon, Kenneth C. (1996), “Markets and Privacy,”
Communications of the Association for Computing
Machinery, 39(9), 92 – 104
Conceptual article that proposes incorporating market forces (via a “National
Information Market”)109 to regulate privacy, which the author argues could be
achieved by allowing individuals to be compensated for the use of information about
themselves.110
18
Cohen, Julie E. (2013), “What Privacy Is For,” Harvard
Law Review, 126(7), 1904 – 1933
Conceptual legal article discussing the importance of privacy. In recognizing the
subjective notion of the self, the author argues for the benefits of privacy in a liberal
democratic political system.
19
Stack, Brian (2017), “Here’s How Much Your Personal
Information is Selling for on the Dark Web,” Experian,
https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/heres-
how-much-your-personal-information-is-selling-for-on-
the-dark-web/
Online article on how much criminals purportedly pay for hacked “personal
information” on the dark web.
20
Turow, Joseph (2021), “Hear That? It’s Your Voice
Taken for Profit,” New York Times Opinion Essay,
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/12/opinion/voice-
surveillance-alexa.html
Online article (opinion essay) on how call centers can customize customer service
based on consumers’ tone and spoken words. The essay then speculates on future
uses where voice data could be abused by hypothetical discriminatory business
practices.

107 Bouk (2017), p. 86.
108 Fourcade and Healy (2017), p. 10.
109 See, e.g., Laudon (1996), p. 99.
110 This article briefly references in the body of the text, but does not formally cite, a 1994 survey sponsored by Equifax, described as ostensibly
finding that “76% of U.S. citizens believe they have lost all control over personal information”; id., p. 94. As the article provides no citation or
further information about the results or underlying question(s) asked of participants, I do not discuss this survey further.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 32 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

32
Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
59.
An examination of the 20 sources listed in Table 1 reveals that none
provides empirical evidence of consumers’ perceptions or preferences regarding privacy,
particularly in the context of a product like CLEAR. Instead, the aforementioned
references consist of six conceptual legal papers and editorials; four conceptual articles
and essays that discuss privacy from a historical, philosophical, and/or sociological
perspective; four online articles that provide background commentary or opinions on
general privacy-related topics; three books that opine on concepts related to privacy
(including varying schools of thought on the subject) and surveillance; two pieces of
legislation (i.e., a Senate bill and a California Proposition argument); and one industry
whitepaper about privacy in tech startups.
60.
Crucially, how privacy is defined by scholars in the abstract (e.g., in law,
history, political philosophy/economy, or academia in general) is distinct from—and
irrelevant to—how consumers understand, perceive, or value their privacy, particularly
when considering the use of their information in connection with a specific product such
as CLEAR. These theoretical definitions of privacy do not address whether and to what
extent Californians are harmed. Answering that question requires asking whether
consumers—when made aware that information about them was collected or disseminated
through CLEAR—would, inter alia: be concerned about not being able to control their
information on CLEAR; be disappointed or dissatisfied with Thomson Reuters’s operation
of CLEAR; feel “blindsided” or surprised; feel “betrayed” by Thomson Reuters; expect
compensation from a product like CLEAR; not have consented to having their information
be collected or disseminated through the CLEAR platform; believe that the harms from
CLEAR outweigh any benefits; or express any other relevant perception or preference
regarding Thomson Reuters and/or CLEAR. The Turow Report does not ask, let alone
answer, any of these questions.
61.
Although the sources in Table 1 do not directly present empirical evidence
related to consumers’ perceptions or preferences, it is noteworthy that multiple of these
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 33 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
sources nevertheless advance opinions by scholars that, if anything, are inconsistent with
Dr. Turow’s characterization of privacy. To take one example, and as Dr. Turow himself
appears to acknowledge,111 one essay on (English) common law112 proposes a definition
of privacy that does not center on control. In particular, Moreham (2005) argues that
defining privacy entails taking into account both desire (i.e., whether the individual wants
certain information to remain private in the first place,113 a “subjective focus”114) and
access (i.e., whether access to any information that the individual wants to keep to
him/herself has been gained).115 Rejecting definitions of privacy as “control over
knowledge about oneself,”116 the author states that: (i) “[c]ontrol-based definitions […]
fail to distinguish between those situations where there is a risk of unwanted access and
those where unwanted access has in fact been obtained”;117 and (ii) “it is difficult to see
how a person can actually exercise control over information in any meaningful way.”118
The article proceeds to discuss various desirable “legal checks on the subjective privacy
interest,”119 including a “public interest defense” such that “a person’s desire not to be
accessed must sometimes give way to the public’s interest in access being obtained among
other things.”120 Ultimately, contrary to Dr. Turow’s portrayal, Moreham (2005)
emphasizes the inherent subjectivity of privacy:121

111 Turow Report, p. 6 & FN 5 (admitting differences in the preferred definition of privacy between
Moreham (2005) and Delany and Carolan (2008)).
112 Moreham (2005).
113 See id., p. 637 (“The desire element therefore recognizes that self-disclosure is only a breach of
privacy if the individual concerned does not want it to occur and that there are many situations in which
self-disclosure is both desired and desirable”).
114 See id., p. 643.
115 See id., pp. 636 – 643.
116 Id., pp. 637 – 638.
117 Id., p. 638; see also ibid. (“Whilst it is important to recognize that the risk of a privacy interference can
itself have advertise effects on an individual, such risks should not be equated with privacy interferences
themselves.”).
118 Ibid.
119 Id., p. 643.
120 Id., p. 644.
121 Id., pp. 641 – 642.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 34 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
This broad, subjective approach is necessary because what is private to one person is not
necessarily private to another: Y, the impecunious academic, might regard her annual
income as an intensely private matter while X, the braying City banker, will boast about
this to anyone who will listen. Conversely, X might regard the intimate details of his
medical misadventures as intensely private while Y will recount hers enthusiastically to
the barest acquaintances. A comprehensive definition of privacy must therefore
recognize that different people have different reactions to different types of disclosure
[…]. [Emphasis added]
62.
Echoing the above-quoted sentiment, multiple other scholars (whose
articles are cited by Dr. Turow) reiterate the complex, nuanced, subjective, and context-
dependent nature of “privacy”:
Privacy is a notoriously elastic and equivocal notion. It has a “protean capacity to be all
things to all lawyers”. Its imprecision as a concept has given rise to extensive academic
discussion and debate. A significant proportion of the voluminous literature in this area is
dedicated to the preliminary task of defining what privacy is. These discussions have
generated heat and light but little unanimity. In fact, “the most notable feature of th[e]
literature has been an almost complete absence of agreement concerning both the
definition of privacy and the values said to be promoted by the legal protection of
privacy”. Privacy has been defined in different ways and invoked in support of
varying, sometimes even opposing outcomes.122 [FNs omitted; emphases added]
Privacy is a value so complex, so entangled in competing and contradictory dimensions, so
engorged with various and distinct meanings, that I sometimes despair whether it can be
usefully addressed at all.123
Definitions of privacy grounded in core principles, however, inevitably prove both
over- and underinclusive when measured against the types of privacy expectations that
real people have. … In the real world, privacy expectations and behaviors are unruly
and heterogeneous, persistently defying efforts to reduce them to neat conceptual
schema124 [FN omitted; emphasis added]
63.
Another source referenced in the Turow Report, an industry whitepaper by
Turrecha and Ashley (2021) from The Rise of Privacy Tech, catalogues a range of

122 Delany and Carolan (2008), p. 4.
123 Post (2000), p. 2087.
124 Cohen (2013), pp. 1907 – 1908. See also id., pp. 1906 – 1907 (“Nor can privacy be reduced to a
fixed condition or attribute (such as seclusion or control) whose boundaries can be crisply delineated
by the application of deductive logic. Privacy is shorthand for breathing room to engage in the processes
of boundary management that enable and constitute self-development. So understood, privacy is
fundamentally dynamic. […] [L]ike liberal political theorists more generally, privacy scholars disagree
about whether autonomy is most appropriately characterized as negative or positive liberty” [emphasis
added]) & 1908 (“the way forward for privacy theory in the liberal tradition requires engaging with other
scholarly traditions that acknowledge the emergent and relational character of subjectivity. One place to
begin is with literatures in the fields of cognitive science, sociology, and social psychology, which
establish empirical foundations for an understanding of subjectivity as socially constructed. […]
[Emphasis added]”).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 35 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
different privacy conceptualizations among scholars besides the notion of “privacy as
control,” including: privacy as obscurity,125 privacy as trust,126 privacy as power,127 and
privacy as contextual integrity.128 The authors of this whitepaper also highlight the
importance of considering privacy in a contextualized manner, espousing a view that
focuses on the specific circumstances and activities at issue:129
[P]rivacy can mean different things to different people. Perhaps the most
comprehensive conceptualization of privacy is Daniel Solove’s A Taxonomy [of] Privacy,
a framework for understanding privacy in a pluralistic and contextual manner, grounded in
the different kinds of activities that impinge upon privacy. This conceptualization shifts
the focus away from the vague term “privacy” and toward the specific activities that
pose privacy problems. [Citation omitted; emphases added]
64.
Overall, the Turow Report’s reliance on legal, historical, and
ethical/philosophical analyses of privacy (i.e., scholars’ opinions) is inappropriate and
nonprobative of how consumers would perceive or value privacy and control over
information about them in the context of CLEAR. Instead, an (empirical) evaluation of
consumers’ perceptions and values is necessary in order to evaluate the existence and
magnitude of harm.
65.
Separately, Dr. Turow’s sources simply do not provide any basis for Dr.
Turow’s conclusion that CLEAR has caused common classwide economic harm by
violating “long-held conceptions of individual privacy” since, as Dr. Turow’s sources

125 Turrecha and Ashley (2021), p. 8 (“Obscurity is the idea that information is safe—at least to some
degree—when it is hard to obtain or understand.” [Citations omitted]).
126 Ibid. (“Privacy has also been conceptualized as trust, with four foundations: (1) the commitment to be
honest about data practices, (2) the importance of discretion in data usage, (3) the need for protection of
personal data against outsiders, and (4) the overriding principle of loyalty to the people whose data is
being used, so that it is data and not humans that become exploited. Trust is important in forging
information relationships in today’s networked, data-driven society. […] Trust expectations make privacy
expectations reasonable. Trust greases the wheels of effective sharing by encouraging interactions and
information sharing.” [Citations omitted]).
127 Ibid. (“Privacy as power builds on privacy as choice and provides support for users to exercise their
power and take back control over their personal data in a world where personal data is constantly being
harvested and exploited through a surveillance economy.” [Citation omitted]).
128 Ibid. (“Privacy norms or expectations vary by context. Contextual integrity links privacy protection to
norms for specific contexts, so that “information gathering and dissemination are appropriate to that
context and obey the governing norms of distribution within it.” [Citation omitted]).
129 Ibid.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 36 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
confirm, there is no single, long-held conception of individual privacy among even
scholars, let alone consumers.130
D.3. Dr. Turow’s Cited Research About Consumers’ Perceptions Does Not Substantiate
His Assumptions or Conclusions
66.
Privacy is repeatedly defined throughout the Turow Report as the right to
“control one’s personal information” and to be “let alone.”131 Beyond the various legal and
conceptual articles that Dr. Turow cites (reviewed in Subsection D.1), Dr. Turow refers to
a small handful of empirical sources (i.e., academic articles and industry reports) used
ostensibly to substantiate the notion that consumers share his control-based
conceptualization of privacy.132 However, as I detail in this subsection, these sources do
not in fact support—and in many instances contradict—Dr. Turow’s conclusions.
67.
As explained above, the Turow Report’s conclusion that CLEAR has caused
classwide harm by violating Californian consumers’ privacy rights133 rests on three key
assumptions:134 (i) consumers would commonly agree with Dr. Turow’s conceptualization
of privacy as the right to control information about them;135 (ii) consumers would
commonly be concerned about controlling information about them and/or about others

130 Turow Report, p. 4.
131 E.g., id., pp. 4 – 5.
132 As noted previously, Dr. Turow does not cite to any empirical evidence on consumers’ perceptions or
preferences regarding a right “to be let alone,” and never directly defines what this right means or entails.
Therefore, I evaluate whether the cited research substantiates the control-based prong of Dr. Turow’s
conception of privacy.
133 See, e.g., id., p. 5 (“In my opinion, Thomson Reuters’ operation of the CLEAR product affects privacy
interests of Californians—the right to control personal information and to be let alone—in such a way that
all Californians whose information is accessible through CLEAR are harmed.”).
134 Although the Turow Report includes a number of other assumptions that are never substantiated (e.g.,
that consumers would be “blindsided” by the “unknown and unwanted collection and use of information
about themselves”; see id., p. 15), I focus on the three major assumptions delineated herein.
135 This assumption includes the related assumption that most consumers would perceive control over
one’s personal information as a central aspect of privacy. See, e.g., id., p. 6 (“The long history of
protecting privacy through the right to control one’s information is reflected in the view of privacy
enunciated by Americans today”); see also id., p. 7 (“This conception of individual privacy—'the right to
determine how much of [one’s] personal information is disclosed and to whom, how it should be
maintained and how disseminated…became the cornerstone of our modern right to privacy.’ This
remains ‘[p]erhaps the most commonly accepted definition of information privacy.’” [FNs omitted]).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 37 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
collecting and/or disseminating such information136 (using a product like CLEAR); and
(iii) consumers would commonly agree that the harm from a product such as CLEAR
outweighs its benefits.137 In (supposed) support of these assumptions, Dr. Turow cites six
sources related to consumer opinions, including his own coauthored work, that present
survey results of consumers’ beliefs and attitudes toward privacy-related issues.
68.
Table 2 below lists these six articles, along with a categorization of the type
of article and my evaluation of that article as it relates to each of Dr. Turow’s central
underlying assumptions. Specifically, based on my review of each cited work, I classify
whether that source: (i) is irrelevant to (e.g., does not test) Dr. Turow’s assumptions;
(ii) contradicts, in at least one way, Dr. Turow’s assumptions; (iii) is inconclusive, offering
insufficient or unreliable evidence for his assumptions (e.g., due to methodological flaws);
or (iv) provides direct support for, or is consistent with, his assumptions.

(Continues on next page)

136 In the interest of brevity, “others using such information” encompasses the notion of information being
made available (collected) and/or disseminated. See, e.g., id., p. 6 & FN 6 (“The majority of Americans
believe that privacy and confidentiality are very important aspects of their lives”); see also ibid. (“In our
contemporary world, Americans overwhelmingly believe that control over their personal information is
central to maintaining individual privacy.”); see also id., p. 7 (“This conception of individual privacy—
‘the right to determine how much of [one’s] personal information is disclosed and to whom, how it should
be maintained and how disseminated…because the cornerstone of our modern right to privacy.’ This
remains ‘[p]erhaps the most commonly accepted definition of information privacy’” [FNs omitted]).
137 This assumption includes the related assumption that most consumers, when informed about the
potential benefits of CLEAR, would not factor these benefits into their assessment of whether the product
has harmed them. See, e.g., id., pp. 4 (“I am further informed that in order to evaluate when a business
practice violates California’s Unfair Competition Law, a court must weigh the harm to Californians
against the utility of the challenged business practice [emphasis added]”) & 18 (“Dossiers or profiles
or individuals such as those Thomson Reuters makes available through CLEAR inflict concrete privacy
harms, amounting to a theft of a person’s persona […]. Akin to theft of personal property, the theft of
one’s persona in this way works such a harm […] independent of what particular information has
been taken, when or how it is made available to others, or for what purposes Thomson Reuters
makes that information available” [emphasis added]).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 38 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

38
Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Table 2: Articles Cited in the Turow Report About Consumers’ Perceptions of Privacy, Evaluated Against Three Key
Assumptions Underlying Dr. Turow’s Conclusions
• Assumption 1: Consumers commonly conceptualize privacy as the right to control information about them
• Assumption 2: Consumers would commonly be concerned about controlling their information about them and/or about
others using this information (through a product like CLEAR)
• Assumption 3: Consumers would commonly agree that the harm from a product like CLEAR outweighs its benefits

No.
Article
Description
Evaluation Against
Assumption 1
Evaluation Against
Assumption 2
Evaluation Against
Assumption 3
1
Turow, Hennessy, and Draper
(2015)
Unpublished paper on how
marketers are “misrepresenting”
and exploiting American
consumers
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
2
Cao (2021): National
Telecommunications and
Information Administration
(NTIA) Internet Use Survey
Summary of industry survey on
Americans’ Internet usage
Contradicts
Contradicts
Irrelevant
3
Fitzpatrick (2019):
ValuePenguin Survey
Summary of industry survey on
Americans’ concerns about
cybercrime
Irrelevant
Contradicts
Irrelevant
4
boyd and Marwick (2011)
Unpublished conference paper on
teens’ attitudes regarding privacy
and social networks
Contradicts
Contradicts
Irrelevant
5
Madden and Rainie (2015):
Pew Survey
Industry survey on Americans’
attitudes about privacy
Contradicts
Inconclusive
Irrelevant
6
Auxier et al. (2019): Pew
Survey
Industry survey on Americans’
attitudes about privacy
Contradicts
Inconclusive
Contradicts

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 39 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

39
Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
69.
As my analysis indicates and as shown in Table 2 above, none of the six
above-referenced articles provides valid scientific evidence for Dr. Turow’s assumptions
that: (i) consumers commonly view privacy as the right to control information about them;
(ii) consumers are commonly concerned about controlling information about them and/or
others using such information through a product like CLEAR; and (iii) consumers
commonly agree that the harm from CLEAR (or a similar product) outweighs its benefits.
Of the six empirical sources cited in the Turow Report: five sources reveal a lack of
commonality in consumers’ perceptions of privacy; three sources directly contradict the
notion that most consumers are concerned about controlling information about them
(while two sources provide non-dispositive, and therefore insufficient, evidence); several
sources are irrelevant in different ways, as they either describe scenarios that bear no
resemblance to CLEAR or that do not test Dr. Turow’s assumption; and one source
contradicts Dr. Turow’s assertion of automatic (and blanket) harm. Next, I evaluate each
of the sources listed in Table 2 in greater detail.
D.3.1. The Results from the Turow, Hennessy, and Draper (2015) Working Paper are
Irrelevant to Each of the Turow Report’s Three Assumptions
70.
The article cited by Dr. Turow that he coauthored138 is irrelevant to this
litigation, as the survey questions asked of participants refer to concepts and information
that bear no relation to a product such as CLEAR (or the services provided by CLEAR).
The Turow Report cites to this unpublished, non-peer-reviewed working paper to
purportedly support the assumption that consumers care about (or value/are concerned
about) controlling information about them. Specifically, Dr. Turow writes:139
A major national survey I conducted with colleagues found that 84% of adult Americans
want to have control over what businesses can learn about them online.
71.
However, an examination of this working paper reveals a key discrepancy
between the language describing the survey in the Turow Report and the actual underlying

138 Turow, Hennessy, and Draper (2015).
139 Turow Report, p. 7 & FN 6.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 40 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
language used in the survey itself. As reproduced in Figure 2 below, participants in Dr.
Turow’s working paper were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the
statement “I want to have control over what marketers can learn about me online”
[emphasis added].
Figure 2: Participants’ Perceptions as Reported in Table 4 of the Turow, Hennessy, and
Draper (2015) Working Paper

72.
This distinction in language is critical, as “businesses” are not the same as
“marketers.” I understand that CLEAR is not a marketing or advertising platform, and it
is not made available to marketers or advertisers.140 Marketers typically collect and use
consumers’ data to show targeted advertisements (e.g., via Facebook display ads, Google
search ads, YouTube video ads) directly to the consumer to drive purchases and/or
increase brand awareness. By contrast, Thomson Reuters’s business model with respect
to CLEAR involves providing authorized customers (i.e., government and business
entities) access to the CLEAR platform for an expressly designated “permissible”
purpose (e.g., preventing identify theft, financial scams, or locating criminals).141 That is,
CLEAR does not resemble a “marketer” and is not consumer-facing (e.g., neither
Thomson Reuters nor its customers use data from CLEAR to deliver marketing materials

140 See, e.g., Thomson Reuters’s Responses to First Set of Interrogatories, Attachment A, pp. 1 (“CLEAR
is available only to business and government entities”) & 3 (“For example, CLEAR may not be used for
creating mailing lists, soliciting clients, or any other marketing efforts […]”).
141 Id., p. 1.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 41 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
or advertisements to consumers).142 Hence, the results reported by Turow and colleagues
(2015) are irrelevant to whether consumers are concerned about or expect to maintain
control over information about them in the context of CLEAR.
73.
In fact, none of the other results reported in Dr. Turow’s working paper are
relevant to any of the three assumptions underlying the Turow Report, as these questions
either pertain to (i) marketers, (ii) retailers (e.g., stores and supermarkets), or (iii) true-
false questionnaires that measure participants’ knowledge of privacy as opposed to their
attitudes, perceptions, or preferences regarding privacy.143 Critically, consumers’
perceptions of privacy and concerns (if any) regarding the use of information about them
are likely to depend on who is gaining access to this information, what specific
information is accessed, how such information was first obtained, and in what context(s)
and for what purpose(s) the information could be used. For example, an authorized
“business” (e.g., a bank) using a platform that makes available data to verify that a client
is not engaged in money laundering may be viewed by a consumer in a completely
different light compared to a marketing company collecting data from its users to deliver
targeted ads and promote specific products. Given their lack of any relevance to CLEAR,
the findings reported in Turow and colleagues’ (2015) working paper cannot be
generalized or applied to the present matter.
D.3.2. The Results from the NTIA Survey Contradict Dr. Turow’s Assumptions 1 and 2
74.
The results from the survey by the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), titled “Nearly Three-Fourths of Online Households
Continue to Have Digital Privacy and Security Concerns,”144 do not support—and in fact
contradict—Dr. Turow’s assumptions that (i) most consumers view privacy in terms of the

142 Id., p. 3.
143 See Turow, Hennessy, and Draper (2015), pp. 12 – 14 (asking about marketing tradeoffs, supermarket
scenarios, and general “resignation” toward marketers) & 16 – 17 (asking “True-False statements about
how marketers use information and regulations related to personalized pricing”).
144 Cao (2021).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 42 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
right to control information about them; and (ii) most consumers care about (or are
concerned with) the ability to control information about them (or others’ accessing or
using their information). As reproduced in Figure 3 below, the NTIA Internet Use Survey
indicates that 73% of participants surveyed in 2019 expressed “Major Concerns Related to
Online Privacy and Security Risks.”145
Figure 3: Percentage of Households Expressing Major Concerns Related to Online Privacy
and Security Risks as Shown in NTIA Survey 146

75.
In reality, the above 73% statistic represents the sum of two distinct
concerns: (i) those related to “online privacy,” which (albeit vague and ill-defined) may
potentially be relevant to CLEAR; and (ii) “security risks,” such as identity theft and
credit card fraud, which, if anything, are the very type of concerns that CLEAR is
intended to alleviate. To disentangle these two types of concerns, a subsequent question

145 Id., p. 2 & Figure 1.
146 Ibid. The 73% figure (from 2019) quoted by Dr. Turow is highlighted in red.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 43 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
in the survey apparently asked participants to clarify the specific source of their major
concerns (reproduced in Figure 4 below).
Figure 4: Breakdown of Major Concerns Related to Online Privacy and Security Risks as
Shown in NTIA Survey 147

76.
When the measure of privacy as a general concept is broken down into more
granular concepts related to privacy, only a minority of participants perceived control over
“personal data” as important (i.e., only 23% of participants in 2019 cited “loss of control
over personal data” as a major concern). As Figure 4 above makes clear, the main drivers
of consumer concern are irrelevant to the Plaintiffs’ allegations against Thomson Reuters’s
CLEAR and to the Turow Report’s underlying assumptions about the centrality of control
in consumers’ views of privacy. Specifically, 54% of participants surveyed in 2019
indicated identity theft as the source of their privacy concern, and 44% of participants
indicated credit card and bank fraud as the root of their concerns. By reporting aggregate

147 Id., p. 3 & Figure 2. Note that figures across all categories total more than 100% due to participants
(presumably) being allowed to select multiple “concerns.” Concepts related to control over personal
information (in 2019) are highlighted in red.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 44 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
measures of privacy that are confounded with completely different conceptualizations, the
Turow Report inappropriately and artificially inflates the level of concern supposedly held
by consumers about controlling information about them.
77.
Of the concerns potentially relevant to CLEAR, only 26% and 23% of
participants identified “data collection by online services” and “loss of control over
personal data,” respectively, as sources of major concern regarding online privacy in 2019
(see Figure 4 above). In other words, contrary to the Turow Report’s framing of the
survey’s findings, 74% of participants did not view data collection by online services as a
source of major concern, and 77% of participants disagreed that losing control over their
personal data is a major concern. In fact, in every year in which the NTIA survey was
conducted (since 2015, as shown in Figure 3), concerns over data collection never
exceeded 26%. Thus, evaluating the survey results as they could plausibly relate to the
product at issue leads to the conclusion that the NTIA survey directly contradicts the
Turow Report’s Assumption 1 (i.e., that consumers commonly conceptualize privacy as the
right to control information about them) and Assumption 2 (i.e., that consumers are
commonly concerned about controlling information about them and/or others using that
through a CLEAR-like product).
78.
Not only do the aforementioned findings contradict Dr. Turow’s
assumptions, but they also suggest that consumers may, if anything, support the use of
CLEAR and may even accept the inclusion and/or dissemination of information about
them in CLEAR. Given that the most frequently-selected concerns were identity theft
and credit card fraud, participants may reasonably perceive the services provided by
CLEAR to protect them by, inter alia, enhancing financial institutions’ screening process
for fraudulent activities.148 For example, as I later explain in Subsection E.2, the CLEAR

148 See, e.g., https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/products/clear-investigation-software/retail-fraud
(“Thomson Reuters CLEAR e-commerce technology brings together vast public records, sophisticated
analytics, and transparent data into a single working environment. It gives you insight to easily
understand and resolve fraudulent transactions. Save money by avoiding fraud, reducing charge-
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 45 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
platform allows authorized customers (e.g., law enforcement agents) to conduct searches
that could benefit individuals and society, including by catching criminals who commit
identity theft and credit card fraud.149
79.
Finally, the results of the NTIA survey also reveal variation in consumers’
perceptions regarding privacy. The fact that participants expressed several different “major
concerns” about different aspects of privacy—including Identity Theft (54%), Credit Card
or Banking Fraud (44%), Data Collection by Online Services (26%), Loss of Control Over
Personal Data (23%), Data Collection by Government (18%), Threats to Personal Safety
(13%)150—indicate a lack of commonality in consumers’ conceptions and concerns
regarding privacy.
D.3.3. The Results from the ValuePenguin Survey Contradict Dr. Turow’s Assumption 2
80.
Dr. Turow cites a ValuePenguin survey titled “Beware! Survey Finds 43% of
Americans Have Been Victim of a Cybercrime,”151 asserting that “51% of Americans list
their top data concern as companies selling their personal information or using it against
them”152 as evidence of consumers’ concern about (or value attributed to) controlling
information about themselves (Assumption 2). Again, however, a review of this survey
reveals that the results contradict Dr. Turow’s assumption when the above composite
statistic is disaggregated into concerns relevant to the issues in this litigation. According to
the ValuePenguin survey, the statistic that “51% of consumers are more concerned about
company use of their data than a cybercrime”153 is in reality a summation of two separate
metrics: (i) “17% of consumers are concerned companies will use private information

backs, and minimizing false positives [emphasis added].”).
149 See, e.g., ibid.
150 Cao (2021), p. 3.
151 Fitzpatrick (2019).
152 Turow Report, p. 7 & FN 9.
153 Fitzpatrick (2019), p. 4.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 46 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
against them”154 and (ii) “34% of consumers are concerned of [sic] companies selling
personal information” (see Figure 5 below).155
Figure 5: Breakdown of Consumer Concern About Company Use of Their Data as Shown
in ValuePenguin Survey Infographic 156

81.
As an initial matter, both aforementioned metrics are non-dispositive as to
how consumers would perceive a product like CLEAR, given the many ways in which
survey participants could have interpreted such broad concepts as “companies,” “use,”
“private information,” “selling,” and “personal information.” The Fitzpatrick (2019) online
article cited in the Turow Report, which only summarizes the ValuePenguin study results,
does not provide any details into the underlying survey questions that could clarify how the
question was phrased and presented to participants. For example, if participants had in
mind marketing companies while answering the questions, the findings from this study
would be entirely irrelevant to this litigation.

154 Ibid.
155 Ibid.
156 Ibid.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 47 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
82.
Setting aside the question of relevance, assuming arguendo that CLEAR did
“use” in some form consumers’ “private information” (itself an ill-defined phrase that
could mean different things to different individuals, as noted in one of Dr. Turow’s own
cited legal sources),157 there would still be no basis to assume that the putative class
members would perceive CLEAR’s use cases158 as examples of using “information against
them.”159 Indeed, if anything, as I discuss in Subsection E.2, many consumers may hold
the opposite opinion upon learning of CLEAR’s use cases and potential benefits. Thus, the
statistic that “17% of consumers are concerned companies will use private information
against them”160 cannot be generalized to Thomson Reuters’s operation of CLEAR.
83.
The second survey statistic pertaining to “companies selling personal
information” could arguably relate to the issues in this litigation. I understand that
CLEAR’s business model is such that it does not directly “sell”161 any given individual’s
“personal information” or “dossier” to a third-party company; rather, “authorized,
credentialed entities” pay for access to CLEAR in order to “search and access information
from records that have been licensed or otherwise acquired from third-party sources that
represent they are authorized to provide the information.”162 However, even assuming
arguendo that CLEAR were to “sell” an individual’s “personal information,” taking this
metric at face value means that only 34% of participants, which represents a minority of
consumers, hold a concern potentially relevant to the right to control information about the
self. Thus, the key finding from the ValuePenguin survey cited by Dr. Turow contradicts

157 Moreham (2005), p. 641 (“[W]hat is private to one person is not necessarily private to another”).
158 See, e.g., https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/products/clear-investigation-software (“Anti-money
laundering, Child and family services, Commercial lending, Contact tracing, Corporate security, Federal
government, Healthcare fraud, Insurance fraud, Know your vendor, Law enforcement, Retail fraud
investigations, Skip tracing, Tax fraud prevention, Third-party risk management, Unemployment
insurance”).
159 Fitzpatrick (2019), p. 4.
160 Ibid.
161 For example, to the extent that the concept of “sell” denotes any transfer of proprietary interest from
one party to the other, my understanding is that such a transfer does not occur in the case of the CLEAR
product; September 1, 2022 Interview.
162 Thomson Reuters’s Responses to First Set of Interrogatories, Attachment A, p. 1.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 48 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
his assumption that consumers are (commonly) concerned about controlling information
about them and/or others using that information.
84.
In addition, according to the Fitzpatrick (2019) article, the ValuePenguin
survey found that 26% of participants are “concerned they’ll be a victim of a cyber attack
or cyber extortion”163—a concern that does not relate to CLEAR. The article also proceeds
to document differences across consumers in the willingness to share personal data in
different scenarios (albeit in situations that do not describe CLEAR),164 concluding from
the results that “[t]he type of data shared matters, especially for younger consumers.”165
Such diversity in participants’ concerns about different aspects related to privacy—and in
their willingness to share data—indicates that the putative class members are not likely to
commonly construe and value privacy. Instead, the putative class members are likely to
hold different perceptions and preferences regarding the collection and/or dissemination, of
information about them through CLEAR.
D.3.4. The Results from the boyd and Marwick (2011) Conference Paper Contradict Dr.
Turow’s Assumptions 1 and 2
85.
The Turow Report cites an unpublished conference paper by boyd and
Marwick (describing qualitative research about teens’ attitudes toward privacy)166 to
support the assumption that consumers view the right to control their information as
central to privacy (Assumption 1). Variation in consumers’ understanding of, and
preferences toward, privacy and control of information about themselves is similarly

163 Fitzpatrick (2019), p. 4.
164 Id., p. 5 (“We asked respondents whether they would be willing to share personal data in a variety of
consumer scenarios, ranging from insurance transactions to online shopping. Although 37% of those
surveyed would be unwilling to share personal data in any scenario, respondents were more willing to
share personal data when they can get savings in return.”).
165 Id., pp. 4 – 6 (e.g., indicating that millennials, or those aged 23 – 38, were most willing to share some
form of personal data).
166 boyd and Marwick (2011).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 49 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
evident in an unpublished conference paper cited in the Turow Report, authored by boyd
and Marwick (2011) and which states:167
Privacy is a fraught concept, with no clear agreed-upon definition. Philosophers and
legal scholars have worked diligently to conceptually locate privacy and offer a framework
for considering how and when it has been violated. Yet, fundamentally, privacy is a social
construct that reflects the values and norms of everyday people. How people
conceptualize privacy and locate it in their life varies wildly, highlighting that a
universal notion of privacy remains enigmatic. When we asked teens to define privacy
for us, their cacophonous responses reveal the diverse approaches that can be taken to
understand privacy. [FNs omitted; emphases added]
86.
In particular, the boyd and Marwick (2011) conference paper reports data
from ethnographic fieldwork collected from 2006 to 2010 and that included 58 interviews
with teenagers (either enrolled in or recently dropped out of high school) in which
“[p]rivacy was the central topic,”168 focusing on how teenagers think about privacy in
“networked publics” (e.g., on Facebook).169 Based on these interviews, the authors note a
range of definitions of privacy (e.g., a personal boundary, a physical space, a safe space,
privacy with respect to thoughts)170 that both varied across participants and that differ from
the Turow Report’s narrow conceptualization of privacy (i.e., as the right to “control
personal information” and “to be let alone”). According to the manuscript, teens also
expressed different views about privacy and controlling their information—as well as the
extent of concern regarding such control—with some adopting a “public-by-default,
private-through-effort” view in the age of social networking and technology.171 The
authors then highlight the need to understand interpretations and preferences regarding
privacy in context:172

167 Id., pp. 2 – 3.
168 Id., p. 2.
169 Id., pp. 1 & 7.
170 Id., pp. 3 – 4.
171 Id., pp. 11 – 12 (e.g., “Rather than seeing privacy as the default, Alicia sees privacy as a conscious
choice. In her interactions online, she assumes that Facebook is public-by-default, private-through-
effort.”; “How teens negotiate privacy in networked publics varies tremendously, shaped not only by the
underlying architecture of the software, but also young people’s personal values and social norms that
surround them.”).
172 Id., p. 12.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 50 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Even though all the teens we interviewed expressed an appreciation for privacy at some
level, they did not share a uniform set of values about privacy and publicity. […]
Privacy must be contextualized. Teen understandings of privacy and how they carry these
out varies by individual, by community, by situation, by role, and by interaction. In other
words, privacy – and the norms surrounding privacy – cannot be divorced from context.
[FN omitted]
87.
Hence, to the extent that the qualitative interviews from the boyd and
Marwick (2011) conference paper can be used to draw any conclusions, such conclusions
are inconsistent with Dr. Turow’s Assumption 1 (i.e., most consumers construe privacy
as the right to control information about them) and Assumption 2 (i.e., most consumers
are concerned about controlling information about them and/or others using that
information).173
D.3.5. The Results from the 2015 Pew Research Center Survey Contradict Dr. Turow’s
Assumption 1 and Fail to Support Assumption 2
88.
The Turow Report cites two surveys from Pew Research Center, one from
2015 (hereinafter, the “2015 Pew Survey”)174 and one from 2019 (hereinafter, the “2019
Pew Survey”).175 As detailed next, both surveys’ results contradict Assumption 1 (i.e., that
consumers commonly view privacy in terms of controlling information about them) and are
non-dispositive and fail to support Dr. Turow’s Assumption 2 (i.e., that consumers are
commonly concerned about controlling information about them and/or others using that
information through a CLEAR-like product). Moreover, the 2019 Pew Survey’s results

173 Note that boyd and Marwick (2011) also state that teens make tradeoffs and consider both the risks
and rewards of information disclosure (e.g., “There is always a trade-off, as teens account for what they
might gain and what they might lose and how such cost-benefit analyses fit into their own mental models
of risk and reward. Thus, when teens are negotiating privacy, they aren’t simply thinking about a ‘loss’;
they’re considering what they might gain from revealing themselves.”); ibid. Such a sentiment, albeit in
the context of teens proactively sharing information about themselves to others (e.g., on Facebook), is
also arguably inconsistent with Dr. Turow’s Assumption 3 (i.e., that consumers would agree that the
harms of a product such as CLEAR would outweigh its benefits).
174 Madden and Rainie (2015). Note that this report includes the results from multiple, separate surveys;
the specific question to which Dr. Turow refers appeared as a standalone question in a survey conducted
in 2015. Therefore, I use “2015 Pew Survey” to refer to this specific survey and “2015 Pew Report” to
refer to the broader research report encompassing the 2015 Pew Survey.
175 Auxier et al. (2019).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 51 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
directly contradict Assumption 3 (i.e., that consumers would agree that the harm from a
product like CLEAR outweighs its benefits).
89.
Dr. Turow references the 2015 Pew Survey to substantiate his claims that
“[t]he majority of Americans believe that privacy and confidentiality are very important
aspects of their lives”176 and that “Americans overwhelmingly believe that control over
their personal information is central to maintaining individual privacy.”177 He proceeds to
quote the 2015 Pew Survey’s finding that “93% of American adults report that ‘being in
control of who can get information about them is important,’ and ‘90% say that controlling
what information is collected about them is important.’”178 However, these cited findings
do not in actuality provide dispositive evidence that (per Dr. Turow’s Assumption 2)
consumers care about exercising control over information about them, and, more
importantly, cannot be generalized to how consumers would perceive the access or use of
information about them in a product like CLEAR.
90.
First, even taking at face value the statement that “[t]he majority of
Americans believe that privacy and confidentiality are very important aspects of their
lives,”179 such a result does not mean that consumers therefore commonly believe their
privacy to be defined based on control over information about them, or that consumers
would be concerned with privacy or control over such information in the context of
CLEAR. A consumer’s belief that privacy and confidentiality are important in general is
not tantamount to that consumer believing that, for example, their privacy was violated,
that they were harmed, or that they should be compensated because their information was
collected and/or disseminated through CLEAR (or a product like CLEAR), regardless of
the product’s use cases and safeguards.

176 Turow Report, p. 6 & FN 6.
177 Id., p. 7 & FN 6.
178 Ibid.
179 Id., p. 6 & FN 6.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 52 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
91.
Second, the specific question in the 2015 Pew Survey that generated the
statistics quoted by Dr. Turow (see Figure 6 below) was extremely broad, vague, and
leading. Such flaws render this question (hereinafter, the “importance of privacy”
question) non-dispositive with respect to consumers’ actual perceptions regarding
information about them in the context of any situation or product resembling CLEAR.
Figure 6: 2015 Pew Survey Question Regarding Importance of Selected Aspects of Privacy
180

92.
As Figure 6 depicts, participants were asked a closed-ended question that
specifically informed them in the instructions that “Privacy means different things to
different people today” and to “think[] about all of your daily interactions—both online and
offline.” The question then elicited importance ratings (from “Very Important” to “Not at
all important”) for each of nine pre-selected characteristics—two of which were related to

180 Madden and Rainie (2015), p. 5.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 53 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
control over information. Notably, the wording of these two characteristics was highly
vague and broad, encompassing potentially infinite circumstances and likely yielded
idiosyncratic and varied interpretations across participants in terms of what “control,”
“information,” and “collected” meant. Further, because participants were not asked to
clarify what exactly controlling their information meant and whether they would be willing
to relinquish this control under more specific circumstances, the findings from this single
closed-ended question are completely non-dispositive for how consumers would perceive
or react to CLEAR.
93.
Beyond the “importance of privacy” question’s non-dispositive nature, its
design is also leading and cannot generate valid or reliable estimates of consumer
perceptions for purposes of this litigation.181 The closed-ended question employed an
incomplete and non-neutral set of answer choices and cued participants to attribute at least

181 A leading question or survey procedure suggests to participants particular answers, thus creating a bias
and producing invalid results. Indeed, seminal research shows that people’s survey responses are often
distorted based on the survey context and on leading phrases and questions. See, e.g., Kahneman, Daniel
and Amos Tversky (1981), “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” Science,
211(4481), 453 – 458; Loftus, Elizabeth and Guido Zanni (1975), “Eyewitness Testimony: The Influence
of the Wording of a Question,” Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 5(1), 86 – 88. For a review, see
Weinberg, Howard I., John Wadsworth, and Robert S. Baron (1983), “Demand and the Impact of Leading
Questions on Eyewitness Testimony,” Memory & Cognition, 11(1), 101 – 104. See also, e.g., Loftus,
Elizabeth, Diane Altman, and Robert Geballe (1975), “Effects of Questioning Upon a Witness’ Later
Recollections,” Journal of Police Science and Administration, 3(2), 162 – 165; Loftus, Elizabeth (1975),
“Leading Questions and the Eyewitness Report,” Cognitive Psychology, 7, 550 – 572; Loftus, Elizabeth
and John C. Palmer (1974), “Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction: An Example of the Interaction
between Language and Memory,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 13, 585 – 589;
Burt, Christopher D. and Jennifer S. Popple (1996) “Effects of Implied Action Speed on Estimation of
Event Duration,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(1), 53 – 63. Participants’ reactions to leading survey
questions about decontextualized information can reflect a number of background considerations (e.g.,
social desirability concerns), whereas the true influence, if any, of various factors in the actual
marketplace is difficult for survey participants to accurately identify, predict, and verbalize. See, e.g.,
Fiske, Susan T. and Shelley E. Taylor (1991), Social Cognition (2nd ed.), New York, NY: McGraw-Hill;
Nisbett, Richard E. and Timothy D. Wilson (1977), “Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports
on Mental Processes,” Psychological Review, 84(3), 231 – 259; Wilson, Timothy D. and Daniel T. Gilbert
(2003), “Affective Forecasting,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 35, Zanna, Mark P.
(ed.), San Diego, CA: Elsevier, pp. 345 – 411; Wilson, Timothy D. and Jonathan W. Schooler (1991),
“Thinking Too Much: Introspection Can Reduce the Quality of Preferences and Decisions,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 181 – 192.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 54 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
some importance to most of the listed attributes.182 Indeed, the “net” importance score
(calculated as the sum of “Very important” and “Somewhat important” ratings) was 79% or
above for seven out of nine characteristics.
94.
Hence, although Dr. Turow focused on the two statistics related to control
because they fit his preferred conceptualization of privacy (i.e., 93% rated “Being in
control of who can get info about you” as “Very important/Somewhat important”
[74%/19%]; 90% rated “Controlling what information is collected about you” as “Very
important/Somewhat important” [65%/25%]),183 similarly high levels of importance were
obtained for several other characteristics (none of which relate to CLEAR):184
• 93% rated “Being able to share confidential matters with someone you trust” as
“Very important/Somewhat important” [72%/21%];
• 88% rated “Not having someone watch you or listen to you without your
permission” as “Very important/Somewhat important” [67%/20%];
• 85% rated “Not being disturbed at home” as “Very important/Somewhat
important” [56%/29%];
• 85% rated “Being able to have times when you are completely alone, away from
anyone else” as “Very important/Somewhat important” [55%/30%]; and
• 79% rated “Having individuals in social/work situations not ask you things that
are highly personal” as “Very important/Somewhat important” [44%/36%].
If anything, the results above contradict Dr. Turow’s Assumption 1, as they suggest that
consumers, when presented with a list of characteristics related to the general concept of

182 In many cases, closed-ended questions have a disadvantage (compared to open-ended questions)
because the closed-ended questions give participants hints about the answers that are expected or
preferred. The answer choices provided in a closed-ended question can steer participants toward or away
from particular answers, and can prompt participants to report opinions (offered as answer choices) that
are not actually formed or held by consumers in the marketplace. Further, the results attained from
closed-ended questions may be misleading and biased if the list of answer choices provided is incomplete.
See, e.g., Diamond, Shari S. (2011), “Reference Guide on Survey Research,” in Reference Manual on
Scientific Evidence, Federal Judicial Center, pp. 391 – 394 & 389 – 390.
183 Madden and Rainie (2015), p. 5.
184 Ibid.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 55 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
privacy, are likely to find most such characteristics important and are not likely to gravitate
towards only one conceptualization. Which interpretation(s) of privacy various consumers
form is a highly relevant question, as such interpretations contextualize how a given
consumer may react in a specific circumstance. For example, a consumer who believes
that their privacy is preserved when sharing confidential information with a trusted entity
may conclude, if they perceive Thomson Reuters and CLEAR as trustworthy, that they
have not been harmed by (and even benefitted from) having their data collected and/or
disseminated through CLEAR.
95.
Finally, while not statistically generalizable, it is useful to consider the
responses from various focus group panelists included in the 2015 Pew Report; such
responses are consistent with heterogeneity (lack of commonality) across consumers in
their concern (or lack thereof) about the collection and use of information about them
(particularly with respect to a product like CLEAR). According to the report, “online
focus groups”185 were conducted among a subset of panelists who participated in a
separate survey in 2014.186 In one such discussion, participants were asked whether they
“feel as though [they] know enough about who collects information about [them] and
[their] activities or would [they] like to know more about who is doing the collecting and
the reasons for it.”187 The report states, based on these discussions, that “many want
more transparency in who collects information about them, but some don’t care or don’t
worry.”188
96.
In addition, focus group participants’ spontaneous impressions as to what
information is being collected and how such information is collected suggests that it is
unlikely that consumers, if not directly prompted, would have in mind an entity similar to

185 Id., p. 22.
186 Ibid.
187 Ibid.; see also id., p. 23 (“At the same time, another group of participants voiced the view that they
‘don’t care’ or ‘don’t worry’ about who might be collecting data about them and why.”).
188 Ibid.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 56 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
CLEAR (or Thomson Reuters’s operation thereof) that collects their data. According to
the 2015 Pew Report, when asked what kind of information about them and their activities
is being collected and who is collecting it, “many respondents” cited “[e]xpansive
government data collection efforts,” and “several noted the ways in which hackers might
access records that were gathered for other purposes.”189 Such responses cast further doubt
on the validity of generalizing to the present litigation—as Dr. Turow seeks to do—based
on results from a question that invokes only privacy-related concepts in the abstract (i.e.,
without any relation to CLEAR).
D.3.6. The Results from the 2019 Pew Research Center Survey Contradict Dr. Turow’s
Assumptions 1 and 3, and Fail to Support Assumption 2
97.
Dr. Turow cites the 2019 Pew Survey190 to support the notion that
“consumers view the right to control their information as central to individual privacy,”
specifically quoting the following finding:191
[W]hen Americans were asked for their own definitions of the words “privacy” and “digital
privacy,” they “most often mention their concerns about the role other people and
organizations can play in learning about them, their desire to shield their personal activities
and possessions, and their interest in controlling who is given access to their personal
information.”
98.
A closer examination of the open-ended questions to which the Turow Report
refers, however, reveals that their results do not substantiate—and in fact are inconsistent
with—Assumption 1 (i.e., that most consumers conceptualize privacy as control over
information about them). Figures 7a and 7b below reproduce reported results
corresponding to the questions “What does privacy mean to you?” and “What does digital
privacy mean to you?”192

189 Id., p. 26; see also id., p. 27 (naming such entities as the NSA, hackers, retailers, and the government
in general).
190 Auxier et al. (2019).
191 Turow Report, p. 7 & FN 9 (quoting from the 2019 Pew Survey report).
192 Auxier et al. (2019), p. 12. The complete survey questionnaire suggests that participants were asked to
define either “privacy” or “digital privacy”; see id., p. 50.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 57 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Figure 7a: 2019 Pew Survey Question Regarding Definition of Privacy 193

193 Id., p. 12.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 58 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Figure 7b: 2019 Pew Survey Question Regarding Definition of Digital Privacy 194

99.
As Figures 7a and 7b indicate, the top three categories into which most of the
verbatim responses were coded are extremely broad,195 likely encompassing other concepts
that do not relate to Dr. Turow’s conceptualization, and would not apply to a product like
CLEAR. For example, “personal information and possessions,” “keep things to
themselves,” “control over information, possessions, self,” and “other people and
organizations” are ambiguous and could refer to any number of circumstances or situations,
including many that are very different from a context such as Thomson Reuters’s operation

194 Id., p. 14.
195 Indeed, the 2019 Pew Survey report denotes as much, stating that participants’ “written answers were
coded into broad categories”; id., p. 12.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 59 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
of CLEAR. The 2019 Pew Survey report does not provide a complete set of verbatim
responses, precluding a more granular analysis.
100. It is noteworthy that even taken at face value, when asked what “privacy”
meant to them, only 26% of participants mentioned anything about “control over
information, possessions, self; deciding what aspects of their lives are accessible to
others”—the category that maps most closely to Dr. Turow’s conceptualization. Of
arguably more relevance is participants’ definition of “digital privacy”; as Figure 7b
shows, only 14% of participants were coded into the same category implicating the concept
of “control.” That is, the majority of participants do not perceive the concept of controlling
information about them as integral to privacy, if anything contradicting Assumption 1.
101. Further, Dr. Turow fails to acknowledge that the results from the
aforementioned open-ended questions also demonstrates that: (i) 17% and 31% of
participants who were asked to define “privacy” and “digital privacy”, respectively,
provided no answer, indicating that at least some consumers may not have any opinion
about the terms at all; (ii) only 4% and 6% of participants who were asked to define
“privacy” and “digital privacy,” respectively, mentioned their information being “sold” or
“third party involvement” (which could plausibly be connected to CLEAR);196 and
(iii) nearly 10% of participants asked to define “digital privacy” answered that “Privacy is
a myth/means nothing/doesn’t exist.”
102. Although the 2019 Pew Survey found that many consumers purportedly
express at least some “concern” about how their personal data is being used,197 such
results again stem from an extremely broad and abstract question that is not dispositive of
Assumption 2 (i.e., that consumers commonly are concerned about controlling

196 See ibid. (indicating that “fewer participants mention third parties and the selling of their information,
tracking or monitoring, crime and other threats of illicit activity, or interference from the government”).
197 See id., p. 20 (indicating that 36% and 43% of participants are “very concerned” and “somewhat
concerned,” respectively, about how data collected about them is used by companies; 25% and 39% of
participants are “very concerned” and “somewhat concerned,” respectively, about how data collected
about them is used by the government”).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 60 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
information about them and/or about others controlling that information via a CLEAR-
like product). In fact, additional questions in this survey offer key caveats (ignored in the
Turow Report) that further demonstrate the necessity of contextualizing consumers’
general views about “privacy” and “personal information.” Below, I highlight two
questions whose results, if anything, contradict Dr. Turow’s Assumption 3 by suggesting
that consumers would not commonly perceive the alleged harm of CLEAR to outweigh
its benefits.
103. First, as noted in the 2019 Pew Survey report, “Americans have varying
levels of comfort with companies using their personal data in different ways.”198
Specifically, when asked to rate how comfortable they would be with companies using
their personal data in each of three specific ways, 57% of participants indicated they
would be very or somewhat comfortable with their data being used “[t]o help improve
[companies’] fraud prevention systems”; 50% of participants indicated they would be
very or somewhat comfortable with their data being used “[t]o help [companies] develop
new products”; and 36% of participants indicated they would be very or somewhat
comfortable with their data being used for the purpose of “[s]haring with outside research
groups that might help improve society” (see Figure 8 below).199 The report also states
that the aforementioned perceptions varied across individuals based on age and political
affiliation.200

198 See id., p. 40.
199 See id., p. 41.
200 See id., pp. 40 – 41 (e.g., “Younger adults are generally more comfortable with these uses of their
private data, while older adults are less comfortable”; “Democrats, including independents who lean to
the Democratic Party, are more likely than Republicans and Republican-leaning independents to be
comfortable with companies […] using their data to help improve their fraud prevention systems (61% vs.
54%).”).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 61 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Figure 8: Americans’ Comfort Levels With Companies Using Their Personal Data in
Different Ways 201

104. Of the three “use cases” listed above, the first (“To help improve
[companies’] fraud prevention systems”) relates to CLEAR, which is used in many
instances for the exact purpose of helping companies detect and prevent fraud.202 The
results of the above question indicate that whether consumers would object to the access or
use of information about them depends crucially on how or in what specific ways that
information is used. Moreover, in the specific case of CLEAR, the finding that 57% of
participants reported being comfortable with companies using their data to improve fraud
prevention systems suggests that many putative class members may be amenable to
information about them being collected or otherwise used in a product like CLEAR, and
that such consumers would not perceive the alleged harm of CLEAR to outweigh the

201 See id., p. 41.
202 See, e.g., https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/products/clear-investigation-software (indicating
“Prevent, detect, and investigate risk & fraud” as a heading at the top of the page, and listing “Healthcare
fraud,” “Insurance fraud,” “Retail fraud investigations,” and “Tax fraud prevention” as use cases at the
bottom of the page). See also Subsection E.2 of this Rebuttal Expert Report for a discussion of CLEAR’s
use cases and potential benefits.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 62 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
platform’s benefits. Dr. Turow ignores such important and relevant factors in his analysis,
instead leaping to the conclusion that all Californians were harmed simply by virtue of
having their information made available and/or disseminated through CLEAR.
105. Second, in a subsequent question, participants in the 2019 Pew Survey were
asked whether they would find acceptable or unacceptable each of six different potential
uses of their personal data by private companies and government agencies. As Figure 9
below shows, pluralities of participants were willing to trade off their personal data
depending on different circumstances that could benefit society.203
Figure 9: Americans’ Perceptions on the Acceptability of Using Personal Data in Different
Usage Scenarios 204

203 See id., p. 8; see also id., p. 7 (“Despite their broad concerns about data collection and use by
companies and the government, pluralities of U.S. adults say it is acceptable for data to be used in some
ways.”).
204 See id., p. 8.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 63 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
106. For example, 49% of participants indicated it was acceptable for the
government to “collect[]data about all Americans to assess potential terrorist threats.”
Similarly, 48% of participants found it acceptable for “DNA testing companies [to share]
customers’ genetic data with law enforcement to help solve crimes.” These two uses of
personal data are the only ones from the list above that could potentially resemble
CLEAR’s “use cases,” which in many instances serve the purpose of investigating criminal
suspects and other threats to society.205 Participants’ openness to consider situations in
which community or societal benefits can outweigh the alleged harm of sharing personal
data indicates that it is not appropriate to assume classwide harm in the case of CLEAR, as
Dr. Turow does, without measuring consumers’ perceived tradeoffs between the product’s
potential risks and its potential benefits and advantages.
107. Instead of presenting consumers with information on the potential harm and
potential benefits that could arise from CLEAR (or a CLEAR-like product), the Turow
Report discounted the possibility of benefits altogether, asserting that all putative class
members must have been harmed due to having their right to control “personal
information” allegedly violated. Such an assumption is completely unsubstantiated. In
fact, the results of the 2019 Pew Survey suggest that many members of the putative class
would disagree with Dr. Turow’s assessment of harm outweighing any benefits (i.e.,
Assumption 3) if they were presented a full picture of CLEAR.
D.3.7. Conclusion: Dr. Turow’s Cited Research About Consumer Perceptions and
Preferences Do Not Substantiate His Assumptions
108. In summary, the sources cited in the Turow Report that ostensibly relate to
consumer perceptions or preferences either are irrelevant to, directly refute, or are
completely non-dispositive with respect to Dr. Turow’s key assumptions and opinions.
None of Dr. Turow’s cited sources substantiate his assumptions that: (i) consumers

205 See, e.g., https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/products/clear-investigation-software/law-enforcement;
see also Subsection E.2.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 64 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
commonly conceive privacy as the right to control information about them; (ii) consumers
are commonly concerned about controlling information about them and/or others using
that information (through a CLEAR-like product); and (iii) consumers commonly agree
that the harm from a product like CLEAR outweighs its benefits. On multiple occasions,
Dr. Turow reports overgeneralized, inflated, and/or unrepresentative statistics regarding
how privacy is conceptualized that are unsupported or even contradicted by his cited
sources.
109. Contrary to the Turow Report’s characterization of privacy, the
aforementioned sources indicate considerable variation in how consumers understand and
perceive privacy, with little to no consensus among consumers in terms of their concerns
or preferences regarding the collection or use of information about them. Dr. Turow does
not provide any scientific evidence for the notion that most putative class members, for
example, would even agree that CLEAR “violates” their “privacy”; would have objected
to their information being collected and/or disseminated through CLEAR (to serve
CLEAR’ various use cases); or would have expected or demanded recompense for usage
of their data. Taken together, the studies cited in the Turow Report neither substantiate
Dr. Turow’s assertion that consumers’ privacy rights have been violated nor demonstrate
that CLEAR caused any harm to consumers.
D.4. Dr. Turow Fails to Provide Evidence of Any Concrete, Specific (Actual or Likely)
Negative Outcome Suffered by a Single Putative Class Member, Let Alone
Commonly Classwide
110. Instead of using empirical evidence and data to try and demonstrate that the
putative class members suffered common injury due to CLEAR, Dr. Turow relies on
legal and philosophical scholarship and overgeneralizes findings from articles that are
either irrelevant to, or directly contradict, his assumptions and conclusions. Inexplicably,
Dr. Turow fails to document or describe any concrete negative outcomes that occurred
(or were likely to occur) due to an individual’s information being collected and/or
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 65 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
disseminated through CLEAR.206 In fact, Dr. Turow fails to specify what such harm
could even look like.
111. Instead, the Turow Report’s Section IV consists of a series of abstract and
often subjective or speculative arguments. Specifically, Dr. Turow:
(i)
describes his understanding of the CLEAR product207 and the personal
information available through the CLEAR platform,208 stating that “[t]he
breadth of information available in CLEAR, and the variety of uses for
which Thomson Reuters permits business and governmental entities to
access information through CLEAR, cover many aspects of Californians’
lives”;209
(ii)
opines that regardless of the content of individual reports210 or whether a
customer’s use of CLEAR is deemed “permissible,”211 “every Californian
whose information is accessible through CLEAR has suffered the same
fundamental privacy harm of a lack of control and violation of their right to
be let alone”;212
(iii) asserts that Californians have no control over CLEAR’s “dossiers”213 about
them and have not consented to the collection or sale of their data;214
(iv)
claims that “discovery demonstrates that Thomson Reuters is disinterested
in helping members of the public learn about the data Thomson Reuters
amasses about them, who uses it, and whether or how they could stop it,”215

206 At his deposition, Dr. Turow disavowed the relevance of examining individuals, stating that his “[t]he
issue is not an individual class member. The issue [is] the larger class of Californians” (Turow
Deposition, pp. 148 – 149) and that he did not feel there is any need to “offer any methodology to
distinguish among members of the putative class in this case in any way” (id., p. 251).
207 Turow Report, pp. 9 – 12. See, e.g., p. 10 (“CLEAR, as marketed by Thomson Reuters, provides
customers the ability to coalesce large numbers of data points about individuals quickly and seamlessly”
[FN omitted]); p. 11 (“According to Thomson Reuters, CLEAR ‘delivers a vast collection of public and
proprietary records and brings all key content together into a single working environment to give
[customers] a more streamlined, efficient search” [FN omitted]).
208 Id., pp. 12 – 13. Dr. Turow acknowledges that targeted “use cases” for CLEAR (i.e., how a customer
is using the CLEAR product) include “skip tracing, unemployment insurance, corporate security, fraud
investigations of various types, contact tracing, risk-management, child and family services, and law
enforcement investigations”; id., p. 12.
209 Id., p. 13.
210 Ibid.
211 Id., p. 14.
212 Id., p. 13.
213 Id., p. 18.
214 Id., pp. 14 – 15.
215 Id., p. 15.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 66 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
pointing to the lack of a public campaign or attempt to inform Californians
about CLEAR, including how to opt out or to control their information;216
(v)
asserts that Thomson Reuters’s Public Records Privacy Policy is
“convoluted”217 and cannot be considered protective of privacy, and that he
“see[s] nothing in the policy to suggest that Californians are given a
meaningful right to control their information”;218
(vi)
reiterates his opinion that “CLEAR deprives all Californians of the right to
control their personal data,” which Dr. Turow refers to as “an economically
valuable commodity and a well-defined feature of individual privacy”;219
(vii) claims that “dossiers”220 such as those in CLEAR “inflict concrete privacy
harms”221 because they represent “a theft of a person’s persona,”222 one that
deprives Californians of their right to control their information; according to
the Turow Report, such a “theft” (and accompanying “harm”) is
“independent of what particular information has taken, when or how it is
made available to others, or for what purposes Thomson Reuters makes that
information available”;223
(viii) claims that Thomson Reuters’s use of CLEAR also causes “material
harm”224 by causing Californians to “lose the value the information would
have retained, value they could have chosen to capture themselves”;225 and
(ix)
opines that each of these harms (i.e., “privacy harm” and “material harm”)
are caused regardless of the content of the data, the accuracy of the data, and
whether the information is publicly available in disaggregated forms.226
112. The above sequence of arguments forms the basis for Dr. Turow’s
conclusion that Thomson Reuters’s CLEAR product harmed all Californians in the same
way by violating their right to privacy (specifically, their alleged rights to control their
personal information and to be let alone). Crucially, however, the analyses and reasoning
leading to Dr. Turow’s conclusion are neither supported empirically nor substantiated in

216 Ibid.
217 Id., p. 16.
218 Ibid.
219 Id., p. 17.
220 Id., p. 18.
221 Ibid.
222 Ibid.
223 Ibid.
224 Ibid.
225 Ibid.
226 Id., pp. 19 – 20.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 67 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
any other way (or even adequately explained). For example, although Dr. Turow asserts
multiple times that Thomson Reuters, through CLEAR, has inflicted “concrete”227 injuries
on all Californians—in the form of “privacy harms”228 and “material harm” from the “lost
value of the information”229—such a conceptualization of harm is not concrete but rather
refers to an abstract concept230 that does not (and cannot) constitute scientific evidence of
any (actual, likely, or common) injury.
113. It is noteworthy that the sources cited by Dr. Turow in Section IV of his
report consist of legal conceptual articles, deposition testimony from Thomson Reuters
marketing executives, and various Thomson Reuters documents produced in this litigation.
However, these materials are used to support statements regarding basic background or
factual points (e.g., the claim that Thomson Reuters collects information from “a variety of
sources and sells (or otherwise permits access to) that information in a variety of forms,
and to a variety of customers”231) or to introduce concepts that have not been empirically
shown to be relevant to CLEAR. A review of these documents (some of which appear in
Table 1 in Subsection D.1 of this Rebuttal Expert Report) reveals that none of them relate
to or provide any scientific evidence regarding: (i) consumers’ perceptions or preferences
about privacy or how their information is used in the context of a product such as CLEAR;
or (ii) how consumers are (or could be) specifically harmed by CLEAR.
114. In developing his hypothesis that common harms were inflicted on all
Californians due to CLEAR, Dr. Turow attempts to connect several different abstract—
and semantically “loaded” or “charged”—concepts (e.g., “informational privacy,”
“privacy harms,” “material harm,” “lost value of information,” “social importance,” “theft
of persona”), ultimately engaging in logical leaps and restating his key conclusion in

227 Id., p. 18.
228 Ibid.
229 Id., p. 19.
230 As previously noted, Dr. Turow testified that the nature of the privacy rights he is rendering an opinion
on refers to “ethical and social” rights; Turow Deposition, p. 174.
231 Turow Report, p. 10 & FN 17.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 68 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
different ways. Examples of such speculative and imprecise reasoning, which suggest a
lack of objectivity, include:
•
Contending that regardless of the content of individual data contained in
CLEAR, all Californians were harmed simply by virtue of having purportedly
“fundamental” rights violated:232
While the specific content of individual reports may vary, every Californian whose
information is accessible through CLEAR has suffered the same fundamental
privacy harm of a lack of control and violation of their right to be let alone.
Regardless of how expansive an individual’s report may be, no Californian has
control over the information in or use of dossiers about them. In these critical ways,
all Californians face these same harms.
•
Asserting that Californians did not consent to having their information
collected or “sold” through CLEAR, and that therefore all Californians suffered “privacy
harms” (due to not having control or having their right to be let alone violated):233
In any event, whether a person has consented to the sale of their data has nothing
to do with whether Thomson Reuters lists the use as permissible. And so, whatever
the function of a customer certifying a purportedly permissible use, it does nothing to
solve the privacy harms of lack of control or violation of the right to be let alone.
No Californian is given any control over the uses of dossiers about them. There is no
use of CLEAR profiles that is permitted by the Californians [emphasis in the original]
whose information is sold via CLEAR. To the contrary, Californians have not
consented to the collection or sale of their information through Thomson Reuters’
CLEAR platform, and largely do not know about it.
•
Opining, vaguely and without evidence, that Thomson Reuters’s CLEAR
can be described as a “business interest[]” that “collect[s] and stockpile[s] unnecessary
information about us and [] misus[es] information gathered for one purpose in order to
serve other purposes,” and further claiming that regardless of any “limitations” placed on
the use of CLEAR, Californians are still harmed because Thomson Reuters “controls”
their CLEAR profiles “for commercial purposes”:234
In addition, the right to be let alone, as mentioned, protects against “business interests
from collecting and stockpiling unnecessary information about us and from misusing
information gathered for one purpose in order to serve other purposes.” That aptly
describes Thomson Reuters’ CLEAR, even if Thomson Reuters places certain

232 Id., p. 13 (emphases added; FN omitted).
233 Id., p. 14 (emphases added).
234 Id., p. 15 (emphases added; FNs omitted).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 69 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
limitations on the use of its product. Ultimately, Californians are harmed in these
ways, whether their profiles are used for what Thomson Reuters deems a permissible
use or not, because Thomson Reuters controls the CLEAR profiles of Californians for
its own commercial purposes.
•
Speculating that Thomson Reuters does not follow an undefined “social
importance” standard, and assuming, without evidence, that Californians would be
“blindsided” by the “unknown and unwanted collection and use of information about
themselves”:235
With its CLEAR product, Thomson Reuters fails to follow the social importance of
ensuring individuals are not blindsided by the unknown and unwanted collection
and use of information about themselves. In fact, discovery demonstrates that
Thomson Reuters is disinterested in helping members of the public learn about the data
Thomson Reuters amasses about them, who uses it, and whether or how they could
stop it.
•
Restating that Thomson Reuters’s “collection and connection of data” harms
all Californians after purporting to describe CLEAR’s business model and how CLEAR is
presented to customers:236
CLEAR’s very business model is to allow companies to take for granted that huge
numbers of datapoints about Californians are compiled, connected, updated (including,
for certain data, in real-time) and made available for Thomson Reuters’ customers at
the touch of a button. Some of the individual data points are proprietary and some are
public, but the collection and connection of that data (its analytics) is how Thomson
Reuters markets CLEAR to its customers. And that collection and connection of
data inflicts harms on all Californians.
•
Presuming, without evidence, that California citizens would not know about,
understand, and accept CLEAR, and concluding that CLEAR deprives Californians the
right to control their information, a right that is presumed to be an “economically valuable
commodity” and a “well-defined feature of individual privacy”:237
With CLEAR, Thomson Reuters exploits the contemporary ease of collecting,
transferring, and accessing data, along with the financial incentive of public and private
entities to sell or license that data, to create extensive private dossiers about people.
The availability, creation, and use of these dossiers take place without the
knowledge, understanding, or acceptance of California citizens, who are the topics
of many of CLEAR’s dossiers. CLEAR deprives all Californians of the right to

235 Ibid. (emphasis added; FN omitted).
236 Id., p. 17 (emphases added; FN omitted).
237 Ibid. (emphases added).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 70 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
control their personal data, an economically valuable commodity and a well-
defined feature of individual privacy.
•
Claiming that CLEAR’s data causes “concrete privacy harms” in the form of
a “theft of a person’s persona” akin to “theft of personal property,” while speculating that
the “dossiers” portray every Californian in a way they have not approved and that “might
well be at odds” with an (undefined) image every Californian “has been trying to create,
or has actually created […] of herself or himself within society”:238
Dossiers or profiles of individuals such as those Thomson Reuters makes available
through CLEAR inflict concrete privacy harms, amounting to a theft of a person’s
persona in that information taken from that individual is exploited to create a
data-picture of the individual that is not sanctioned by the person and might well
be at odds with the picture the individual has been trying to create, or has actually
created if all accurate facts were included in CLEAR’s dossiers, of herself or
himself within society. Akin to theft of personal property, the theft of one’s persona
in this way works such a harm upon the taking, connecting, or making available of the
data; stripping the person of their right to control their own information even if they
have not yet realized that it has occurred, and independent of what particular
information has been taken, when or how it is made available to others, or for
what purposes Thomson Reuters makes that information available.
•
Asserting that CLEAR’s “dossiers” harm Californians by costing them the
value of information they would have obtained and “could have chosen to capture
themselves,” and further assuming that the economic value discussed by “privacy
scholars” map specifically to CLEAR:239
Privacy scholars have long discussed how the kind of information contained within
CLEAR itself has economic value. By taking disaggregated sources of information,
compiling dossiers, and selling those dossiers for profit (without giving Californians
the opportunity to control or profit from that practice), Californians lose the value the
information would have retained, value they could have chosen to capture
themselves.
115. At his deposition, Dr. Turow failed to clarify or provide any further details
about how such “privacy harms” could manifest (e.g., in terms of physical consequences,
financial consequences, or loss of property), asserting only that the “[t]he harm is in the
lack of control over information and the possibility of sharing with other companies.”240

238 Ibid. (emphases added).
239 Id., p. 19 (emphases added; FNs omitted).
240 Turow Deposition, p. 177.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 71 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
When asked why he did not think conducting a survey was necessary in this litigation, Dr.
Turow did not appeal to any scientific evidence regarding consumers’ perceptions or
preferences but rather replied that “it is so clear what CLEAR is doing”241 and that “the
company is clearly harming Californians by taking away their ability to control their
information, not even really telling them what’s going on, and offering their data to other
companies without serious recourse.”242
116. Dr. Turow also testified that his methodology does not distinguish between
potential differences in the magnitude of harm inflicted on different putative class
members, stating, for example:243
A. Beyond the idea that many, many people suffer the harm, virtually all Californians
I haven’t quantified the amount of harm per person, no, that was not part of my
mandate.
[…]
Q. In your opinion, could different individuals experience different amounts of harm
due to the CLEAR platform?
A. That is not anything that I was asked to opine about or write about or do research
on.
Q. I see. So do – you have no opinion with respect to that in this case?
A. I have no systematic opinion.
Hence, the Turow Report presumes that common injury has occurred classwide, without
having done any analysis of or investigation into whether some putative class members
may have suffered injury to a greater (or lesser) extent than others. Such a presumption of
commonality is not only unscientific but is also at odds with Dr. Turow’s own cited

241 Id., p. 72.
242 Ibid.
243 Id., pp. 187 – 188. Nor did Dr. Turow attempt to parse out levels of harm inflicted based on
information being collected, versus disseminated, versus sold; see, e.g., id., p. 210 (“Q. If the – if all
Thomson Reuters did was collect information about a person without any – without doing anything else,
without sharing it, without selling it, without doing anything else, in your view, is it correct to say that
that would cause the privacy harms that are at – that are the subject of your opinion in this case? A. Yes.
I’ve said that before, yeah.”). Relatedly, when asked about CLEAR’s various restrictions regarding its
permissible uses (e.g., whereby marketing or solicitation is prohibited), Dr. Turow agreed that the “data it
takes out of circulation […] have some value in providing a benefit to California residents”; id., p. 296.
However, despite this acknowledgment, when subsequently asked whether CLEAR’s restrictions “have
any value in reducing the harm from CLEAR,” Dr. Turow testified: “My report was not to quantify
particular aspects of CLEAR harm so I really don’t want to speak to that aspect of it”; ibid.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 72 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
sources (see Subsection D.3), as well as with other academic research and the named
Plaintiffs’ deposition testimonies (see Subsection E.1).
117. Notably, during his deposition, Dr. Turow speculated (on three occasions)
that consumers would “freak out” if they knew about CLEAR, based on his “sense” and
“surveys” cited in his report—despite the fact that, as established in Subsection D.3, such
research did not test consumers’ perceptions or preferences regarding any product
resembling CLEAR:244
Q. And, in fact, you are not offering an opinion in this case with respect to actual
people in California; and more specifically, you’re not offering an opinion in this
case that every person in California would object to their information being
available in CLEAR; is that fair?
A. I am offering the opinion based on research that the huge proportion of Americans
including Californians want to control the information companies have about
them. In the case of CLEAR, people don’t even know of its existence my sense is
that if you told people what – what is in my report, they would freak out;
because that – that is what we’ve seen in some of our surveys. So you can tell me
about individuals who – who have particular responses, but that’s not what we find.
[Emphasis added]
And:245
Q. I understand. Is it also possible that some people in California might have no
objection to their information being made available in CLEAR? Is that possible?
THE WITNESS. Yeah, I’d have to know what the context would be. You know, you
can make up stories about anything. My – my general sense, given what we’ve
learned in our surveys, is that when people found about – would find out about
CLEAR, they would, as I said before, freak out. The company is doing stuff,
which is beyond the pale of – of what most Americans and Californians would
accept. [Emphasis added]
And:246
Q. Okay. Let’s just talk about the present. Is it your testimony that everyone has tried
to sell their information and gotten a lower price due to CLEAR? Let’s just –
A. You’re misrepresenting what I’m saying. I’m saying that the very idea that CLEAR
has this information diminishes the value of other – of the ability – if a person want
to sell that information. I’m not saying that people do. I – they don’t even know
about CLEAR. Let’s be clear.
CLEAR should be called opaque. People don’t know about CLEAR, so they’re –
basically, this is a total hypothetical. If people knew about CLEAR, they’d be

244 Id., pp. 152 – 153.
245 Id., pp.190 – 191.
246 Id., pp. 231 – 232.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 73 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
so freaked out that they wouldn’t even think about the idea. The – the – the
whole notion is – is pathetic. […] [Emphasis added]
118. In summary, the aforementioned statements and testimony suggest that Dr.
Turow presupposed the Plaintiffs’ allegations without any relevant empirical evidence. A
great deal of research on social cognition has demonstrated that people often exhibit
“confirmation bias,” particularly when they are motivated to confirm a particular
hypothesis.247 Overall, the Turow Report’s discussion of classwide harm allegedly
suffered by the putative class members attributable to CLEAR is fundamentally
unscientific, lacks any empirical basis or analyses, and suggests a lack of objectivity.
D.5. Dr. Turow’s Claim that CLEAR is Not Journalism is Irrelevant to His Opinions
About the Alleged Classwide (or Individualized) Harm or About Consumers’
Supposed Perceptions or Preferences Regarding Privacy in the Context of CLEAR
119. As outlined in Section C of this Rebuttal Expert Report, the Turow
Report’s last (substantive) section contends that Thomson Reuters’s CLEAR product is
“not journalism.”248 According to Dr. Turow, this is because CLEAR does not conform
with two “principles” that purportedly govern good journalism, namely: (i) that
“journalists ‘[t]ake responsibility for the accuracy of their work[, and v]erify information
before releasing it’”;249 and (ii) that journalists “‘diligently seek subjects…to allow them
to respond.’”250
120. Critically, however, whether CLEAR follows journalistic practices is
irrelevant to Dr. Turow’s key conclusion that all Californians have been harmed in the
same manner. In particular, Dr. Turow’s opinion is completely untethered from any
empirical evidence that even a single putative class member has been harmed, let alone

247 See, e.g., Kivetz and Simonson (2000); Kunda, Ziva (1990), “The Case for Motivated Reasoning,”
Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480 – 498; Lord, Charles G., Lee Ross, and Mark R. Lepper (1979),
“Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently
Considered Evidence,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098 – 2109; Wason (1960),
“On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses in a Conceptual Task,” Quarterly Journal Experimental
Psychology, 12, pp. 129-140.
248 Id., p. 20.
249 Ibid. (citing to the “SPJ [Society of Professional Journalists] Code of Ethics”).
250 Id., pp. 20 – 21 (citing again to the “SPJ Code of Ethics”).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 74 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
the putative class members have been commonly harmed, by virtue of their information
being collected and/or disseminated through CLEAR. Nor does Dr. Turow’s opinion that
CLEAR is not journalism relate to how consumers would perceive privacy or the
collection and/or dissemination of information about them through a product like CLEAR.
Indeed, even Dr. Turow himself does not attempt to connect his “journalism” opinion to
any of his report’s previous conclusions, including the supposed existence of common
economic damages allegedly suffered by the putative class members.
E.
THE TUROW REPORT IGNORES RELEVANT EMPIRICAL
RESEARCH, AS WELL AS FACTS ABOUT CLEAR AND THE
MARKETPLACE, WHICH INDICATE A LACK OF COMMON CLASSWIDE
INJURY DUE TO CLEAR
121. As the preceding section demonstrates, Dr. Turow fails to show any causal,
empirical nexus linking alleged consumer harm to Thomson Reuters’s CLEAR product. If
anything, the few “empirical” sources that are cited in the Turow Report indicate a lack of
commonality in consumers’ perceptions and preferences regarding privacy and the
collection or use of information about themselves. As I explain next, the Turow Report
ignores a variety of other relevant evidence in this litigation; such evidence further
indicates that the putative class members are likely to be highly varied with respect to their
opinions and valuation of CLEAR—and therefore in the existence and degree of injury
they allegedly suffered (or benefit they incurred). Specifically, when he concludes that the
putative class members were commonly injured, Dr. Turow: (i) fails to account for relevant
contextual factors and empirical research that indicate a lack of commonality in
consumers’ preferences and preferences regarding privacy and information about
themselves in the context of a product like CLEAR; (ii) fails to account for CLEAR’s
various use cases and potential benefits; (iii) fails to account for CLEAR’s various
safeguards; and (iv) fails to consider consumers’ likely expectations and perceptions given
the existence in the marketplace of many products analogous to CLEAR.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 75 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
E.1.
When Concluding that the Putative Class Members Were Commonly Injured, the
Turow Report Fails to Account for Relevant Contextual Factors and Empirical
Evidence that Indicate a Lack of Commonality in Consumers’ Perceptions and
Preferences Regarding Privacy and Information About Themselves
122. Contrary to the Turow Report’s (unsubstantiated) assumption that all
putative class members have suffered “privacy harms”251 irrespective of other product-
specific factors (e.g., the type and scale of information collected and/or disseminated; the
purposes for which such information was used), empirical academic research, as well as
the named Plaintiffs’ deposition testimonies, indicate a lack of commonality in how
consumers would view or react to a product like CLEAR. Such evidence is diametrically
opposed to Dr. Turow’s “blanket” assertions of common classwide harm regardless of
individual circumstances .
123. First, as discussed in Subsection D.2, it is important to reiterate that most
(i.e., five) of the six articles cited in the Turow Report that relate to consumer perceptions
indicate variation (i.e., a lack of commonality) in consumers’ perceptions or preferences
regarding privacy or the collection and use of information about them by companies.
Critically, none of these articles measured consumers’ interpretations in the context of a
product resembling CLEAR. Further, a recurring theme across the Turow Report’s own
cited sources is the highly context-dependent, idiosyncratic, and subjective nature of
privacy (both with respect to consumers’ and scholars’ perceptions thereof). The fact that
even scholars disagree about what privacy is highlights an even greater need to assess
consumers’ perceptions and preferences given the specific circumstances and context at
issue in this litigation. Dr. Turow failed to follow this approach, one advocated by the
same sources he cited.
124. Second, it is noteworthy that even the two named Plaintiffs in this litigation
held perceptions and preferences that differed, both from each other as well as from Dr.
Turow’s position. For example, Plaintiff Brooks and Plaintiff Shabazz: considered

251 E.g., id., p. 14.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 76 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
different types of information to be “personal”;252 had different conceptions of how they
were harmed by CLEAR;253 expressed different views regarding potential benefits of
CLEAR and its use cases;254 and voiced different opinions about how much
compensation they would be willing to accept or not accept from Thomson Reuters.255
Unlike Plaintiff Brooks, Plaintiff Shabazz testified that he believed whether consent
should be required for collecting information depends on various factors, such as form of
collection, the intention, and the purpose.256 Mr. Shabazz also acknowledged that just as

252 Plaintiff Brooks believed that all information except for her name constituted her “personal
information” that “belongs to [her]” and that she should be able to “control”; August 10, 2022 Deposition
of Cat Brooks (hereinafter, “Brooks Deposition”), pp. 69 – 71. Plaintiff Shabazz believed some kinds of
information to be personal but not necessarily others; e.g., August 19, 2022 Deposition of Rasheed
Shabazz (hereinafter, “Shabazz Deposition”), pp. 126 – 128 (“Q. Do you consider race, gender, et cetera,
to be personal information? A. I think depending on the scale. […] Q. So race, gender, et cetera, might
be personal information for some people but not for other people? A. Perhaps.”). Note that at his
deposition, Dr. Turow testified that a company having even a name would be “problematical” [sic] and
constitute a “privacy harm”; Turow Deposition, p. 199.
253 Whereas Plaintiff Brooks conceived of her harm as an “invasion of privacy” (see, e.g., Brooks
Deposition, pp. 186 – 187), Plaintiff Shabazz testified that he would not describe how he was harmed in
those terms (“Q. How would you describe how you were harmed? Do you describe it as your privacy was
invaded? A. No”; Shabazz Deposition, pp.291 – 292). Mr. Shabazz further stated: “A. […] I feel like my
identity’s being flipped to make money. Q. And how does that harm you? A. Hurts my feelings.”).
254 For example, unlike Plaintiff Brooks, Plaintiff Shabazz admitted that certain uses of CLEAR were
beneficial, such as “providing safety net services and benefits to people” (Shabazz Deposition, p. 59) and
“send[ing] replacement Medicare cards to recipients” to those who need medical services (ibid.). Further,
Mr. Shabazz testified that some consumers may have experienced benefits from CLEAR (“Q. Do you
think it’s possible that someone would have received a benefit from the use of CLEAR? A. I think it’s
possible that – with the examples you’ve given, if some of those happened, oh, yeah, someone may have
gotten some benefit.”); p. 66 and agreed that “how much a person benefits might be different for different
people” (id., p. 72).
255 Plaintiff Brooks testified that she would not be willing to accept any amount for Thomson Reuters to
collect and store her information in CLEAR; Brooks Deposition, pp. 282 – 283. Plaintiff Shabazz
testified in less certain terms: “Q. And what is the payment for exactly? A. Collecting information about
me and selling it without my consent. Q. And how much should Thomson Reuters pay? A. I don’t know.
I’m thinking just a couple – like maybe like – I’m not sure what letter of the alphabet in front of it, but
probably a lot of zeros or something. Q. Oh. A. I don’t know how much – I don’t know an amount that
can compensate for what’s all been stolen or taken from me and sold without my permission. It’s kind of
like I don’t know how to quantify the fairness thing. I don’t know how much it would cost to – not make
me feel better, but to repair the harm that’s being done.”); p. 42 – 43. Dr. Turow testified that he has “no
view” as to whether he should be paid by Thomson Reuters for its use of his information (“A. The larger
issue stands. I have no view on that and I think what Thomson Reuters is doing is repugnant to the point
of paying for the use of information is not the point.”).
256 Shabazz Deposition, p. 266 – 267.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 77 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
“some punches hurt more than others,” the level of harm experienced by individuals may
vary depending on what information is contained in a CLEAR report and how that
information is used.257
125. Further, Plaintiffs Brooks and Shabazz conceded (either directly or
implicitly) that individuals can or are likely to vary along multiple dimensions. For
example, Ms. Brooks agreed that different people may hold different perspectives
regarding privacy,258 such as what a privacy violation entails259 and “whether, when and
how much somebody should control information about them.”260 Both Plaintiffs Brooks
and Shabazz testified that consumers may experience varying levels of harm, including
based on their demographics (e.g., race, gender),261 and that the amount of compensation
owed to a consumer would, or should, vary depending on an individual basis.262 Neither

257 Id., p. 248 (“Q. – some punches hurt more than others. Can the harm vary depending on what is in a
person’s CLEAR report? A. Yes. Q. Can the harm vary depending on how it’s used? A. Potentially,
yeah.”).
258 Brooks Deposition, pp. 67 – 68 (“Q. Do you think there are different interpretations by different
people of what the right to privacy means? A. Yes. Q. Why? A. I feel like my answers will be very
abstract, right? Q. That’s okay. A. I mean, because – because people are different.”).
259 Id., p. 280.
260 Id., p. 127.
261 Id., pp. 11 (“Q. Fair to say communities of color benefit less from police work? THE WITNESS: Yes”
[objections omitted]), 27 (“A. That said, it is not solely communities of colors that are impacted
negatively by the way we do policing in this country. Q. Uh-huh. But it is disproportionately
communities of color, correct? A. Yes.”), & 124 (“Q. Just to make it concrete, you say something on
social media that’s public. That thing you say, do you think that you should control whether someone just
repeats that – repeats that information? Do you think you should control that or not? A. It’s not that
simple of an answer. Q. Interesting .Why not? A. It – that – it always belongs to me. Q. Okay. A. So
I’m going to continue to lead with that. Information never stops belonging to me if it’s about me -- Q.
Okay. A. – right? Because there’s varying levels of harm.”). See also Shabazz Deposition, pp. 70 – 71
(“A. […] I think people are situated differently and could be potentially – I mean, again, I think the main
thing is like the – the harm of this information being collected and sold. And I think some people are just
more at risk because – like gender is an example or perceived gender. And so this information being in
there, you know, people might just threaten women – people threaten – I think people threaten women
more. […]”) & p. 72 (“Q. And the other way that people can be harmed differently is if they’re more
vulnerable to risks associated with other people knowing their information – A. That’s – Q. – like
women? A. Yes. I think there’s a law in California, can’t like tweet the address of an elected official and
that’s because it’s assumed that people might do more harm to these public – quote-unquote, public
figures than us laypeople.”).
262 When asked who should set the price for how much compensation to receive, Plaintiff Brookes agreed
that “the person whose information is involved should get to set that price”; Brooks Deposition, p. 284.
See also Shabazz Deposition, p. 43.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 78 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
of the named Plaintiffs identified specific or concrete manifestations of harm (e.g.,
threats, physical injury, financial consequences, or property loss) attributable to
CLEAR.263 Overall, the aforementioned deposition testimonies suggest that, contrary to
Dr. Turow’s assumptions, the putative class members are likely to hold divergent views
regarding privacy and perceived harm (vs. benefit); such views, importantly, would likely
depend on a number of relevant factors, including the specific nature of the information
collected or used through CLEAR.
126. Third, other empirical academic research—not cited in the Turow Report—
reaffirms the context-dependency of privacy perceptions and related constructs (e.g.,
privacy concerns/preferences). In a 2011 article published in MIS Quarterly, Smith and
colleagues264 evaluate the information privacy literature, including both normative
theories and empirically descriptive studies,265 in relation to three central research
questions: (i) what is (vs. is not) privacy?; (ii) what is the relationship between privacy
and other constructs (variables)?; and (iii) to what extent does context matter in the
relationships between privacy and other constructs?266 With respect to the first question,
and consistent with the (conceptual) sources cited by Dr. Turow, the authors identify a
variety of different conceptualizations of privacy.267 Although, as the article itself notes,
such definitions are not empirically grounded but rather appear to be based on theoretical

263 See, e.g., Brooke Deposition, pp. 36 – 37, 269 – 274, & 276 (e.g., confirming three “buckets” of harm
allegedly caused by CLEAR: “Q. Okay. Is there any other way in which you think you have been injured
by the CLEAR platform other than the three that we have discussed already. That is, that it invades your
privacy and that it might, in the future, cause you, potentially, an invasion of privacy depending on who
uses the platform, what they use the platform for, and that is takes away your right to decide who sees
your information, even as to public information. Other than those three harms, can you think of any other
harm that the CLEAR platform cause – causes you? A. I think those are the three big buckets.”). See
also Shabazz Deposition, pp. 153 (“Q. Do you have any reason to believe that any of the threats you
experienced were the result of CLEAR or Thompson Reuters? A. No.”) & pp. 289 – 290.
264 Smith, H. Jeff, Tamara Dinev, and Heng Xu (2011), “Information Privacy Research: An
Interdisciplinary Review,” MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 989 – 1015.
265 Empirically descriptive” studies are defined as “tests of theories/frameworks utilizing positivist,
scientific methods”; id., p. 991.
266 Id., p. 992.
267 Id., pp. 994 – 995 (e.g., “General privacy as a right”; “Privacy as a commodity”; “General privacy as a
state”; and “General privacy as control”).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 79 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
discourse (e.g., philosophical and legal debates), the lack of consensus among even
privacy scholars is nevertheless at odds with the notion that consumers would have a
common understanding of privacy. The authors write:268
[I]t is widely recognized that, as a concept, privacy “is in disarray [and n]obody can
articulate what it means.” Numerous attempts have been made by social and legal scholars
to bring together the different perspectives found in different fields. However, the picture
that emerges is fragmented with concepts, definitions, and relationships that are
inconsistent and neither fully developed nor empirically validated. [Citation omitted]
127. In considering how privacy relates to other constructs, Smith and
colleagues (2011) summarize the various antecedents269 and outcomes associated with
individuals’ “privacy concerns,” what they consider the central concept in their model
(reproduced in Figure 10 below).

(Continues on next page)

268 Ibid. The excerpt quotes from a legal article by Daniel Solove (who is also cited in multiple
conceptual sources referenced in the Turow Report), which opens: “Privacy is a concept in disarray.
Nobody can articulate what it means. As one commentator has observed, privacy suffers from ‘an
embarrassment of meanings.’ Privacy is far too vague a concept to guide adjudication and lawmaking, as
abstract incantations of the importance of ‘privacy’ do not fare well when pitted against more concretely
stated countervailing interests”; Solove, Daniel J. (2006), “A Taxonomy of Privacy,” University of
Pennsylvania Law Review, 477 – 564 (pp. 477 – 478). Solove (2006) then proceeds to outline a
framework by which to understand privacy that focuses on more concrete, specific kinds of activities that
violate privacy (e.g., “I endeavor to shift focus away from the vague term ‘privacy’ and toward the
specific activities that pose privacy problems. Although various attempts at explicating the meaning of
‘privacy’ have been made, few have attempted to identify privacy problems in a comprehensive and
concrete manner.’”); id., pp. 481 – 482.
269 That is, a variable that occurs before the independent variable being studied, which may help explain
the relationship between the two variables.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 80 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Figure 10: Relationships Between Privacy and Other Constructs (Smith, Dinev, & Xu 2011) 270

128. As Figure 10 illustrates, the academic literature has identified a variety of
different factors that affect consumers’ perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes regarding
privacy (i.e., referred to in the figure as “privacy concerns”). Such factors range from
individual-level personality, demographic, and cultural differences to the level of trust a
person might have toward a focal entity.271 For example, consumers who trust a firm or
organization “are less concerned about their privacy and more willing to provide personal
information.”272 Even when studied in the context of direct marketing activities (i.e., a
different context from that of CLEAR), Wang and Petrison (1993)273 surveyed 1,000

270 See Smith, Dinev, and Xu (2011), p. 8.
271 E.g., Sheehan, Kim Bartel (1999), “An Investigation of Gender Differences in Online Privacy
Concerns and Resultant Behaviors,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13(4), 24 – 38; Schoenbachler,
Denise D. and Geoffrey L. Gordon (2002), “Trust and Customer Willingness to Provide Information in
Database-Driven Relationship Marketing,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(3), 2 – 16.
272 Smith, Dinev, and Xu (2011), p. 1000, citing to Schoenbachler and Gordon (2002).
273 Wang, Paul and Lisa A. Petrison (1993), “Direct Marketing Activities and Personal Privacy: A
Consumer Survey,” Journal of Direct Marketing, 7(1), 7 – 19.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 81 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
consumers and found evidence of considerable variation in perceptions, including
attitudes about the use of information.274
129. The Turow Report fails to even acknowledge that individuals may differ in
their beliefs or concerns about privacy based on such factors as those identified above
(and others identified in Figure 10), let alone discuss how such factors may affect
perceptions and preferences in the context of CLEAR.
130. As to Smith and colleagues’ (2011) third research question of how much
does “context” matter in the relationship between privacy and the other constructs shown
in Figure 10, the authors proceed to directly review literature that focuses on the context-
dependent nature of “privacy concerns.” They begin by stating:275
[M]any legal and social scholars (Altman 1975, 1977; Hirshleifer 1980; Laufer and Wolfe
1977; Lederer et al. 2004; Malhotra et al. 2004; Margulis 1977a, 2003a; Solove 2004, 2006,
2008; Waldo et al. 2007; Westin 1967, 2001, 2003) believe that general privacy—its
conceptual understanding, rigorous definition, and the intensity of the individual and
cultural beliefs it informs—is so dependent on the specific context that it is impossible to
develop a one-size-fits-all conceptualization of general privacy. Scholars have tended to
conclude that it can mean different things to different individuals and, hence, the roots
and consequences of its violation are also contextual (Bennett 1992).
[…] Context could be related to the type or domain of the research construct (discipline),
time (when), location (where), occupation (who), culture (with whom), and rationale (why).
131. The authors then review examples from privacy research in which different
contexts, such as the type of information collected (e.g., behavioral, financial, medical,
biometric) and the use of information by sector (e.g., healthcare, marketing, finance), have
been found to differentially affect individuals’ privacy-related beliefs.276 Lastly, the
article concludes with a discussion of overarching themes, including, inter alia, the

274 See, e.g., id., pp. 7 (“A survey of 1,000 Chicago-area consumers suggests that concerns about privacy
issues varies depending on the situation, the company conducting the marketing activities, and the
consumer’s own personal need for the products being sold. In addition, the survey found that certain
kinds of consumers are more negative about potential threats to their privacy than are others.”) & 12
(“These results appear to confirm the hypothesis that consumer attitudes about privacy are not black-and-
white, and depend heavily on the issue being measured.”). The article concludes that perceiving a benefit
is key to consumers becoming more willing for marketers to use information about them; see p. 18.
275 Smith, Dinev, and Xu (2011), p. 1002 [emphasis added].
276 See id., p. 1003 (noting that “consumers’ beliefs and behavioral responses to privacy threats depend on
the type of information requested”).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 82 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
benefits in transitioning from a “normative” to more “empirical” approach within privacy
research. For example, the authors write:277
A large body of normative studies of privacy has accumulated. Many of these offerings
are politically engaging or emotionally charged with strong beliefs about the ethics and
norms that underlie democratic societies. […] [R]igorous empirically descriptive studies
that either trace processes with, or test implied assertions from, these value-laden
arguments could add great value.
And:278
[T]o the extent that the normative conclusions are viewed as enlightening and motivating
events for empirical studies that trace processes associated with the implementation of
these normative conclusions or that test the impact on different outcomes, their value rises
enormously. For example, an emotionally charged assertion such as “there is war on
privacy” (e.g., Sobel 1976) or “the system is broken” (Turow 2003), or a lengthy
normative debate regarding whether privacy should be viewed as a right or as a
commodity will yield little additional insight. The normative debates themselves are
unlikely to inform us further in terms of privacy protection, but an examination of the
positivist nomological models that link the normative conclusions to different outcomes,
or the processes through which that linkage occurs, could prove quite instructive.
[Emphasis added]
132. Taken together, empirical evidence—both cited and uncited in the Turow
Report—show that conceptualizing privacy in a narrow, abstract, and prescriptive manner
(as Dr. Turow does) fails to reliably describe and predict consumers’ multi-faceted and
context-specific perceptions and preferences in the real world. Instead, individuals’
attitudes, beliefs, concerns, and valuations regarding privacy and the use of information
about the self are often directly influenced by a range of factors, which must be carefully
considered when seeking to apply to a particular circumstance (e.g., the specific aspects
that characterize CLEAR). The research reviewed above suggests that the putative class
members are likely to harbor a diverse range of opinions and preferences about privacy
and the collection or use of information about the self, including in the context of
CLEAR, and would therefore be highly unlikely to experience any common, classwide
harm due to CLEAR.279

277 Id., p. 1005.
278 Id., p. 1006.
279 In fact, Dr. Turow admitted at his deposition that there may be cases in which no “privacy harm” is
inflicted; Turow Deposition, p. 105 (“[I]f a person allows for their data to be used, and that use is very
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 83 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
E.2.
When Concluding that the Putative Class Members Were Commonly Injured, the
Turow Report Fails to Account for How CLEAR’s Various Use Cases (and
Potential Benefits) Can Affect Consumers’ Perceptions and Preferences
133. A key assumption in the Turow Report is that the harm done by CLEAR—
through allegedly violating all Californians’ privacy—outweighs the benefits (i.e.,
Assumption 3 in Subsection D.2). Although Dr. Turow has focused on what he claims to
be the (ill-defined) “harms” that arise from CLEAR, he does not mention, let alone
analyze, any benefits that consumers could derive from the platform. In evaluating
whether CLEAR has caused common classwide injury or harm, however, as even Dr.
Turow appears to acknowledge in his report,280 both sides of the equation—harm and
benefit—must be considered. This is because consumers who are informed about
CLEAR’s use cases and possible benefits are highly likely to hold different and varying
perceptions and preferences about CLEAR, including with respect to allowing their
information to be collected and/or disseminated through CLEAR.
134. Dr. Turow evidently recognizes the various purposes for which CLEAR is
used, stating the following:281
The CLEAR home page lists a range of targeted ‘use cases’ for CLEAR (meaning how a
particular customer is using the CLEAR product), including skip tracing, unemployment
insurance, corporate security, fraud investigations of various types, contact tracing, risk-
management, child and family services, and law enforcement investigations.
However, rather than attempt to discuss or dissect in any meaningful way these use cases,
Dr. Turow merely proceeds to opine that “[t]he breadth of information available in
CLEAR, and the variety of uses for which Thomson Reuters permits business and

specific and understood by the person and the parties involved, and used only in that situation, I would
say there’s no privacy harm, yes.”).
280 Turow Report, p. 4 (“I am further informed that in order to evaluate whether a business practice
violates California’s Unfair Competition Law, a court must weigh the harm to Californians against the
utility of the challenged business practice” [emphasis added]).
281 Id., p. 12. Note that Dr. Turow conceded at his deposition that identity protection products benefit
consumers; Turow Deposition, p. 240.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 84 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
governmental entities to access information through CLEAR, cover many aspects of
Californians’ lives.”282
135. Exhibit D to this Rebuttal Expert Report tabulates selected examples of
CLEAR’s use cases, including the type of customer using CLEAR and a brief description
of the relevant outcome. As Exhibit D shows, the benefits derived from CLEAR can be
broadly categorized into those affecting three groups: government agencies, corporate or
business entities, and individuals. In the interest of brevity, I highlight below only a few
examples in each category; importantly, the Turow Report fails to discuss or incorporate
any such examples.283
136. First, various documents produced by Thomson Reuters indicate that at the
government level, CLEAR has led to positive outcomes (and therefore has arguably
benefited) a variety of agencies, including, but not limited to, law enforcement, child
protective services, and veteran services. Given the richness of CLEAR’s platform,
investigators and government employees can use information relating to, for example, an

(Continues on next page)

282 Turow Report, p. 13.
283 At his deposition, Dr. Turow claimed, without substantiation, that “[p]otential benefits of the CLEAR
platform are totally a hypothetical”; Turow Deposition, p. 270.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 85 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
individual’s phone number,284 address,285 geolocation,286 and/or “known associates”287 to
identify and contact persons of interest. In fact, the data collected by CLEAR has been
documented in multiple instances as being instrumental to law enforcement officers, who
have used the platform to assist with many serious cases, including child abduction,288

(Continues on next page)

284 See, e.g., TR-BROOKS048964 (“A small Kentucky town was facing a rash of laced heroin overdoses.
Authorities were able to target the courier, but not the supplier.”; “Police were going to go undercover, but
because the courier provided two phone numbers, they leveraged CLEAR and located an associate to the
supplier. They located the supplier, arrested him and found he had possession of carfentanil, a highly
potent opioid. Police were kept out of harm’s way and they were able to successfully arrest multiple
individuals who were responsible for this.”).
285 See, e.g., TR-BROOKS048964 (“A homicide occurred in the city of Cheyenne, and the suspect fled the
scene. They were able to reach her by phone, but couldn’t triangulate her position well.”; “Using CLEAR,
they ran a search on her and reviewed her associate’s addresses – one fell within the phone tower that the
carrier provided. Surveillance was set to be established at the property, however the suspect and another
person left the property, causing a mobile surveillance to occur. A traffic stop was conducted and the
suspect was taken into custody without incident 4 hours after the crime was committed.”).
286 See, e.g., TR-BROOKS046643 (“
, who is a federal criminal investigator, was tipped off
about an individual who was physically and sexually harming a child under the age of thirteen, for five
years. By only having an image with latitude and longitude coordinates,
and her colleagues used
CLEAR to geo-locate the subject and his various residences. Once the addresses were established, they
performed a reverse address search to identify the subject and other family members.
also used
CLEAR to locate the minor.”).
287 See, e.g., TR-BROOKS046652 (“A fugitive was wanted for two separate homicides that occurred 15
years ago. They assumed a new alias and was nearly impossible to locate.”; “Using CLEAR’s associate
analytics
identified that the fugitive’s brother had a new address (though he was also currently
incarcerated). With this information,
and his team was able to locate the fugitive and are starting the
extradition process.”). “Associates” are defined as “persons who are linked to one or more of the search
subject’s addresses”; see Thomson Reuters’s Responses to First Set of Interrogatories, Attachment A, p. 7.
288 See, e.g., TR-BROOKS060419 (“An 11 month old child with sickle cell anemia was at a physician's
office with her foster mother. The biological mother, who is a reported narcotics user, also attended the
visit, but then abducted the child.”; “Within 3 hours of being notified, Jason and his team used CLEAR to
locate the abductor’s home, and arrested her. The child was brought to the hospital, treated and given
necessary medication, and returned to her foster mother.”).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 86 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
sexual exploitation of children,289 rape and sexual assault,290 criminal investigations,291
and financial scams.292 Were consumers made aware of the multiple ways in which
CLEAR assisted law enforcement officers with their efforts to apprehend (often
dangerous) criminals, at least some putative class members would likely perceive benefits
due to the product, including indirect benefits in the form of improved community safety.
137. In addition to law enforcement, CLEAR has been widely used by a variety of
government organizations to help vulnerable individuals. For example, child and family
services organizations such as the

have used information from the platform to locate absentee parents and/or parents
who owe child support.293 Similarly, the
has
used CLEAR to find the most current address of children who might be in an abusive
household, so that social workers can check on them and potentially save them before the

289 See, e.g., TR-BROOKS102898 (“John and his team conducted a two-year investigation of a doctor
who was using Yahoo to communicate with others regarding sexual exploitation of minors via Skype
chat.”; “The team used CLEAR Web Analytics to identify the people behind the Yahoo user ids, which
has led to the arrest of two men for sexually exploiting minors.”).
290 See, e.g., TR-BROOKS046650 (“Attempting to identify a suspect who held a woman against her will
and raped her with very limited information.”; “Analysts shared their information with the detective
bureau. The lead detective agreed that the information was compelling and brought the victim in to look
at a photo array. As soon as the victim saw his photo, she pointed right to him and exclaimed, ‘That’s
him!’ He was arrested and charged with kidnapping, assault and battery, aggravated rape, and indecent
assault and battery.”).
291 See, e.g., TR-BROOKS049908 (“As the Criminal Investigator for the

I was asked to review and work on a March 25, 1969 Homicide cold case.”; “I was able to
interview and re-interview witness’s [sic] many of whom came forward with new and pertinent
information about our living suspect. I have been able to follow this suspect through many different
states, marriages and keep up on current information about this suspect. The information gained through
Clear also allow our office to forward the case with a current witness list on to our State Attorney
Generals [sic] office for possible future prosecution.”).
292 See, e.g., TR-BROOKS044782 (“I had 2 elderly woman who worked their entire lives as civil
servants. All they had to show for their hard work was a home. A man who only gave a nickname showed
up at their door with promises and cash in a paper bag. He gave them hope to save their home from
foreclosure but instead stole their title and then moved to evict them. They had lost everything. The home
they worked so hard for and the 15k in cash they had deposited to the new home in Mississippi. All but
gone!”; “I found ‘Alex,’ gathered enough evidence to make an arrest and he was indicted and found guilty
of all charges. One of the conditions the prosecutors asked for was the return of property title to the 2 very
frail elderly woman or financial restitution of over one million dollars to compensate the true value of the
home he had stolen from them.”).
293 See, e.g., TR-BROOKS046655; TR-BROOKS046633; TR-BROOKS046636; TR-BROOKS049566.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 87 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
abuse worsens.294 Likewise, the Department of Veterans Affairs has used CLEAR to
locate veterans who are missing their financial support due to a change of address. In one
particular case, the Department of Veterans Affairs successfully used CLEAR to locate a
veteran who was missing $31,317 in disability compensation.295
138. Second, beyond benefits for the government, various documents in this
litigation provide examples of how CLEAR can help corporations prevent financial crimes,
verify customers, and protect employees. Financial institutions such as commercial banks
are required to conduct due diligence on customers to ensure that the sources of their
money are not from illicit activities.296 Using CLEAR, banks can conduct background
checks on individuals and their associates to, for example, verify that their customers are
not sourcing their funds from money laundering activities, or to enforce sanctions on
prohibited businesses.297 As a result, corporate use of CLEAR can also be perceived by
consumers as benefitting society by helping the government enforce laws against, or even
directly preventing, financial crimes.
139. In addition to due diligence, businesses use CLEAR to ensure that they are
not selling to the wrong individuals. Because of restrictions on certain types of products,
businesses frequently need to verify the identity of their customers, so that the products are
not sold to someone who is underage or resides in a state where the product is outlawed.
For example, online alcohol vendors can use CLEAR to verify that the buyer is of legal
age, and online cannabis distributors can use CLEAR to ascertain the age and residence of
the customer to ensure that they are compliant with state laws.298
140. Lastly, organizations can also use CLEAR for corporate security. For
example, sports teams can use CLEAR to investigate threats made to players and staff

294 See, e.g., TR-BROOKS049889; TR-BROOKS060418.
295 TR-BROOKS046653.
296 See, e.g., https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/customer-due-diligence-rule-the-
financial-industrys-new-role-of-law-enforcement.
297 See, e.g., TR-BROOKS055751; TR-BROOKS055760; TR-BROOKS055762.
298 TR-BROOKS055702.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 88 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report
88
Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
members as well as to conduct due diligence on venues like away game hotels and
transportation companies to ensure the safety of their players.299 Similarly, churches can
use CLEAR to investigate threats made against pastors and to enhance their safety when
they travel by verifying partner organizations.300
141.
Third, and importantly, evidence in this litigation indicates that CLEAR not
only provides benefits for government and corporate use, but can also improve the well-
being of individuals. In one case, a member of the military noticed that his high school
friend, who was recently discharged from the Marines, published a suicide note on his
Facebook account. Knowing only his friend’s last name and hometown, the military
member contacted the
, which then used
CLEAR to locate the friend.301 According to the
agent who handled this case, “I
was able to ascertain [the friend’s] current location, a local VA Hospital where he was a
patient, and contacted the local police who responded and stopped the member from
taking his own life.”302
142.
Consumers who are provided a complete picture of CLEAR may perceive
indirect benefits to individuals (including themselves) by the product’s ability to assist with
catching “bad actors” in a neighborhood or community, as well as to “clear” from
suspicion and further investigation or scrutiny individuals who are not engaged in
wrongdoing. That is, by helping law enforcement and other government agencies identify
and apprehend violent criminals, child molesters, and rapists, CLEAR may be viewed as a
mechanism or tool to improve the overall safety of every member of that community.
However, Dr. Turow ignored all beneficial aspects (either actual or potential) of CLEAR
for consumers when forming his conclusion that the product commonly harmed the
putative class members.
299 TR-BROOKS055704.
300 TR-BROOKS055706.
301 TR-BROOKS060413.
302 Ibid.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 89 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
143. Finally, it is important to note that what is considered harmful and
beneficial due to CLEAR is dependent upon the subject (or putative class member). For
example, some individuals who would be “harmed” by CLEAR are sex traffickers, child
molesters, fugitives, other criminals, and bad actors in society; such individuals would
presumably not “consent” to having their information collected and/or disseminated
through CLEAR. In this sense, the “harm” afflicted on those individuals can serve as—
and be perceived by putative class members as serving—a benefit to the rest of the
community and society at large.
E.3.
When Concluding that the Putative Class Members Were Commonly Injured, the
Turow Report Fails to Account for How CLEAR’s Various Safeguards Can Affect
Consumers’ Perceptions and Preferences
144. In addition to ignoring all of CLEAR’s benefits (even potential benefits),
Dr. Turow overlooks the numerous safeguards put in place by Thomson Reuters to mitigate
potential harm in connection with CLEAR. The existence of such safeguards is highly
relevant in evaluating whether the putative class members commonly suffered harm on a
classwide basis, as such information can directly inform and guide consumers’ perceptions
and preferences regarding privacy and the collection and/or dissemination, of information
about them. That is, consumers who are provided a proper description of CLEAR—
including not only its potential benefits but also its various safeguards—are unlikely to
commonly object to, be concerned with, or expect specific compensation from the
inclusion and/or dissemination of their information through CLEAR.
145. Dr. Turow asserts, when summarizing his opinions, that he has considered
“the protections in place (or lack thereof) regarding the use of information for
‘permissible’ purposes.”303 However, he subsequently challenges the notion that CLEAR
has safeguards to ensure permissible use, stating only that “[he has] seen no evidence that

303 Turow Report, p. 5.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 90 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Thomson Reuters investigates that a customer’s use is, in fact, permissible.”304 Similarly,
Dr. Turow writes that CLEAR has “rules about client data use that are not difficult to
circumvent.”305 The Turow Report fails to provide any accompanying substantiation or
examples for either of the above claims. Nor does Dr. Turow define any objective
standard or criteria that he followed to reach the conclusion that CLEAR’s rules are “not
difficult to circumvent.” By contrast, as I highlight below, the documents produced in
this matter detail several mechanisms that are designed—and are routinely used—as
“checks” against misuse of CLEAR.
146. First, as one layer of attempting to ensure responsible use of CLEAR,
Thomson Reuters only makes CLEAR available to government organizations and
businesses who are credentialed and who certify, for every search they conduct, a
“permissible purpose” (or permissible use) under applicable regulations.306 Customers
are prohibited from using CLEAR for marketing purposes (e.g., creating mailing lists,
soliciting clients, or other activities)307 or for any purpose “authorized under the FCRA
[Fair Credit Reporting Act],”308 such as “pre- and post-employment screening, consumer
credit, housing, including ongoing eligibility, insurance, or eligibility for government
benefits.”309
147. Beginning with the onboarding process, potential customers must first
complete an “Account Validation and Credentialing” application, where they describe how
they plan to use the platform.310 If a reviewer suspects the applicant could misuse the
platform, the application is subject to rejection by the Public Records Compliance Team.311

304 Id. p. 14.
305 Id. p. 22.
306 See, e.g., Thomson Reuters’s Responses to First Set of Interrogatories, Attachment A, pp. 1 – 2.
307 Id., p. 3.
308 Ibid.
309 Id.., pp. 3 – 4.
310 See TR-BROOKS018645 for an example of an approved form.
311 TR-BROOKS305113 (“The primary goal of the Public Records Compliance Team’s is to ensure that
our investigative products are used by LEGITIMATE ENTITIES with a PERMITTED USE CASE with a
demonstrable PERMISSIBLE USE under the applicable regulations. The Team accomplishes this goal
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 91 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
In fact, based on the Public Records Compliance Overview reports that are published on a
monthly basis, Thomson Reuters regularly rejects new applications. During the one-year
period between October 2020 and September 2021, CLEAR’s reviewers have denied new
data requests in 10 out of 12 months.312
148. Second, after completing the review process, customers who are approved
must then undergo training to, among other things, learn what are the permissible and non-
permissible uses of the CLEAR platform.313 These customers are further required to sign a
contract promising not to violate CLEAR’s guidelines and are periodically required to
reaffirm their commitment.314 In fact, every time a customer conducts a search using
CLEAR, they are reminded of the appropriate use of the platform.315 Thomson Reuters’s

through a variety of activities such as training sessions, documented guidance, and conducting
investigations of alleged misuse. More and more, they conduct a variety of proactive reviews on both
new and existing customers.”).
312

313 TR-BROOKS001363, p. 8 (“1. Marketing solicitation: No use of this information for creating mailing
lists, soliciting clients, or any other marketing efforts; 2. FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act): No personal
background checks, including but not limited to: Pre- and post-employment screening, including
screening for volunteers, consumer credit, housing eligibility, insurance, eligibility for government
benefits; 3. Sharing passwords: All searches are connected to your account, so you are ultimately
responsible for anyone searching with your password; 4. Automated searching (Scripting): No automated
or mechanical searching, product is intended for use by a person performing one search at a time; 5.
Unauthorized searching for people: A permissible use under the law and a legitimate business purposes
are required”).
314 See Kidd v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, 925 F.3d 99 (2019), p. 9.
315 See, e.g., Thomson Reuters’s Responses to First Set of Interrogatories, Attachment A, pp. 1 – 2.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 92 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report
92
Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
compliance program also includes “employee mandatory compliance training at least every
two years and regular ongoing training”316 and “a re-credentialing process where, every
two years, customers must reaffirm their legitimate use case and recertify that they will not
use CLEAR for any FCRA or other prohibited purpose.”317
149.
Third, as an added safeguard, Thomson Reuters proactively reviews past data
requests to ensure that existing customers are continuously compliant with the guidelines.
Specifically, auditors select past data requests randomly or by customer type to investigate
potential misuses of the platform.318 With limited exceptions (e.g., local, state, and federal
law enforcement agents with arrest powers), customers are required to have onsite
inspections as part of the credentialing and auditing process.319 Customers who have
misused CLEAR, such as searching for individuals beyond the scope of their request, are
subject to termination of their account. According to a compliance report for 2020 (“Public
Records Compliance 2020 Review”), the audit team declined over
in contract
revenues based on the results of their proactive reviews.320
150.
Fourth, in addition to screening and reviewing compliance among new and
existing customers, Thomson Reuters has a Privacy Office dedicated to tracking changes in
laws and regulations to ensure that its guidelines are compliant and up to date.321 CLEAR
316 Id., p. 5.
317 Ibid.
318 TR-BROOKS304709, p. 1 (“The purpose of the Public Records Customer Audit Program is to: Provide an
extra level of oversight and monitoring over the entire customer lifecycle to ensure customers are using our
Public Records Products appropriately and in accordance with all contractual and regulatory requirements;
Protect the data we are entrusted with; Ensure customers are not using the products for prohibited purposes;
and Enhance our current re-credentialing and Real Time Monitoring processes where we re-validate
customers are who they say they are and proactively monitor customers’ usage.”).
319 See TR-BROOKS276443, p. 24. See also Thomson Reuters’s Responses to First Set of Interrogatories,
Attachment A, p. 1.
320 TR-BROOKS305113. The report also states: “Though we have declined
in contracts we
believe that is a small price to pay relative to the potential damage that could have resulted from allowing
those accounts to have or continue access”; id., p. 4. See also TR-BROOKS295350 (Public Records 2020
Review), documenting on a monthly basis new accounts (and corresponding revenues) that were
approved or denied, existing customers (and corresponding revenues) who were approved or terminated,
as well as entry logs explaining the reason for escalation and describing the compliance outcome.
321 TR-BROOKS290121, p. 8 (“Thomson Reuters has a global team of certified security and privacy
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 93 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
not only has general compliance requirements, but also vendor-specific (e.g., Google
Maps)322 as well as state-specific (e.g., California Sex Offender Registry)323 requirements
to ensure that the platform and its customers are compliant with all changes in privacy law.
151. Fifth, the information itself that is available through CLEAR is subject to
various limitations, license agreement terms, and internal security protocols. For
example, customers could view different types of information depending on a range of
different factors.324 Further, information available in CLEAR that is obtained by
Thomson Reuters from third parties is further subject to the terms of data license
agreements, which may “further address confidentiality and treatment of data that is the
subject of those licenses.”325 Those data fields associated with

are encrypted by Thomson Reuters with its own
key.326 More generally, the CLEAR software is subject to Thomson Reuters’s encryption
procedures and other information security practices (e.g., the use for multi-factor
authentication for user login).327
152. In his report, Dr. Turow raises the possibility of conducting a search that
results in viewing information about individuals unrelated to the purpose of one’s

subject matter experts dedicated to the security of Thomson Reuters products and services. This extended
team is committed to our Information Security Risk Management program, which is endorsed by the
Thomson Reuters Executive Committee. Our strategy is to use a risk-based approach aligned with the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Framework to address our compliance
requirements.”).
322 TR-BROOKS000610, p. 8 (“You understand and agree that your use of any Google mapping
functionality will at all time comply with Google’s Terms of Service
(http://maps.google.com/help/terms_maps.html) and all applicable Google legal notices
(http://maps.google.com/help/legalnotices_maps.html)”).
323 Id., p. 4 (“Data from California Sex Offender Registry may only be used to protect a person at risk and
may not be used as the basis to take any adverse action against a person, including without limitation,
using the data for purposes related to: (a) health insurance, (b) insurance, (c) loans, (d) credit, (e)
employment, (f) education, scholarships, or fellowships, (g) housing or accommodations, or (h) benefits,
privileges, or services provided by any business establishment.”).
324 Thomson Reuters’s Responses to First Set of Interrogatories, Attachment A, p. 6.
325 Id., p. 8.
326 Ibid.
327 Ibid.; see also, e.g., TR-BROOKS020809; Godlewski Deposition, p. 179; TR-BROOKS030530; TR-
BROOKS070585.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 94 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
investigation, which he argues is both unrelated to the original permissible use and creates
privacy concerns for all Californians whose information is available via the CLEAR
platform.328 However, Dr. Turow’s scenario is not only hypothetical and speculative but
also ignores the fact that depending on the specific parameters entered into a search, the
process of narrowing down the individual of interest may inevitably involve viewing
information from more than one individual (e.g., a search to identify a suspect named
“John Smith” will likely yield multiple such “John Smith”s). Moreover, given the
aforementioned multiple layers of CLEAR’s safeguards and checks, activities whereby
customers perform “impermissible” searches (i.e., that are determined to not relate to their
selected permissible use) are unlikely to occur. Considered in light of the various checks
along different steps of a customer’s onboarding and usage of CLEAR, customers who
intentionally violate CLEAR’s guidelines, such as by conducting a search that does not
relate to their selected permissible use or that does not comply with applicable regulations,
would likely be discovered in the proactive review process and would accordingly have
their accounts terminated.329
153. Overall, the numerous safeguards and checks placed by Thomson Reuters on
which customers can access CLEAR and how they can use CLEAR mean that an accurate
assessment of consumers’ perceptions and preferences regarding privacy must evaluate
such perceptions and preferences in the context of these safeguards. The Turow Report

328 Turow Report, p. 14 (“In addition, although it seems that the ‘permissible use’ may be tied to the
person the customer initially looks up, a customer may nevertheless run a ‘person search’ in a way that
results in that customer viewing information that pertains to other individuals unrelated to the target of
their investigation (and accordingly, unrelated to the customer’s selected permissible use) [FNs
omitted].”). Dr. Turow cites to deposition testimony from Steven Fox (“The end user has selected
permissible uses that cover their investigation. And in the course of that investigation, they may – in the
course of narrowing down to the subject of their investigation, they may encounter, you know, other
descriptions of other entities until they get to the point of the subject of their investigation. But that
session in CLEAR is per the permissible use selected by the end user when they went into the product and
are running their search criteria”). However, this testimony merely describes a process of elimination in
the course of an investigation and does not support Dr. Turow’s claim that the hypothetical CLEAR
customer in question would view information about individuals who are “unrelated to the customer’s
selected permissible use,” and would therefore violate his/her permissible use.
329 Based also on my September 1, 2022 Interview.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 95 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
not only provides no substantiation for the opinion that Thomson Reuters’s safeguards are
“not difficult to circumvent”330 but also Dr. Turow fails to even acknowledge, let alone
analyze, the notion that the putative class members’ reactions to CLEAR would vary with
awareness of the product’s multiple systems to prevent or counteract potential misuse. In
fact, it is likely that at least some putative class members who are informed about
CLEAR’s various potential benefits and safeguards would prefer to (or even be willing to
pay to) have information collected and/or disseminated through CLEAR. Dr. Turow did
not empirically test, evaluate in some other manner, or even consider this possibility.331
E.4.
The Turow Report Ignores the Existence in the Marketplace of Many Products
Analogous to CLEAR and the Likely Impact on Consumers’ Perceptions,
Expectations, and Preferences
154. As the preceding two subsections indicate, CLEAR is not a platform that
simply grants customers a “blank check” to conduct searches at their discretion and
without regard for existing legal and regulatory protections. CLEAR also is not made
available to marketers and does not commercialize individuals’ information for
advertising purposes. Rather, documents produced in this litigation indicate that
CLEAR’s use cases (designed to, as one of many examples, enhance security and safety
for individuals and communities) and multiple safeguards (designed to mitigate and
prevent potential misuse) are likely to lead many consumers to perceive the platform’s
benefits. Such consumers are less likely to object or react negatively to their information
being collected and/or disseminated through CLEAR.
155. Not only does the Turow Report ignore the possibility that some putative
class members are likely to believe that they benefited from (or could benefit from),
rather than were harmed by, CLEAR, but Dr. Turow also assumes that all class members

330 Turow Report, p. 22.
331 When asked whether he took into account any of CLEAR’s safeguards when forming his opinion, Dr.
Turow testified that he “realized that from the standpoint of [his] theme, they were not relevant,” but did
not provide any substantiation for this claim; Turow Deposition, p. 306.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 96 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
would be “blindsided by the unknown and unwanted collection and use of information
about themselves”332 and would, as he testified, “freak out”333 upon learning about
CLEAR. Such an unsubstantiated assertion is at odds with both the evidence reviewed
previously and with many consumers’ likely expectations about the use of their
information in the current digital marketplace and era of “Big Data.”334 Even if
consumers do not know about CLEAR, they are likely to have encountered analogous
data aggregation platforms that are targeted to consumers and businesses (see Table 3
below for examples). Note that two of the platforms listed below, Equifax and
TransUnion, are also vendors that supply data to Thomson Reuters for inclusion in
CLEAR (subject to licensing agreements).335
Table 3: Examples of Data Aggregation Platforms Targeted to Consumers and Businesses
Name
Website
Type/Description
Equifax
www.equifax.com
Credit Report Agency
PeekYou
www.peekyou.com
People Search Engine
Peoplefinders
www.peoplefinders.com
Public Records Database
PeopleSmart
www.peoplesmart.com
B2B Database
Publicrecords
www.publicrecords.com
Public Records Database
RocketReach
www.rocketreach.co
B2B Database
TransUnion
www.transunion.com
Credit Report Agency
USsearch
www.ussearch.com
Public Records Database
Whitepages
www.whitepages.com
Public Records Database
ZoomInfo
www.zoominfo.com
B2B Database
156. Companies like ZoomInfo and RocketReach frequently appear at the top of
Google results when searching for the names of business professionals. These platforms
market themselves as helping users find the contact information of relevant individuals

332 Turow Report, p. 15.
333 Turow Deposition, p. 153.
334 See, e.g., Matz, Sandra C. and Oded Netzer (2017), “Using Big Data as a Window into Consumers’
Psychology,” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 18, 7 – 12.
335 See, e.g., TR-BROOKS037466 (Data License Agreement – Equifax); TR-BROOKS039253 (Data
License Agreement – TransUnion). I understand that TransUnion’s TLOxp platform (see
https://www.tlo.com/) is considered by Thomson Reuters as offering a similar or comparable platform in
terms of data aggregation; September 1, 2022 Interview.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 97 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
within an organization, so that users can learn whom to contact in order to conduct business
with a potential vendor or customer.
157. For example, ZoomInfo collects and aggregates the name, email, phone
number, work address, and company name of individuals to create searchable profiles on
their platform.336 Part of the data collection process involves automated machine
learning that scrapes publicly available information of individuals from “corporate
websites, press releases, news articles, Security and Exchange Commission filings, job
postings, and other online sources for data about industries, locations, revenue, and other
company attributes.”337
158. Similarly, RocketReach collects the contact information of working
professionals by collecting publicly-available information on search engines.338 According
to the company’s disclosure page: “Professional profiles are generated by tying together
100s of pieces of data using learning algorithms. By connecting the dots in this fashion,
we’re able to derive an accurate composite profile to allow opportunities to find you.”339
159. In addition, consumers are also likely to be familiar with credit reporting
agencies, such as Equifax and TransUnion. These services aggregate information on
consumers to calculate credit scores and provide credit reports. Such information not only
includes demographic information like age, race, ethnicity, religion, marital status, political

336 “ZoomInfo creates profiles of business people and companies, which we call ‘Public Profiles,’ from
different sources. Once we have collected business information about a person or company, we combine
multiple mentions of the same person or company into a Public Profile. The resulting directory of Public
Profiles is then made available to the users of the site and our customers and strategic partners.”;
https://www.zoominfo.com/b2b/faqs/data/how-does-zoominfo-get-my-info.
337 Ibid.
338 “Our service used by professionals to find other professionals. It is designed to open opportunities for
you by connecting you with your next job, career opportunity or customer. To this end, we’ve created a
professionally focused search index which you are a part of. This index is generated from publicly
sourced data in a similar fashion to search engines like Google and Bing.”;
https://knowledgebase.rocketreach.co/hc/en-us/articles/234810007-How-did-my-profile-get-on-
RocketReach-.
339 Ibid.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 98 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
party affiliation, country of origin, spoken language, and gender, but also identifying
information, such as name, social security number, and device IP address.340
160. Notably, some types of information are collected directly from consumers,
while some are collected indirectly, without explicit consent. For example, Equifax uses
indirect collection methods using devices, browsers, third-party data providers, and public
records.341 Similarly, TransUnion collects some information indirectly including IP
address, geographical information, domain information, and internet service provider.342
161. Indeed, as Dr. Turow repeatedly testified to during his deposition, activities
such as aggregating data and “connect[ing] huge numbers of data points about people”343
are pervasive and practiced by “millions” of companies.344 Dr. Turow further testified:345
Q. So is it true that it is lawful and common for websites to trade most types of
information about us without asking?
A. Yes.
Q. And does that diminish a person’s right to control their information?
A. It does.
Q. And also, it diminishes a person’s right to be let alone?
A. By extension.
162. The prevalence of data aggregation companies in the marketplace suggests
that at least some of the putative class members would be aware of the existence of
businesses that gather data about them and/or disseminate such data without paying
them. Such knowledge would reduce the likelihood that the putative class members
would be commonly surprised or “blindsided” with, dissatisfied with, or would expect

340 See, e.g., https://www.transunion.com/privacy/transunion.
341 “We collect information that identifies, relates to, describes, references, is capable of being associated
with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or device (‘personal
information’)”; https://www.equifax.com/privacy/privacy-statement/#CaliforniaResidents.
342 See https://www.transunion.com/privacy/transunion.
343 Turow Deposition, p. 65.
344 Id., p. 66 (“Q. And is this a common practice? A. It happens every minute. It’s happening as we
speak. Q. By how many companies? A. Millions. Q. And this interferes with people’s right to control
their information? A. Yes, it does. Q. And it violates their right to be let alone? A. Yes, it does.”). See
also id., p. 68 (“Q. […] How common is [marketing discrimination] now? A. With some – some caveats,
very common. Q. What do you mean by ‘very common’? A. This happens every day, all the time. Q.
And it violates people’s right to control their information? A. It has that implication, yes. Q. And it
violates their right to be let alone? A. Uh-huh. Yes.”).
345 Id., p. 82.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 99 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
compensation for having information about them collected and/or disseminated through
data aggregators like CLEAR.
F.
FSG’S MODEL TO ASSESS MONETARY RELIEF IS NOT RELATED TO
DR. TUROW’S OPINIONS, AND FSG FAILS TO PROPOSE ANY
METHODOLOGY FOR APPORTIONING MONETARY RELIEF ACROSS THE
PUTATIVE CLASS
163. I have reviewed FSG’s report in this matter and was asked to evaluate: (i)
whether it relates to the opinions set forth in the Turow Report; and (ii) whether the FSG
Report proposes any methodology that could be used to apportion monetary relief across
the putative class members.346
164. The FSG’s report was prepared by Mr. Lloyd, who writes the following
regarding his assignment:347
On behalf of FSG, I have been asked to evaluate the feasibility of calculating the total net
profits that Thomson Reuters has derived since December 3, 2017, in connection with
making information about California residents available through CLEAR.
As detailed below, I have concluded that it is possible to calculate Thomson Reuters’s net
profits attributable to using and selling Californians’ data through CLEAR. […]
165. Based on his “net profit” calculations,348 Mr. Lloyd opines:349
I have concluded that it is possible to calculate Thomson Reuters’s net profits attributable
to using and selling Californians’ data through CLEAR. Based on publicly available
information and discovery produced to date, I have structured a calculation, consistent with
standard methodology, for determining these net profits dating back to December 2017,
which shows total net profits of approximately
million as of the end of 2021.
166. In the next two subsections, I substantiate and explain each of my
conclusions regarding the FSG Report: (i) the FSG Report fails to relate an assessment of
monetary relief to any opinions in the Turow Report; and (ii) the FSG report does not
specify any methodology for apportioning monetary relief across the putative class

346 Although my professional opinion is that the FSG Report is flawed in multiple other respects, I focus
my evaluation on these two questions.
347 FSG Report, p. 1.
348 Note that according to Mr. Lloyd, the term “net profit” used throughout his report is “what an
accountant or financial analyst would more likely call ‘gross margin,’ ‘gross profit,’ or ‘incremental
profit’” [FN omitted]; id., pp. 7 – 8.
349 Ibid.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 100 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

100

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
members, and in fact does not appear to speak to damage to putative class members at all,
only to “net profits.”
F.1.
The FSG Report Fails to Relate an Assessment of Monetary Relief to Any
Opinions Outlined in the Turow Report
167. My analysis of the FSG Report indicates that Mr. Lloyd did not make any
attempt to relate his assessment of monetary relief to any of the opinions, conclusions, or
assumptions set forth in the Turow Report. Although Mr. Lloyd notes in passing that his
understanding of Thomson Reuters’s operation of CLEAR comes from various materials
reviewed in this litigation, including “the report of Professor Turow,”350 he does not
otherwise cite to or rely on any of Dr. Turow’s conclusions when calculating his
estimate.351 Instead, Mr. Lloyd arrives at a “total net profits” figure of
million
(from December 2017 to the end of 2021)352 by performing the following series of
“calculations” or “analyses” (while making various assumptions353 along the way):
•
listing Thomson Reuters’s total reported (global) revenues generated from
CLEAR between 2017 to 2021;354
•
narrowing down Thomson Reuters’s global revenues (from CLEAR) into
those attributable to “natural persons [living] in California,”355 and arriving
at the conclusion (after various assumptions) that California accounts for

350 Id., p. 5 & FN 14.
351 At his deposition, Mr. Lloyd testified that the Turow Report was “contextual” with respect to better
understanding the issues underlying this litigation; August 22, 2022 Deposition of Terry Lloyd (hereinafter,
“Lloyd Deposition”), p. 262 (“Q. How does your report relate to this report from Professor Turow? A. This
report provides some context that addresses the issues that you and I discussed a few minutes ago. It’s
contextual for me. We were assigned to do different things. But I found it informative at least as it relates to
the case and data and privacy and those issues.”). Mr. Lloyd could not summarize the opinions reflected in
the Turow Report; ibid., (“Q. Can you summarize the opinions that you believe are reflected in Mr. Turow’s
report? A. No. Q. ‘No’ you can’t or ‘no’ you won’t? A. No, I can’t. I think the document would speak for
itself and any attempt to have me characterize it or summarize would not be useful.”).
352 See, e.g., FSG Report, p. 1.
353 The FSG Report makes a number of unsubstantiated, flawed assumptions; although I do not discuss
them in this Expert Report, I reserve the right to opine on these assumptions if called upon to testify at a
deposition or hearing.
354 See FSG Report, p. 10.
355 Id., p. 11.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 101 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

101

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
of U.S. CLEAR revenues356 and that
of CLEAR searches relate to
individuals;357
•
using
(ostensibly based on various discovery documents) as the figure
for “relevant marginal costs incurred by Thomson Reuters on CLEAR”358
(after claiming that “the only marginal costs for CLEAR are royalties that
Thomson Reuters pays to other vendors for data made available through
CLEAR,359 and that Thomson Reuters’s “flat fee royalty costs” cannot be
considered marginal costs);360
•
multiplying the gross revenues (i.e., based on California natural persons) by
the supposed
profit margin (i.e., 100% minus the
“marginal cost”
estimate) to obtain “net profits”;361 and
•
calculating a “cumulative total” by adding up the net profits for 2017
through 2021,362 which adds up to
million.363
168. In the present litigation, Mr. Lloyd himself admits that the “net profits” that
the Plaintiffs may recover must be attributable to the alleged misconduct:364
I am informed that California law generally allows plaintiffs to recover the net profits of
the defendant that are attributable to the alleged misconduct. [FN omitted]
169. However, in assessing monetary relief, Mr. Lloyd does not rely on any
empirical findings that common, classwide harm has in fact been inflicted (as the Turow
Report argues was the case for CLEAR). The FSG Report, for example, does not even
mention the words “privacy” or “control” (e.g., control of “one’s personal information”)
once, despite the fact that both concepts were central to Dr. Turow’s argument that the

356 Id., p. 10.
357 Id., p. 14.
358 Id., p. 17.
359 Id., p. 16.
360 Id., p. 17.
361 Ibid.
362 Id., p. 18.
363 Id., pp. 18 – 19.
364 Id., p. 2.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 102 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

102

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
putative class members suffered common harm because their privacy rights were violated
by CLEAR. Instead, with only a brief reference to the Plaintiffs’ Complaint and general
allegations,365 the FSG Report does not offer any opinion as to whether the putative class
members have suffered any harm at all. Overall, the FSG Report essentially ignores the
Turow Report and does not rely on Dr. Turow’s opinions.
F.2.
The FSG Report Does Not Specify Any Methodology for Apportioning Monetary
Relief Across the Putative Class Members
170. As Mr. Lloyd testified at his deposition, his report does not address the
question of how to ultimately allocate or apportion monetary relief (i.e., the revenues to be
“disgorged” from CLEAR) across the putative class members.366 If Mr. Lloyd were to try
to apportion damages, as explained below, the Plaintiffs would need to conduct an
investigation into individual putative class members to determine whether a given class
member in fact suffered a bad outcome or perceived that they were harmed in any way as
a result of information about them being collected and/or disseminated through
CLEAR.367 More specifically, to apportion damages requires an individualized
investigation of putative class member’s perceptions and preferences with respect to the
collection and/or dissemination of information through CLEAR. This is because it would
not be appropriate to assume common classwide harm (as Dr. Turow does in his report),

365 See ibid. (“I have reviewed the complaint that the Plaintiffs filed in this case, and I am generally
familiar with their allegations against Thomson Reuters, namely that through CLEAR, Thomson Reuters
collects personal data about Californians, without their consent, and profits by making that personal
information available for sale to Thomson Reuters’s customers. Thomson Reuters has not shared those
profits with the Californians whose information may be accessible through CLEAR at any given time.”).
366 Lloyd Deposition, p. 96 (“Q. Were you asked to form an opinion about how to divide up the revenues
to be disgorged from CLEAR? A. No. Q. And your opinion expresses no opinion on that? A. My
opinion expresses no opinion about the division of revenues at all.”).
367 At his deposition, Mr. Lloyd indicated that his model would not distinguish between data that was
collected, disseminated or accessed, versus sold through CLEAR; id., p. 278 (“Q. […] Your model
doesn’t account for whether Californians’ data was sold or accessed. It accounts for whether Californians’
data is included in the platform? A. Customers are paying for access to the data. Whether or not they
surface anything in a specific search or if an individual never appears is a separate detailed specific
question we did not attempt to answer.”).
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 103 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

103

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
given that the putative class members are highly likely to be varied in their perceptions
and preferences as they relate to Thomson Reuters’s operation of CLEAR.
171. As established in Sections D and E of this Rebuttal Expert Report, the
evidence I have reviewed in this matter—including scientific academic literature,
industry research, deposition testimony, and the particular facts of this litigation—
individually and collectively indicate that there is considerable heterogeneity (or lack of
commonality) in consumers’ perceptions and preferences regarding privacy and the
collection or use of information about consumers. Such variation is especially evident
when considering the relevant context—that is, how consumers (and the putative class
members) would perceive and respond to CLEAR or a product like CLEAR. That is,
while some putative class members might believe their privacy to be violated and might
expect compensation from Thomson Reuters, others may be less concerned, and still
others may not care at all. In fact, multiple academic, industry, and other sources that I
have reviewed, including ones cited by Dr. Turow himself, indicate that many putative
class members are likely to perceive benefits of the CLEAR product and hence assign
positive value to information about them being made accessible through CLEAR. Such
consumers would derive “negative injury” and may even be willing to support a platform
such as CLEAR existing in the marketplace.
172. Mr. Lloyd has neither opined on the issue of lack of commonality nor
mentioned any method, if it even exists, that could plausibly apportion damages
classwide or address the challenges posed by an individualized inquiry. In fact, the FSG
Report does not even acknowledge that there may be perceived benefits (from putative
class members’ perspectives) attached to the product at issue, and evidently did not
intend to parse (or “net”) out such benefits when calculating “net profits” due to
Thomson Reuters’s operation of CLEAR.368 Consequently, any estimates relying on Mr.

368 See also id., pp. 96 – 97 (“Q. Did you understand a component of your task in this case to be
calculating damages attributable to just versus unjust components of CLEAR? A. That’s a legal question,
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 104 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

104

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Lloyd’s methodology would not be able to “recover the net profits of [Thomson Reuters]
that are attributable to the alleged misconduct.”369
173. I reserve the right to further supplement and/or revise my opinion and this
Rebuttal Expert Report in response to any further information provided by the parties
and/or in light of additional documents, which may be brought to my attention after the
date of my signature below.
174. This Rebuttal Expert Report is to be used only for the purpose of this
litigation and may not be published, distributed, or used for any other purpose without my
prior written consent.

September 7, 2022
Date
Dr. Ran Kivetz, Ph.D.

and I was not asked to address any legal issues here. My assignment related to the economics. Q. Are you
aware of there being any just uses or CLEAR? […] A. I’m not a lawyer I couldn’t tell you how the Court
might or might not view those differences, if they exist” [objections omitted]).
369 FSG Report, p. 2.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 105 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

105

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
EXHIBIT A: CURRICULUM VITAE OF DR. RAN KIVETZ
Dr. Ran Kivetz
Academic Curriculum Vitae – September 2022

Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, 3022 Broadway, NY, NY 10027
Tel: (212) 854-4555 | e-mail: rk566@columbia.edu

Education:
Ph.D., Stanford University, Graduate School of Business
Marketing, September 1996 – June 2000
M.A., Stanford University, Department of Psychology
Psychology, June 2000
B.A., Tel Aviv University
Economics and Psychology, June 1995

Academic Employment:
Philip H. Geier, Jr., Professor of Marketing, Columbia University Business School, 2008
– present
Professor of Business, Columbia University Business School, 2006 – 2008
Sidney Taurel Associate Professor of Business, Columbia University Business School,
2004 - 2006
Associate Professor, Columbia University Business School, 2003 – 2004
Assistant Professor, Columbia University Business School, 2000 – 2003

Publications:
Weiss, Liad and Ran Kivetz (2019), “Opportunity Cost Overestimation,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 56(3), 518-533.
Simonson, Itamar and Ran Kivetz (2018), “Bringing (Contingent) Loss Aversion Down
to Earth – A Comment on Gal & Rucker’s Rejection of “Losses Loom Larger Than
Gains,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(3), 517-522.
Kivetz, Ran, Rachel Meng, and Daniel He (2017), “Hyperopia: A Theory of Reverse
Self-Control,” in Handbook of Self-Control in Health and Well-Being, de Ridder, Denise,
Marieke Adriaanse, and Kentaro Fujita (eds), Routledge.
Kivetz, Ran and Yuhuang Zheng (2017), “The Effects of Promotions on Hedonic versus
Utilitarian Purchases,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(1), 59-68.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 106 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

106

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Publications: (continued)
Keinan, Anat, Ran Kivetz, and Oded Netzer (2016), “The Functional Alibi,” Journal of
the Association for Consumer Research, Special Issue on the Science of Hedonistic
Consumption, 1(4), 479-496. (Lead article)
Rom Schrift, Ran Kivetz, and Oded Netzer (2016), “Complicating Decisions: The Work
Ethic Heuristic and the Construction of Effortful Decisions,” Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 145(7), 807-829. (Lead article)
Sela, Aner, Itamar Simonson, and Ran Kivetz (2013), “Beating the Market: The Allure of
Unintended Value,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50(6), 691-705.
Gershoff, Andrew, Ran Kivetz, and Anat Keinan (2012), “Consumer Response to
Versioning: How Brands’ Production Methods Affect Perceptions of Unfairness,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 382–398.
Simonson, Itamar and Ran Kivetz (2012), “Demand Effects in Likelihood of Confusion
Surveys,” in Trademark and Deceptive Advertising Surveys: Law, Science, and Design,
Diamond, Shari S. and Jerre B. Swann (eds), Chicago, IL: American Bar Association, pp.
243-259.
Keinan, Anat and Ran Kivetz (2011), “Productivity Mindset and the Consumption of
Collectable Experiences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 935-950. (Winner, 2011
Ferber Award)
Schrift, Rom, Oded Netzer, and Ran Kivetz (2011), “Complicating Choice,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 48(2), 308-326. (Winner, 2010 Best Competitive Paper Award,
Society of Consumer Psychology)
Urminsky, Oleg and Ran Kivetz (2011), “Scope Insensitivity and the ‘Mere Token’
Effect,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48(2), 282-295.
Levav, Jonathan, Ran Kivetz, and K. Cecile Cho (2010), “Motivational Compatibility
and Choice Conflict,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 429-442.
Keinan, Anat and Ran Kivetz (2008), “Remedying Hyperopia: The Effects of Self-
Control Regret on Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 676-689.
Kivetz, Ran, Oded Netzer, and Rom Schrift (2008), “The Synthesis of Preference: Bridging
Behavioral Decision Research and Marketing Science,” Journal of Consumer Psychology,
18(3), 179-186.
Keinan, Anat and Ran Kivetz (2008), “When Virtue Is a Vice,” Harvard Business
Review, July-August.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 107 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

107

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Publications: (continued)
Kivetz, Ran, “Farsightedness (2007),” in International Encyclopedia of the Social
Sciences, 2nd Edition, Darity Jr., William (ed.), Detroit: Macmillan/Thomson Gale.
Kivetz, Ran, Oleg Urminsky, and Yuhuang Zheng (2006), “The Goal-Gradient
Hypothesis Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal Progress, and Customer
Retention,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 39-58. (Finalist, 2011 William O’Dell
Award; Finalist, 2007 Paul Green Award)
Kivetz, Ran and Anat Keinan (2006), “Repenting Hyperopia: An Analysis of Self-
Control Regrets,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 273-282. (Finalist, 2009 Best
Article Award for a paper published in JCR in 2006)
Kivetz, Ran, and Yuhuang Zheng (2006), “Determinants of Justification and Self-
Control,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(4), 572-587.
Rottenstreich, Yuval, and Ran Kivetz (2006), “On Decision Making without Likelihood
Judgment,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(1), 74-88.
Kivetz, Ran (2005), “Promotion Reactance: The Role of Effort-Reward Congruity,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 725-736. (Winner, 2005 Ferber Award)
Kivetz, Ran, Oded Netzer, and V. Srinivasan (2004), “Alternative Models for Capturing
the Compromise Effect,” Journal of Marketing Research, 41(3), 237-257. (Lead article)
(Finalist, 2009 William O'Dell Award; Finalist, 2005 Paul Green Award)
Kivetz, Ran, Oded Netzer, and V. Srinivasan (2004), “Extending Compromise Effect
Models to Complex Buying Situations and Other Context Effects,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 41(3), 262-268.
Kivetz, Ran (2003), “The Effects of Effort and Intrinsic Motivation on Risky Choice,”
Marketing Science, 22(4), 477-502.
Kivetz, Ran and Itamar Simonson (2003), “The Idiosyncratic Fit Heuristic: Effort
Advantage as a Determinant of Consumer Response to Loyalty Programs,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 40(4), 454-467.
Kivetz, Ran and Itamar Simonson (2002b), “Self-Control for the Righteous: Toward A
Theory of Pre-Commitment to Indulgence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 199-
217. (Finalist, 2005 Best Article Award for a paper published in JCR in 2002)
Kivetz, Ran and Itamar Simonson (2002a), “Earning the Right to Indulge: Effort as a
Determinant of Customer Preferences Toward Frequency Program Rewards,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 39(2), 155-170. (Finalist, 2007 William O’Dell Award)
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 108 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

108

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Publications: (continued)
Kivetz, Ran and Itamar Simonson (2000), “The Effects of Incomplete Information on
Consumer Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37(4), 427-448. (Finalist, 2005 William
O'Dell Award)
Kivetz, Ran (1999), “Advances in Research on Mental Accounting and Reason-Based
Choice,” Marketing Letters, 10(3), 249-266.

Work Under Review or Under Revision in Peer-Reviewed Journals:
Kivetz, Ran and Rachel Meng, “Circular Self-Rewards vs. Cash (Dis)Incentives:
Motivating Effort, Goal Pursuit, and Positive Habits.”
Pocheptsova, Anastasiya, Ran Kivetz, and Ravi Dhar, “Consumer Decisions to Rent
versus Buy.”

Manuscripts in Preparation:
Danziger, Shai, Liat Hadar, Ran Kivetz, and Itzhak Gnizy, “Price Quote Format and
Inferred Artisanship and Marketing Orientation.”
He, Daniel and Ran Kivetz, “Being in the Moment: The Effects of Ephemeral
Communication in Social Media.”
Shamis, Asaf and Ran Kivetz, “From Colonialism to Networked Colonialism:
Personalized Networked Communications and Habermas’s Theory of Modern Society.”

Working Papers:
“Democracy between Private Space, Public Space, and Cyberspace,” with Asaf Shamis.
“The Behavioral Economics of Incentives.”
“Exercising Self-Control Through Self-reward,” with Rachel Meng.

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 109 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

109

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Selected Research-In-Progress:
“The Surprising Robustness of Prospect Theory in the Long Run.”
“The Effects of Reward Programs,” with Ricardo Montoya and Oded Netzer.
“The Bounded Rationality of Effort-Reward Choices: When Principles Overshadow
Expectancies,” with Oleg Urminsky.
“The Intersection of Behavioral Economics and Political Science.”
“A Republic of Selfies: Personalizing Public Messages in Digital Media,” with Asaf
Shamis & Daniel He.
“Tie Signaling in Social Media,” with Daniel He.
“Consumer Search.”

Academic Honors and Awards:
Finalist, 2016 William O’Dell Award for the Journal of Marketing Research article
published in 2006 that “made the most significant long-term contribution to marketing
theory, methodology, and/or practice”
Faculty Fellow of the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy, 2002-2015
Ranked by the American Marketing Association as one of the Top 50 most productive
scholars in the premier marketing journals during 2010–2014
Finalist, 2014 Best Article Award for the Journal of Consumer Research article published
in 2011
Ranked by the American Marketing Association as one of the Top 50 most productive
scholars in the premier marketing journals during 2009-2013
Finalist, 2011 William O’Dell Award for the Journal of Marketing Research article
published in 2006 that “made the most significant long-term contribution to marketing
theory, methodology, and/or practice”
Winner of the 2010 Best Competitive Paper Award granted by the Society of Consumer
Psychology

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 110 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

110

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Academic Honors and Awards: (continued)
Rated as the third most prolific scholar in the leading marketing journals during 1982-
2006 (Seggie, S. H. and D. A. Griffith, 2009; “What Does It Take to Get Promoted in
Marketing Academia? Understanding Exceptional Publication Productivity in the
Leading Marketing Journals,” Journal of Marketing, 73(1), 122-132.)
Finalist, 2009 William O’Dell Award for the Journal of Marketing Research article
published in 2004 that “made the most significant long-term contribution to marketing
theory, methodology, and/or practice.”
Finalist, 2009 Best Article Award for the Journal of Consumer Research article published
in 2006
Winner of the 2007 Early Contribution Award from the Society of Consumer Psychology
Finalist, 2007 William O’Dell Award for the Journal of Marketing Research article
published in 2002 that “made the most significant long-term contribution to marketing
theory, methodology, and/or practice”
Finalist, 2007 Paul Green Award for the Journal of Marketing Research article published
in 2004 that “demonstrates the most potential to contribute significantly to the practice of
marketing research and research in marketing”
Winner of the 2005 Ferber Award granted to the “best interdisciplinary dissertation
article published in the latest volume of the Journal of Consumer Research”
Finalist, 2005 William O’Dell Award for the Journal of Marketing Research article
published in 2000 that “made the most significant long-term contribution to marketing
theory, methodology, and/or practice”
Finalist, 2005 Best Article Award for the Journal of Consumer Research article published
in 2002
Finalist, 2005 Paul Green Award for the Journal of Marketing Research article published
in 2004 that “demonstrates the most potential to contribute significantly to the practice of
marketing research and research in marketing.”
Winner of the 2005 Columbia Business School Dean’s Award for Innovation in the
Curriculum
Lang Faculty Research Fellowship in Entrepreneurship, 2005
Lang Faculty Research Fellowship in Entrepreneurship, 2004
Outstanding Reviewer Award, Journal of Consumer Research, 2003-2004
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 111 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

111

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Academic Honors and Awards: (continued)
Invited as Faculty Presenter, 2004 Association for Consumer Research Doctoral
Symposium
Young Scholars Program, Marketing Science Institute, 2003
Research Grant, Columbia Center for Excellence in E-Business, 2003
Seed Grant, Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy, 2001
Doctoral Consortium Fellow, American Marketing Association, 1999
Ph.D. Merit Award, Stanford Graduate School of Business, 1999
Graduate Fellow and Grant, Stanford Center on Conflict and Negotiation, 1997-1998
Jaedicke Award Scholar (in recognition of outstanding academic performance), Stanford
Graduate School of Business, 1996-1997
Dean’s Honor List with Distinction, Faculty of Social Sciences (Economics), Tel Aviv
University, 1995

******************

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 112 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

112

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Teaching:
Winner of the Columbia Business School 2005 Dean’s Award for Innovation in the
Curriculum
Ph.D. Courses
Bridging Behavioral Economics with Marketing Science (Fall 2019)
Student Evaluation 4.9 on 5-point scale
Bridging Behavioral Economics with Marketing Science (Spring 2018)
Student Evaluation 5.0 on 5-point scale
Bridging Behavioral Economics with Marketing Science (Spring 2016)
Student Evaluation 4.2 on 5-point scale
Bridging Behavioral Decision Research with Marketing Science (Spring 2013)
Student Evaluation 5.0 on 5-point scale
Bridging Behavioral Decision Research with Marketing Science (Spring 2011)
Student Evaluation 4.7 on 5-point scale
Bridging Behavioral Decision Research with Marketing Science (Spring 2008)
Student Evaluation 5.0 on 5-point scale
Bridging Behavioral Decision Research with Marketing Science (Spring 2005)
Student Evaluation 4.8 on 5-point scale
Consumer Behavior – I (Fall 2005)
Student Evaluation 4.7 on 5-point scale
Multidisciplinary Approaches to Human Decision Making (Spring 2004)
Bridging Behavioral Decision Research with Marketing Science (Spring 2003)
Student Evaluation 4.8 on 5-point scale
Multidisciplinary Approaches to Human Decision Making (Spring 2002)
Totally Eclectic Seminar in Marketing (Spring 2001)
Student Evaluation 6.2 on 7-point scale

******************

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 113 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

113

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Teaching: (continued)
High-Technology Entrepreneurship (Executive MBA Elective)
Spring 2019 (1 section)
Student Evaluation 4.5 on 5-point scale
Spring 2018 (1 section)
Student Evaluation 4.6 on 5-point scale
Spring 2017 (1 section)
Student Evaluation 4.5 on 5-point scale
High-Technology Entrepreneurship (Executive MBA & MBA Elective)
Spring 2016 (1 section)
Student Evaluation 4.6 on 5-point scale
Spring 2009 (Master Class: 1 section)
Student Evaluation 4.7 on 5-point scale
Spring 2008 (Master Class: 1 section)
Student Evaluation 4.4 on 5-point scale
High-Technology Marketing and Entrepreneurship (Executive MBA Elective)
Spring 2008 (1 section)
Student Evaluation 4.5 on 5-point scale
Spring 2006 (1 section)
Student Evaluation 4.5 on 5-point scale
Spring 2005 (1 section)
Student Evaluation 4.9 on 5-point scale
Spring 2004 (1 section)
Student Evaluation 5.0 on 5-point scale
Spring 2003 (1 section)
Student Evaluation 5.0 on 5-point scale
Spring 2001 (1 section)
Student Evaluation 6.5 on 7-point scale
High-Technology Marketing and Entrepreneurship (MBA Elective)
Spring 2007 (1 section)
Student Evaluation 4.3 on 5-point scale
Spring 2006 (1 section)
Student Evaluation 4.5 on 5-point scale
Spring 2004 (1 section)

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 114 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

114

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Teaching: (continued)
Student Evaluation 4.9 on 5-point scale
Spring 2003 (1 section)
Student Evaluation 4.4 on 5-point scale
Spring 2002 (1 section)
Student Evaluation 6.4 on 7-point scale
Spring 2001 (1 section)
Student Evaluation 6.4 on 7-point scale
Marketing Strategy and Management (Core Executive MBA Course)
Spring 2022 (2 sections)
Student Evaluations 4.3 and 4.2 on 5-point scales
Spring 2021 (2 sections)
Student Evaluations 4.1 and 4.1 on 5-point scales
Fall 2020 (2 sections)
Student Evaluations 4.0 and 3.7 on 5-point scales
Spring 2020 (2 sections)
Student Evaluations 3.8 and 3.7 on 5-point scales
Fall 2019 (1 section)
Student Evaluation 4.9 on 5-point scale
Spring 2019 (2 sections)
Student Evaluations 4.2 and 3.2 on 5-point scales
Fall 2018 (1 section)
Student Evaluation 4.8 on 5-point scale
Spring 2016 (1 section)
Student Evaluation 5.0 on 5-point scale
Spring 2012 (2 sections)
Student Evaluations 4.7 and 4.9 on 5-point scales
Marketing Strategy (Core MBA Course)
Fall 2013 (3 sections)
Student Evaluations 4.1, 3.8, and 4.1 on 5-point scales
Fall 2012 (3 sections)
Student Evaluations 3.9, 3.1, and 3.2 on 5-point scales
Fall 2011 (3 sections)
Student Evaluations 4.4, 3.8, and 4.1 on 5-point scales

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 115 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

115

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Teaching: (continued)
Marketing Strategy (Core MBA Course)
Fall 2010 (3 sections)
Student Evaluations 4.5, 3.7, and 4.2 on 5-point scales
Fall 2009 (3 sections)
Student Evaluations 4.4, 4.3, and 4.2 on 5-point scales
Marketing Management (Undergraduate Course)
Fall 2019 (1 section)
Student Evaluations 4.3 on 5-point scale
Spring 2019 (1 section)
Student Evaluations 4.4 on 5-point scale
Fall 2018 (1 section)
Student Evaluations 4.7 on 5-point scale
Spring 2017 (1 section)
Student Evaluations 4.8 on 5-point scale
Spring 2014 (1 section)
Student Evaluations 4.7 on 5-point scale
The Marketing of a Nation: Israel (Master Class)
Spring 2009 (1 section)
Student Evaluation 4.8 on 5-point scale
Columbia Business School Global Immersion Program
Global Immersion Israel: Leadership & Innovation (March 2018)
Columbia Business School Executive Education Program
Design Your Innovation Blueprint (March 2017)
Innovate on Demand (November 2014; November 2015)
Innovation and Entrepreneurship (IE) @Columbia (February 2013; February 2014)
Columbia Senior Executive Program (May 2010; October 2010; May 2011; July 2012)
Marketing and Innovation (June 2013; June 2014; November 2014)
Customer Centricity (May 2010; September 2010; October 2011; February 2012)
New Product Development and Innovation (October 2002; June 2003)
Marketing Management: Strategies, Processes & Tools for Today’s Challenges (Sep. 02;
Apr. ‘03)
Marketing Management (April 2002)
Marketing Management in the New Economy (April 2001)
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 116 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

116

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Main Advisor for:
Daniel He, Assistant Professor at the National University of Singapore (NUS)
Anat Keinan, Associate Professor at Boston University (formerly Associate Professor at
Harvard Business School)
Rachel Meng
Rom Schrift, Associate Professor at Indiana University (formerly Assistant Professor at
Wharton; co-advisor with Oded Netzer)
Oleg Urminsky, Full Professor at Chicago Booth School of Business
Yuhuang Zheng, Associate Professor at Tsinghua University

Doctoral Committee Member for:
Tamar Avnet, University of Toronto
Josko Brakus, University of Rochester
Cecile Cho, University of California Riverside
Yael Karlinsky-Shichor, Northeastern University
Yaoli Mao, Autodesk, Inc.
Valentina Melnyk, Tilburg University
Anirban Mukhopadhyay, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST)
Qitian Ren, Chinese University of Hong Kong (Shenzhen)
Aner Sela, University of Florida
Kavita Srivastava, Indian Institute of Technology
Liad Weiss, University of Wisconsin – Madison

Conference Publications:
Danziger, Shai, Liat Hadar, Ran Kivetz, and Itzhak Gnizy (2019), “Price Quote Format
and Inferred Artisanship and Marketing Orientation,” special session paper presented at
Society for Consumer Psychology Conference (SCP), Savannah, GA.
He, Daniel and Ran Kivetz (2017), “Technology-Driven Consumption,” special session
presented at Society for Consumer Psychology Conference (SCP), San Francisco, CA.
He, Daniel and Ran Kivetz (2016), “Ephemeral Messaging: Intimacy, Spontaneity, and
Creativity in Fleeting Experiences,” competitive paper presented at Association for
Consumer Research Conference (ACR), Berlin, Germany.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 117 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

117

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Conference Publications: (continued)
Meng, Rachel and Ran Kivetz (2016), “Motivating Choices and Performance: Beyond
Monetary Incentives,” Association for Consumer Research Conference (ACR), Berlin,
Germany.
He, Daniel and Ran Kivetz (2015), “Tie Signaling,” in NA - Advances in Consumer
Research Volume 43, eds. Kristin Diehl and Carolyn Yoon, Duluth, MN: Association for
Consumer Research.
Netzer, Oded, Ran Kivetz, and Rom Schrift (2015), “Complicating Decisions: the Effort-
Outcome Link and the Construction of Effortful Decision Processes,” in NA - Advances
in Consumer Research Volume 43, eds. Kristin Diehl and Carolyn Yoon, Duluth, MN:
Association for Consumer Research.
Weiss, Liad and Ran Kivetz (2014), “Following-Through Opportunities: the Effects of
Incidental Versus Inherent Choices,” in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume
42, eds. June Cotte and Stacy Wood, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Simonson, Itamar, Aner Sela, and Ran Kivetz (2013), “Beating the Market: Competitive
Mindset and the Allure of Unintended Value,” in NA - Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 41, eds. Simona Botti and Aparna Labroo, Duluth, MN: Association for
Consumer Research.
Weiss, Liad and Ran Kivetz (2011), “When Not Redeeming a Coupon Feels Like
Missing More Than Its Value,” in E - European Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 9, eds. Alan Bradshaw, Chris Hackley, and Pauline Maclaran, Duluth, MN:
Association for Consumer Research.
Schrift, Rom, Ran Kivetz, and Oded Netzer (2011), “Creating the Illusion of Choice
Through Selective Information Search and Retrieval,” in NA - Advances in Consumer
Research Volume 39, eds. Rohini Ahluwalia, Tanya L. Chartrand, and Rebecca K.
Ratner, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Schrift, Rom, Oded Netzer, and Ran Kivetz (2010), “Complicating Choice,” in NA -
Advances in Consumer Research Volume 37, eds. Margaret C. Campbell, Jeff Inman, and
Rik Pieters, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Sela, Aner, Itamar Simonson, and Ran Kivetz (2010), “Negative Effects of Explicit
Customization on Perceptions of Opportunity,” in NA - Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 37, eds. Margaret C. Campbell, Jeff Inman, and Rik Pieters, Duluth, MN:
Association for Consumer Research.

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 118 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

118

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Conference Publications: (continued)
Keinan, Anat, Ran Kivetz, and Oded Netzer (2009), “Functional Alibi,” in NA - Advances
in Consumer Research Volume 36, eds. Ann L. McGill and Sharon Shavitt, Duluth, MN:
Association for Consumer Research.
Kivetz, Ran and Anat Keinan (2009), “Hyperopia: A Theory of Reverse Self-Control,” in
NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 36, eds. Ann L. McGill and Sharon
Shavitt, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Zheng, Yuhuang and Ran Kivetz (2009), “The Differential Promotion Effectiveness on
Hedonic Versus Utilitarian Products,” in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume
36, eds. Ann L. McGill and Sharon Shavitt, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer
Research.
Pocheptsova, Anastasiya, Ran Kivetz, and Ravi Dhar (2008), “Consumer Decisions to
Rent Vs. Buy,” in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 35, eds. Angela Y. Lee
and Dilip Soman, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Keinan, Anat and Ran Kivetz (2008), “Productivity Mindset and the Consumption of
Collectable Experiences,” in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 35, eds.
Angela Y. Lee and Dilip Soman, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Levav, Jonathan, Ran Kivetz, and Cecile Cho (2008), “Too Much Fit? How Regulatory
Fit Can Turn Us Into Buridan’s Asses,” in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume
35, eds. Angela Y. Lee and Dilip Soman, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer
Research.
Keinan, Anat and Ran Kivetz (2007), “Remedying Hyperopia: the Effects of Self-Control
Regret on Consumer Behavior,” in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 34,
eds. Gavan Fitzsimons and Vicki Morwitz, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer
Research.
Urminsky, Oleg and Ran Kivetz (2007), “Scope Insensitivity in the Service of the
Rational Self: the ‘Mere Token’ Effect,” in NA - Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 34, eds. Gavan Fitzsimons and Vicki Morwitz, Duluth, MN: Association for
Consumer Research.
Zheng, Yuhuang and Ran Kivetz (2007), “Effort, Excellence and Income Stinginess:
How Do People Justify Self-Gratification?,” in E - European Advances in Consumer
Research Volume 8, eds. Stefania Borghini, Mary Ann McGrath, and Cele Otnes, Duluth,
MN: Association for Consumer Research.

******************
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 119 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

119

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Conference Publications: (continued)
Kivetz, Ran and Drazen Prelect (2006), “Goal Distance and Consumer Choice,” in NA -
Advances in Consumer Research Volume 33, eds. Connie Pechmann and Linda Price,
Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Kivetz, Ran and Klaus Wertenbroch (2006), “Emerging Perspectives on Self-Control,” in
NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 33, eds. Connie Pechmann and Linda
Price, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Chernev, Alexander and Ran Kivetz (2005), “Goals and Mindsets in Consumer Choice,”
in NA - Advances in Consumer Research, eds. Gita Menon and Akshay Rao, Volume 32,
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Kivetz, Ran, Oded Netzer, and V. Srinivasan (2002), “Alternative Models for Capturing
the Compromise Effect,” in NA - Advances in Consumer Research, ed. Punam Anand
Keller and Sowers Rook, Volume 30, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Kivetz, Ran (2001), “Consumer Preferences Towards Frequency Programs,” in NA -
Advances in Consumer Research Volume 28, eds. Mary C. Gilly and Joan Meyers-Levy,
Valdosta, GA : Association for Consumer Research.
Kivetz, Ran and Michal Strahilevitz (2001), “Factors Affecting Consumer Choices
Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Options,” in NA - Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 28, eds. Mary C. Gilly and Joan Meyers-Levy, Valdosta, GA : Association for
Consumer Research.
Kivetz, Ran (2000), “Hedonic and Utilitarian Motivations in Consumer Choice,” in NA -
Advances in Consumer Research Volume 27, eds. Stephen J. Hoch and Robert J. Meyer,
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Kivetz, Ran (1999), “Advances in Research on Mental Accounting and Reason-Based
Choice,” in HEC Symposium on Advances in Choice Theory, Conference Summary,
Report No. 99-121, Gilles Laurent (ed.), Marketing Science Institute.
Chakravarti, Agnish, Susan Chiu, Ran Kivetz, and Itamar Simonson (1999), “Regret and
Self-Congratulation From the Head and From the Heart,” Advances in Consumer
Research, ed. Eric J. Arnould and Linda M. Scott, Volume 26, Provo, UT: Association
for Consumer Research.

******************

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 120 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

120

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Selected Conference Presentations:
“Self-Rewards and Cash (Dis)Incentives,” with Rachel Meng, Marketing Analytics
Symposium, Sydney, Australia, February 2020.
“Change – Attention – Shift,” with Rachel Meng, 11th Triennial Invitational Choice
Symposium, May – June 2019.
“Self-Rewards and Cash (Dis)Incentives,” 4th Coller Conference on Behavioral
Economics, Tel Aviv, Israel, June 2019.
“Self-Rewards and Cash (Dis)Incentives” with Rachel Meng, INFORMS Marketing
Science Conference, Rome, Italy, June 2019.
“Technology-Driven Consumption,” with Daniel He, Society for Consumer Psychology
Conference (SCP), San Francisco, CA, 2017.
“The Consumption of Digital Live Content: How Live Streaming Enhances Engagement
in Uninteresting Content,” with Daniel He and Jonathan Hurwitz, Association for
Consumer Research Conference (ACR), San Diego, CA, 2017.
“The Compensation-Driven Nature of Monetary Rewards,” with Rachel Meng, Society
for Consumer Psychology Conference (SCP), San Francisco, CA, 2017.
“Ephemeral Messaging: Intimacy, Spontaneity, and Creativity in Fleeting Experiences,”
with Daniel He, Association for Consumer Research Conference (ACR), Berlin,
Germany, 2016.
“Motivating Choices and Performance: Beyond Monetary Incentives,” with Rachel
Meng, Association for Consumer Research Conference (ACR), Berlin, Germany, 2016.
“Consumer Decisions to Rent versus Buy,” with Anastasiya Pocheptsova and Ravi Dhar,
Association for Consumer Research Conference, Berlin, Germany, 2016.
“Motivating Choices and Performance: Beyond Monetary Incentives,” with Rachel
Meng, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Boston, Massachusetts, 2016.
“Opportunity Cost Overestimation in Choices among Opportunities versus Alternatives,”
with Liad Weiss, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Boston, Massachusetts,
2016.
“Consumer Behavior in Social Media” with Daniel He, Association for Consumer
Research Conference, New Orleans, LA, October 2015.
“Illusions of Preference Construction,” with Rom Schrift and Oded Netzer, Association
for Consumer Research Conference, New Orleans, LA, October 2015.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 121 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

121

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Selected Conference Presentations: (continued)
“Creating the Illusion of Choice through Selective Information Search and Retrieval,”
with Rom Schrift and Oded Netzer, Association for Consumer Research Conference, St.
Louis, MO, October 2011.
“Seeing-Through Opportunities: The Effects of Incidental versus Inherent Choices” with
Liad Weiss, Judgment and Decision Making Conference, Seattle, WA, November 2011.
“The Effects of Reward Programs” with Ricardo Montoya and Oded Netzer, INFORMS
Marketing Science Conference, Rice University, Houston, TX, June 2011.
“Complicating Choice,” with Rom Schrift and Oded Netzer, Society for Consumer
Psychology Conference, St. Pete Beach, FL, February 2010.
“Complicating Choice,” with Rom Schrift and Oded Netzer, Judgment and Decision
Making Conference, Boston, MA, November 2009.
“Using Survey Controls Effectively,” NAD Annual Conference: What’s New in
Comparative Advertising, Claim Support and Self-Regulation?, New York, NY, October
2009.
“Complicating Choice,” with Rom Schrift and Oded Netzer, Association for Consumer
Research Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, September 2009.
“Hyperopia: A Theory of Reverse Self-Control,” with Anat Keinan, Association for
Consumer Research Conference, San Francisco, CA, October, 2008.
“The Functional Alibi,” with Anat Keinan and Oded Netzer, Association for Consumer
Research Conference, San Francisco, CA, October 2008.
“The Impact of Marketing Promotions on Hedonic versus Utilitarian Purchases,” with
Yuhuang Zheng, Association for Consumer Research Conference, San Francisco, CA,
October 2008.
“The Functional Alibi,” with Anat Keinan and Oded Netzer, 11th Biennial Behavioral
Decision Research in Management Conference, San Diego, CA, April 2008.
“From Diligence to Hindrance,” with Rom Schrift and Oded Netzer, Marketing in Israel
Conference, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, December 2008.
“Hyperopia,” University of Pennsylvania (Wharton), Philadelphia, PA, June 2007.
“Consumer Decisions to Rent versus Buy,” with Anastasiya Pocheptsova and Ravi Dhar,
Association for Consumer Research Conference, Memphis, TN, October 2007.

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 122 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

122

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Selected Conference Presentations: (continued)
“Productivity Mindset and the Consumption of Collectable Experiences,” with Anat
Keinan, Association for Consumer Research Conference, Memphis, TN, October 2007.
“Too Much Fit? How Regulatory Fit Can Turn Us into Buridan’s Asses,” with Jonathan
Levav and K. Cecile Cho, Association for Consumer Research Conference, Memphis,
TN, October 2007.
“Remedying Hyperopia: The Effects of Self-Control Regret on Consumer Behavior,”
with Anat Keinan, 10th Biennial Behavioral Decision Research in Management
Conference, Los Angeles, CA, June 2006.
“Scope Insensitivity and The Mere Token Effect,” with Oleg Urminsky, 10th Biennial
Behavioral Decision Research in Management Conference, Los Angeles, CA, June 2006.
“Hyperopia: A Theory of Reverse Self-Control”, Symposium on “Self-Control Processes:
New Theoretical and Empirical Directions,” Society for Personality and Social
Psychology Annual Meeting, Palm Springs, California, 2006.
“The Psychology of Rewards: Principles of Expectancies?,” with Oleg Urminsky,
Judgment and Decision Making Conference, Toronto, Canada, November 2005.
“Repenting Hyperopia: An Analysis of Self-Control Regrets,” with Anat Keinan,
Judgment and Decision Making Conference, Toronto, Canada, November 2005.
“Goal Distance and Consumer Choice” (Session Co-Chair), and “The Goal-Gradient
Hypothesis Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal Progress, and Customer
Retention,” with Oleg Urminsky and Yuhuang Zheng, Association for Consumer
Research Conference, San Antonio, Texas, October 2005.
“Emerging Perspectives on Self-Control” (Session Co-Chair), and “Determinants of
Justification and Self-Control,” with Yuhuang Zheng, Association for Consumer
Research Conference, San Antonio, Texas, October 2005.
“Repenting Hyperopia: An Analysis of Self-Control Regrets,” with Anat Keinan,
Association for Consumer Research Conference, San Antonio, Texas, October 2005.
“Inducing Hyperopia through Inconsequential Early Rewards: A Consumer-Welfare-
Enhancing Violation of the Invariance Axiom,” with Oleg Urminsky, Association for
Consumer Research Conference, San Antonio, Texas, October 2005.
“The Effects of Effort and Intrinsic Motivation on Risky Choice,” INFORMS Marketing
Science Conference, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, June 2005.

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 123 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

123

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Selected Conference Presentations: (continued)
“The Goal-Gradient Hypothesis Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal
Progress, and Customer Retention,” with Oleg Urminsky and Yuhuang Zheng,
INFORMS Marketing Science Conference, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, June 2005.
“The Goal-Gradient Hypothesis Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal
Progress, and Customer Retention,” with Oleg Urminsky and Yuhuang Zheng, Judgment
and Decision Making Conference, Minnesota, November 2004.
“The Effects of Effort and Intrinsic Motivation on Risky Choice,” Judgment and
Decision Making Conference, Minnesota, November 2004.
Invited to present in session on “Goals, Impulses, and Self-Control,” Association for
Consumer Research Doctoral Symposium, Portland, Oregon, October 2004.
Discussion Leader for special session on “Simple Payments and Complex Rewards…,”
Association for Consumer Research Conference, Portland, Oregon, October 2004.
“Promotion Reactance: The Role of Effort-Reward Congruity,” Association for
Consumer Research Conference, Portland, Oregon, October 2004.
“Principles or Probabilities: When Value Overshadows Expected Value,” with Oleg
Urminsky, Association for Consumer Research Conference, Portland, Oregon, October
2004.
“How do Promotion Programs Affect Consumers’ Purchase Decisions: A Behavioral
Perspective,” with Yuhuang Zheng, INFORMS Marketing Science Conference, Erasmus
University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, June 2004.
Discussion Leader for special session on “Understanding the Evaluation of Future
Events,” Association for Consumer Research Conference, Toronto, Canada, October
2003.
“Consumer Self-Control and Time-Discounting,” with Oleg Urminsky, Judgment and
Decision Making Conference, Vancouver, Canada, November 2003.
“Mindsets of Decision Making,” with Yuval Rottenstreich, Judgement and Decision
Making Conference, Vancouver, Canada, November 2003.
“Consumer Self-Control and Time-Discounting,” with Oleg Urminsky, Association for
Consumer Research Conference, Toronto, Canada, October 2003.
“The Effects of Effort and Intrinsic Motivation on Risky Choice,” Marketing Science
Institute Young Scholars Program, Park City, UT, March 2003.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 124 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

124

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Selected Conference Presentations: (continued)
“Does the End Justify the Means? The Impact of Effort on Preferences toward the
Certainty and Magnitude of Rewards,” Association for Consumer Research Conference,
Atlanta, GA, 2002.
“Alternative Models for Capturing the Compromise Effect,” with Oded Netzer and V.
Srinivasan, Association for Consumer Research Conference, Atlanta, GA, October 2002.
“Alternative Models for Capturing the Compromise Effect,” with Oded Netzer and V.
Srinivasan, Marketing Science Conference, Alberta, Canada, June 2002.
“Self-Control for the Righteous: Toward a Theory of Pre-Commitment to Indulgence,”
with Itamar Simonson, Four School Seminar, New York University, May 2002.
“Self-Control for the Righteous: Toward a Theory of Luxury Pre-commitment,” with
Itamar Simonson, Judgment and Decision Making Conference, Orlando, FL, November
2001.
“The Influence of Hedonic Concreteness on Mood Regulation versus Mood
Congruency,” with Yifat Kivetz, Association for Consumer Research Conference,
Austin, TX, October 2001.
“Self-Control for the Righteous: Toward a Theory of Luxury Pre-commitment,” with
Itamar Simonson, UC Berkeley Choice Symposium, Monterey, CA, June 2001.
“Consumer Preferences Towards Frequency Programs” (Session Chair), and “The Effects
of Effort and Idiosyncratic Fit on Preference Towards Frequency Programs,” with Itamar
Simonson, Association for Consumer Research Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah,
October 2000.
“Consumer Choices between Hedonic and Utilitarian Options” (Session Co-Chair), and
“Earning the Right to Indulge: Effort as a Determinant of Customer Preferences Towards
Frequency Program Rewards,” with Itamar Simonson, ACR Conference, Salt Lake City,
Utah, October 2000.
“Hedonic and Utilitarian Motivations in Consumer Choice” (Session Chair), and “The
Joyless Consumer: Using Self-Control Strategies to Increase Hedonic Consumption,”
with Itamar Simonson, Association for Consumer Research Conference, Columbus,
Ohio, October 1999.
“The Effects of Incomplete Information on Consumer Choice,” with Itamar Simonson,
Association for Consumer Research Conference, Columbus, Ohio, October 1999.

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 125 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

125

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Selected Conference Presentations: (continued)
“Regret and Self-Congratulation From the Head and From the Heart,” with Chakravarti,
Agnish, Susan Chiu, and Itamar Simonson, Association for Consumer Research
Conference, Montreal, Canada, October 1998.
“Intransitive Consumer Choice: The Effects of Incomplete Information,” with Itamar
Simonson, HEC Choice Symposium, Groupe HEC, Jouy-en-Josas (Paris), France, July
1998.
“Intransitive Consumer Choice: The Effects of Incomplete Information,” with Itamar
Simonson, INFORMS Israel, Tel Aviv, Israel, June 1998.
“Intransitive Consumer Choice: The Effects of Incomplete Information,” with Itamar
Simonson, Boulder-Colorado Behavioral Decision Theory Camp, Boulder, Colorado,
October 1997.
“The Psychology of Versioning: Counterfactual Thinking as a Determinant of Fairness
Perceptions and Choice,” with Andrew Gershoff, ACR Conference, Toronto, Canada,
October 2003.

Selected Invited Talks:
Vienna University of Economics and Business, forthcoming
5th Coller Conference on Behavioral Economics, forthcoming, Tel Aviv
Marketing Analytics Symposium – Sydney (MASS), February 2020
11th Triennial Invitational Choice Symposium, May-June 2019
4th Coller Conference on Behavioral Economics, June 2019, Tel Aviv
“Marketing Israel,” Israeli-American Council.
Licensing Executives Society (LES) 2012 Winter Meeting. March 2012
American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law. November 2010
Tel Aviv University, Recanati Graduate School of Business Administration. August 2010
The 2009 NAD Annual Conference: What’s New in Comparative Advertising, Claim
Support and Self-Regulation? October 2009
New York University psychology department. March 2009
Israel Business Conference. December 2008

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 126 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

126

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Selected Invited Talks: (continued)
Stanford University, Graduate School of Business, marketing department. October 2008
Olin Business School at Washington University. May 2008
Duke University marketing department. April 2008
Yale University marketing department. April 2007
MIT marketing department. September 2006
University of Chicago marketing department. January 2006
Arison School of Business, The Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (IDC). January 2006
Tilburg University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration and Tias
Business School, Marketing Research Camp. December 2005
Northwestern University (Kellogg), Marketing Research Camp. September 2005
Stanford University, Graduate School of Business, marketing department. May 2005
University of Pennsylvania (Wharton), Philadelphia PA. November 2004
University of Florida marketing department, Winter Research Retreat. March 2004
Marketing Modellers Group, New York. March 2004
Center for the Decision Sciences, Columbia University. April 2003
Young Scholars Program, Marketing Science Institute. March 2003
MIT marketing department. February 2003
University of Chicago marketing department. January 2003
School of Business, Rutgers University – Camden Campus. November 2002
Arison School of Business, The Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (IDC). June 2002
Social Psychology Network, Columbia University. May 2002
Center for the Decision Sciences, Columbia University. April 2002
NYU marketing department. March 2002
UC Berkeley marketing department. November 2001
2001 UC Berkeley Invitational Choice Symposium. June 2001
University of Texas at Austin, marketing research camp. April 2001
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 127 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

127

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Selected Invited Talks: (continued)
MIT marketing department. April 2001
Center for the Decision Sciences, Columbia University. February 2001
Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois. December 1999
Duke University, Durham NC. November 1999
University of Chicago, Chicago Illinois. November 1999
Cornell University, Ithaca NY. November 1999
Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire. November 1999
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley CA. October 1999
Yale University, New Haven Connecticut. October 1999
University of Pennsylvania (Wharton), Philadelphia PA. October 1999
Columbia University, New York NY. October 1999
University of Southern California, Los Angeles CA. October 1999
Stanford University Psychology Department, Stanford CA. November 1998
1998 Groupe HEC Invitational Choice Symposium. July 1998
Boulder-Colorado Behavioral Decision Theory Camp, Boulder, Colorado. October 1997.

******************

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 128 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

128

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
External Professional Activities & Service:
Guest Editor:
Journal of Marketing Research
Guest Area/Associate Editor:
Marketing Science
Management Science
Association for Consumer Research
Editorial Boards:
Journal of Marketing Research
Applied Economics Research Bulletin
Marketing Letters
Reviewer:
Marketing Science, Quantitative Marketing and Economics, Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, Psychological Science, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Journal of Marketing, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making, Journal of Service Research, Journal of Economic
Psychology, Association for Consumer Research, Society for Consumer Psychology,
Behavioral Decision Research in Management Conference, National Science
Foundation.
Intel Science Talent Search, Advisor for:
Gregg Gefen, Great Neck North High School (Semi-finalist, 2002)
Jukay Hsu, Stuyvesant High School (Semi-finalist, 2001)

******************

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 129 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

129

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Internal Professional Activities & Service:
Service to University:
M.S. in Entrepreneurship & Innovation Working Group, 2016
Co-chair of the Provost’s Faculty Advisory Committee on Entrepreneurship, 2013-2014
Faculty Fellow of the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy (ISERP),
2002-2015
Guest Speaker, Columbia University & Columbia Business School Chicago Alumni
Clubs
Panel Discussant, “The Psychology of Money,” Columbia University Annual Alumni and
Development Officers Retreat, July 15, 2009
Panel Discussant, “The Psychology of Money,” GSAS Conversations with Alumni,
Columbia University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, April 20, 2009
Service to Business School:
Member of the Marketing Division Senior Faculty Recruiting Committee, 2018 – present
Junior Faculty Research Liaison Committee, 2015 - 2019
Columbia Business School’s Conflict of Interest and Conflict of Commitment Policy
Review Committee, 2017
Strategy Creation Committee, 2013 - 2014
Core-Coordinator Committee, 2012 - 2014
Committee on the Structure of the Core, 2012
Faculty Committee on the Core Curriculum, 2011-2012
Committee on Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Core Curriculum, 2011
Faculty Ad-Hoc Committee on Columbia Business School Budget Guidelines, 2009
Columbia Business School Green Committee, 2009
Project Adviser for MBA and Executive MBA Independent Projects, 2002-present
MBA Admissions Committee, 2002 - 2006
Finance (Real Estate) Division Faculty Search Committee, 2003-2004
Management Division Faculty Search Committee, 2001-2002
Student Faculty Academic Affairs Committee (SFAAC), 2000-2001

******************

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 130 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

130

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Internal Professional Activities & Service: (continued)
Service to Marketing Division:
Member of the Marketing Division Senior Faculty Recruiting Committee, 2018 – present
Member of the Marketing Division Faculty Recruiting Committee, 2020 – present
Chair of the Marketing Division Communications and Outreach Committee, 2019 – present
Member of the Marketing Division Senior Faculty Recruiting Committee, 2018 – present
Junior Faculty Research Liaison for the Marketing Division, 2015 – 2019
Member of the Marketing Division Faculty Recruiting Committee, 2016 – 2018
Member of the Marketing Division Ph.D. Committee, 2016 – 2018
Chair of the Marketing Division Faculty Recruiting Committee, 2015
Coordinator of the Marketing Strategy Core Course, 2011 – 2014
Chair of the Marketing Division Ph.D. Committee, 2011 – 2013
Co-chair of the Marketing Division Faculty Recruiting Committee, 2010
Member of the Marketing Division Faculty Recruiting Committee, 2002 – 2008
Chair of the Marketing Division Ph.D. Committee, 2006 – 2007
Member of the Marketing Division Ph.D. Committee, 2004 – 2006
Various Sub-committees, 2007 – present
Organizer of Columbia Marketing Research Camp, 2001 and 2002

Selected Media Reports of Dr. Kivetz’s Research (research covered by hundreds of
print, electronic, and broadcast media outlets):
“Losses. Loom. Large. And That, in Short, Explains Your Loss Aversion,” Marketplace,
November 10, 2020.
“Why We’re All So Worried About Having Too Little Time,” TIME, January 30, 2020.
“Use this Simple Psychological Trick if Productivity Culture has Made it Impossible for
You to Relax,” Fast Firm, October 7, 2019.
“Five Below is a Wonderland of Things No One Needs. It’s Also One of the Most
Successful Retailers in America,” Washington Post, December 20, 2018.
“New Research From Columbia Business School Sheds Light On Factors Affecting
Luxury Versus Practical Purchases,” Markets Insider, November 15, 2017.
“The Psychology Behind Spending Big,” BBC News, October 9, 2017.
“There’s Power in All Those User Reviews,” The New York Times, December 7, 2013.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 131 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

131

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Selected Media Reports of Dr. Kivetz’s Research: (continued)
“A Closet Filled With Regrets,” The Wall Street Journal, April 17, 2013.
“Why We Blunder When We Buy,” Chicago Tribune, July 22, 2011.
“The Business of Weird: Why People Pay for Bizarre Experiences,” TIME, November
22, 2010.
“The New Abnormal,” (Cover Story), Bloomberg Businessweek, August 2, 2010.
“Reward, Regret and Consumer Behaviour,” ABC Radio National (Australia), July 12,
2010.
“To Achieve Your Goals, Focus on Reasons,” U.S. News & World Report, July 1, 2010.
“Can a Vacation Help Boost Your Portfolio?” SmartMoney, June 25, 2010.
“Reasons—and Ways—to Splurge This Summer,” U.S. News & World Report, June 23,
2010.
“Field Guide To The Tightwad: Saving Spree,” Psychology Today, January 1, 2010.
“Club Class,” The Wall Street Journal, December 3, 2009.
“Don’t Work All the Time — You’ll Live to Regret It,” Wired Magazine, July 15, 2009.
“When the Bride Says I Do – to Cash,” The Globe and Mail, July 9, 2009.
“It Makes Them Sick to Spend - Literally,” The Globe and Mail, June 8, 2009.
“The Gift-Card Economy,” The Atlantic, May, 2009.
“Technology Can Save You From Yourself,” Marketplace Public Radio, April 17, 2009.
“Regret Saving Money,” CNN, March 26, 2009.
“Oversaving, a Burden for Our Times,” The New York Times, March 23, 2009.
“Are You a Victim of Saver’s Remorse?” The New York Times, March 23, 2009.
“Giving in to Temptation,” CNN, September 20, 2008.
“Splurge Now, Feel Great Later,” ABC News, July 2008.
“Splurging is Good for Your Health,” The Wall Street Journal, July 2008.
“Putting a Price on Rewards,” U.S. News & World Report, June 24, 2007.
“Incentives - Naughty But Nice,” Management Today, April 1, 2007.
“Hyperopia,” The New York Times—one of the “Best Ideas in 2006”—Annual Year in Ideas.

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 132 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

132

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Selected Media Reports of Dr. Kivetz’s Research: (continued)
“Delaying Pleasure Results in Regret,” United Press International, June 27, 2006.
“Why Cash Incentives Fail,” SalesForceXP, Feature Story, September Issue, 2005.
“Professors Discover Why Business Loyalty Programs Work,” Sacramento Business
Journal, 8.16.2004.
“An Economics Problem: Joyless Consumers,” by Peter Martin, THE AGE, January,
2004, Australia.
“Consumers Work Hard for Loyalty Programs”, Newswise, August 16, 2004.
“Studies Question Value of Mass Customization, Find Consumers Work Hard for
Loyalty Programmes,” MadeForOne, August 23, 2004.
“Consumers Prefer Loyalty Programmes that ‘Fit’,” The Wise Marketer, December 10,
2003.
“Indulgence,” Radio National, with Geraldine Doogue, March 2, 2003, Australia.
“Betty Crocker Coupon Program Spry After More than 70 Years,” by Karren Mills, Dow
Jones Interactive, February 23, 2002.
“Once a Loyalty Craze, S&H Tries to Remake Magic in Digital Age,” by Justin Pope,
The New York Times, November, 2001.
“Earning the Right to Indulge: Guilt about Consuming Luxury Items Plays an Important
Role in Consumer Preference Toward Rewards,” Stanford Business Magazine, August
14, 2001.
“Study: Luxury Rewards Evoke Consumer Guilt,” by Kimberly Hill, CRM Daily, August
1, 2001. Also reported in E-Commerce Times, Yahoo! News.
“Stanford Business School Research Shows Guilt Plays a Role in What Loyalty Program
Rewards Consumers Choose,” Transport News, July 27, 2001. Also reported in Business
Wire, Yahoo! Finance, Sharper Media, The Timeshare Beat.
“Consumers Still Buy When Info Incomplete,” Marketing News, October 9, 2000.

Professional Affiliations:
American Marketing Association
Association for Consumer Research
International Trademark Association
Society for Consumer Psychology
Society for Judgment & Decision Making

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 133 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

133

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
EXHIBIT B: LIST OF CASES IN WHICH DR. RAN KIVETZ PROVIDED
SWORN TESTIMONY IN DEPOSITION AND/OR TRIAL DURING THE PAST
FOUR YEARS
Boltex Manufacturing Company, L.P. and Weldbend Corporation vs. Galperti Inc. and
Officine Nicola Galperti E Filgio S.P.A., Case No. 4:17-cv-01439 (S.D. Texas)
City of Wyoming, Minnesota; Village of Holmen, Wisconsin; City of Elk River,
Minnesota; City of Mankato, Minnesota; City of Perham, Minnesota; City of
Princeton, Minnesota; City of Fergus Falls, Minnesota; Sauk Centre Public
Utilities Commission; and Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Commission vs.
Procter & Gamble Company; Kimberly-Clark Corporation; Nice-Pak Products,
Inc.; Professional Disposables International, Inc.; Tufco Technologies Inc.; and
Rockline Industries, Case No. 15-cv-02101-JRT/TNL (D. Minnesota)
Anne De Lacour, Andrea Wright, And Loree Moran v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., and Tom’s
Of Maine Inc., Case No. 16 Civ. 08364 (RA) (AJP) (S.D. Cal.)
Barry Allred and Mandy C. Allred v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc., and Frito-Lay, Inc.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01345 (S.D. Cal.)
Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. v. American Outdoor Brands Corporation, Smith & Wesson
Cosrp., and Thompson/Center Arms Company, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00801-JL
(D.N.H.)
Camille Cabrera v. Bayer Healthcare LLC and Bayer Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-
08525 (C.D. Cal.)
Veda Woodard, Teresa Rizzo-Marino, and Diane Morrison v. Lee Labrada et al., Case
No. 5:16-cv-00189-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.)
JaM Cellars, Inc. v. The Wine Group LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-01878-HSG (N.D. Cal.)
Hytera Communications Corp. Ltd. v. Motorola Solutions Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01794-
DCN (N.D. Ohio Eastern Division)
The People of the State of California v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. et al., Case No.
BC643037 (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles)
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 134 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

134

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
American Customer Satisfaction Index, LLC v. ForeSee Results, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-
13319 (E.D. Michigan Southern Division); and CFI Group USA LLC v. Verint
Americas Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-12602 (E.D. Michigan)
NIKE, Inc. v. Vans, Inc., Opposition No. 91253064 (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
TTAB)
Willis et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., Case No. 2:19-cv-08542-JGB (C.D. Cal.)
In Re: Rock ’n Play Sleeper Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability
Litigation, Case No. 1:19-md-2903 (W.D.N.Y.)
La Fosse et al. v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., Case No. 19-CV-06570-RS (N.D. Cal.)
In Re: KIND, LLC “Healthy and All Natural Litigation”, Case No. 1:15-md-02645-NRB
(S.D.N.Y.)
Ripple Analytics Inc. v. People Center, Inc. d/b/a Rippling, Case No. 2:20-cv-00894
(E.D. N.Y.)
Jerome’s Furniture Warehouse v. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. et al., Case No. 20-cv-
1765-RBM-BGS (S.D. Cal.)

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 135 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

135

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
EXHIBIT C: DOCUMENTS MADE AVAILABLE TO DR. RAN KIVETZ IN
CONNECTION WITH PREPARATION OF THIS REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT
In addition to academic research and articles, and other materials specifically referred to
in the enclosed Rebuttal Expert Report, I received documents produced in the action, and
other documents, including, without limitation, the following:

Filed Documents
• 2022-04-04 Verification for Defendant Thomson Reuters Corporation's Responses
and Objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant
• 2022-04-04 Defendant Thomson Reuters Corporation’s Responses to Plaintiffs’
First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant (with Attachment A)
• 2021-09-10 (Dkt 60) Defendant Thomson Reuters Corporation's Answer and
Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint
• 2021-08-26 (Dkt 59) Stipulation to Set Case Schedule and Order
• 2021-08-16 (Dkt 54) Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss
• 2021-04-05 (Dkt 28) Notice of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP
12(B)(6), and Motion to Strike Pursuant to Claifornia Code of Civil Procedure §
425.16, and Memorandum in Support
• 2020-12-03 (Dkt 1) Class Action Complaint

Expert Reports
• 2022-06-01 Report of Professor Joseph Turow
• 2022-06-01 Report of Finance Scholars Group, Inc. (Terry Lloyd)

Deposition Transcripts
• 2022-08-26 Joseph Turow Deposition Transcript (with Exhibits DX #1 – 10)
• 2022-08-22 Terry Lloyd (FSG) Deposition Transcript (with Exhibits DX #F1 –
F7, F9; F13 – F18; F20 – F22)
• 2022-08-18 Plaintiff Rasheed Shabazz Deposition Transcript (with Exhibits DX
#1 – 33)
• 2022-08-10 Cat Brooks Deposition Transcript (with Exhibits DX #1 – 17)
• 2022-05-18 Dorian Buckethal Deposition Transcript (with Exhibits DX #1 – 36)
• 2022-05-16 Steve Fox Deposition Transcript (with Exhibits DX #1 – 30)
• 2022-05-06 Paul Godlewski Deposition Transcript (with Exhibits DX #1 – 36)

Bates-Stamped Documents
• PLAINTIFFS_005538
• PLAINTIFFS_005548
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 136 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

136

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
• PLAINTIFFS_005581
• PLAINTIFFS_005608
• PLAINTIFFS_005618
• PLAINTIFFS_005653
• PLAINTIFFS_005662
• PLAINTIFFS_010275
• PLAINTIFFS_011040
• PLAINTIFFS_011126
• PLAINTIFFS_011254
• PLAINTIFFS_011275
• PLAINTIFFS_011314
• PLAINTIFFS_011315
• TR-BROOKS000011
• TR-BROOKS000056
• TR-BROOKS000075
• TR-BROOKS000082
• TR-BROOKS000482
• TR-BROOKS000610
• TR-BROOKS000746
• TR-BROOKS000766
• TR-BROOKS000876
• TR-BROOKS000896
• TR-BROOKS001097
• TR-BROOKS001168
• TR-BROOKS001363
• TR-BROOKS001564
• TR-BROOKS001688
• TR-BROOKS001816
• TR-BROOKS001872
• TR-BROOKS001988
• TR-BROOKS001991
• TR-BROOKS001995
• TR-BROOKS002003
• TR-BROOKS002051
• TR-BROOKS002086
• TR-BROOKS002101
• TR-BROOKS002251
• TR-BROOKS002253
• TR-BROOKS002292
• TR-BROOKS002367
• TR-BROOKS002588
• TR-BROOKS002670
• TR-BROOKS002672
• TR-BROOKS003096
• TR-BROOKS003259
• TR-BROOKS005220
• TR-BROOKS013536
• TR-BROOKS013540
• TR-BROOKS013551
• TR-BROOKS013613
• TR-BROOKS013617
• TR-BROOKS013651
• TR-BROOKS013677
• TR-BROOKS013741
• TR-BROOKS013742
• TR-BROOKS013744
• TR-BROOKS013829
• TR-BROOKS013849
• TR-BROOKS013854
• TR-BROOKS013865
• TR-BROOKS013879
• TR-BROOKS013903
• TR-BROOKS013907
• TR-BROOKS014840
• TR-BROOKS016716
• TR-BROOKS016867
• TR-BROOKS016934
• TR-BROOKS016961
• TR-BROOKS017029
• TR-BROOKS017074
• TR-BROOKS017607
• TR-BROOKS017644
• TR-BROOKS018218
• TR-BROOKS018228
• TR-BROOKS018254
• TR-BROOKS018313
• TR-BROOKS018497
• TR-BROOKS018645
• TR-BROOKS018652
• TR-BROOKS018675
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 137 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

137

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
• TR-BROOKS018682
• TR-BROOKS018713
• TR-BROOKS018762
• TR-BROOKS018837
• TR-BROOKS018865
• TR-BROOKS018912
• TR-BROOKS018977
• TR-BROOKS019093
• TR-BROOKS019229
• TR-BROOKS019293
• TR-BROOKS019396
• TR-BROOKS019397
• TR-BROOKS019433
• TR-BROOKS019802
• TR-BROOKS019827
• TR-BROOKS019843
• TR-BROOKS019904
• TR-BROOKS019990
• TR-BROOKS020153
• TR-BROOKS020168
• TR-BROOKS020178
• TR-BROOKS020279
• TR-BROOKS020376
• TR-BROOKS020399
• TR-BROOKS020412
• TR-BROOKS020430
• TR-BROOKS020519
• TR-BROOKS020536
• TR-BROOKS020766
• TR-BROOKS020771
• TR-BROOKS020790
• TR-BROOKS020809
• TR-BROOKS020864
• TR-BROOKS020865
• TR-BROOKS020891
• TR-BROOKS020898
• TR-BROOKS020934
• TR-BROOKS020936
• TR-BROOKS020985
• TR-BROOKS020995
• TR-BROOKS024020
• TR-BROOKS024022
• TR-BROOKS024042
• TR-BROOKS024549
• TR-BROOKS025679
• TR-BROOKS026283
• TR-BROOKS030530
• TR-BROOKS031286
• TR-BROOKS035636
• TR-BROOKS035652
• TR-BROOKS035653
• TR-BROOKS035667
• TR-BROOKS035683
• TR-BROOKS035684
• TR-BROOKS035700
• TR-BROOKS035701
• TR-BROOKS035709
• TR-BROOKS035711
• TR-BROOKS035712
• TR-BROOKS035713
• TR-BROOKS035718
• TR-BROOKS035724
• TR-BROOKS035727
• TR-BROOKS035736
• TR-BROOKS035756
• TR-BROOKS035774
• TR-BROOKS035776
• TR-BROOKS035784
• TR-BROOKS035791
• TR-BROOKS035798
• TR-BROOKS035805
• TR-BROOKS035812
• TR-BROOKS035819
• TR-BROOKS035824
• TR-BROOKS035826
• TR-BROOKS035830
• TR-BROOKS035837
• TR-BROOKS035844
• TR-BROOKS035848
• TR-BROOKS035852
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 138 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

138

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
• TR-BROOKS035856
• TR-BROOKS035858
• TR-BROOKS035867
• TR-BROOKS035870
• TR-BROOKS035872
• TR-BROOKS035876
• TR-BROOKS035878
• TR-BROOKS035881
• TR-BROOKS035886
• TR-BROOKS035889
• TR-BROOKS035892
• TR-BROOKS035894
• TR-BROOKS036068
• TR-BROOKS036092
• TR-BROOKS036098
• TR-BROOKS036111
• TR-BROOKS036118
• TR-BROOKS036120
• TR-BROOKS036121
• TR-BROOKS036122
• TR-BROOKS036123
• TR-BROOKS036142
• TR-BROOKS036159
• TR-BROOKS036211
• TR-BROOKS036214
• TR-BROOKS036283
• TR-BROOKS036286
• TR-BROOKS036288
• TR-BROOKS036290
• TR-BROOKS036293
• TR-BROOKS036295
• TR-BROOKS036296
• TR-BROOKS036298
• TR-BROOKS036299
• TR-BROOKS036300
• TR-BROOKS036308
• TR-BROOKS036477
• TR-BROOKS036481
• TR-BROOKS036485
• TR-BROOKS036490
• TR-BROOKS036491
• TR-BROOKS036504
• TR-BROOKS036515
• TR-BROOKS036516
• TR-BROOKS036518
• TR-BROOKS036527
• TR-BROOKS036530
• TR-BROOKS036535
• TR-BROOKS036536
• TR-BROOKS036542
• TR-BROOKS036545
• TR-BROOKS036547
• TR-BROOKS036552
• TR-BROOKS036554
• TR-BROOKS036559
• TR-BROOKS036561
• TR-BROOKS036565
• TR-BROOKS036567
• TR-BROOKS036568
• TR-BROOKS036570
• TR-BROOKS036597
• TR-BROOKS036598
• TR-BROOKS036601
• TR-BROOKS036882
• TR-BROOKS036883
• TR-BROOKS036885
• TR-BROOKS036890
• TR-BROOKS036900
• TR-BROOKS036904
• TR-BROOKS036924
• TR-BROOKS036928
• TR-BROOKS036930
• TR-BROOKS036935
• TR-BROOKS036966
• TR-BROOKS036968
• TR-BROOKS036971
• TR-BROOKS036979
• TR-BROOKS036992
• TR-BROOKS037005
• TR-BROOKS037019
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 139 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

139

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
• TR-BROOKS037030
• TR-BROOKS037031
• TR-BROOKS037079
• TR-BROOKS037082
• TR-BROOKS037097
• TR-BROOKS037100
• TR-BROOKS037103
• TR-BROOKS037104
• TR-BROOKS037106
• TR-BROOKS037107
• TR-BROOKS037111
• TR-BROOKS037114
• TR-BROOKS037116
• TR-BROOKS037119
• TR-BROOKS037124
• TR-BROOKS037127
• TR-BROOKS037130
• TR-BROOKS037135
• TR-BROOKS037138
• TR-BROOKS037144
• TR-BROOKS037151
• TR-BROOKS037194
• TR-BROOKS037196
• TR-BROOKS037197
• TR-BROOKS037214
• TR-BROOKS037215
• TR-BROOKS037216
• TR-BROOKS037219
• TR-BROOKS037221
• TR-BROOKS037223
• TR-BROOKS037226
• TR-BROOKS037229
• TR-BROOKS037232
• TR-BROOKS037235
• TR-BROOKS037238
• TR-BROOKS037244
• TR-BROOKS037247
• TR-BROOKS037250
• TR-BROOKS037255
• TR-BROOKS037258
• TR-BROOKS037264
• TR-BROOKS037271
• TR-BROOKS037272
• TR-BROOKS037276
• TR-BROOKS037292
• TR-BROOKS037294
• TR-BROOKS037299
• TR-BROOKS037302
• TR-BROOKS037388
• TR-BROOKS037393
• TR-BROOKS037396
• TR-BROOKS037424
• TR-BROOKS037426
• TR-BROOKS037430
• TR-BROOKS037432
• TR-BROOKS037435
• TR-BROOKS037445
• TR-BROOKS037447
• TR-BROOKS037449
• TR-BROOKS037453
• TR-BROOKS037461
• TR-BROOKS037463
• TR-BROOKS037466
• TR-BROOKS037519
• TR-BROOKS037528
• TR-BROOKS037534
• TR-BROOKS037548
• TR-BROOKS037551
• TR-BROOKS037558
• TR-BROOKS037565
• TR-BROOKS037569
• TR-BROOKS037576
• TR-BROOKS037577
• TR-BROOKS037579
• TR-BROOKS037598
• TR-BROOKS037602
• TR-BROOKS037604
• TR-BROOKS037609
• TR-BROOKS037644
• TR-BROOKS037704
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 140 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

140

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
• TR-BROOKS037708
• TR-BROOKS037709
• TR-BROOKS037710
• TR-BROOKS037712
• TR-BROOKS037714
• TR-BROOKS037717
• TR-BROOKS037719
• TR-BROOKS037720
• TR-BROOKS037721
• TR-BROOKS037722
• TR-BROOKS037750
• TR-BROOKS037753
• TR-BROOKS037758
• TR-BROOKS037772
• TR-BROOKS037780
• TR-BROOKS037788
• TR-BROOKS037801
• TR-BROOKS037818
• TR-BROOKS037820
• TR-BROOKS037826
• TR-BROOKS037830
• TR-BROOKS037849
• TR-BROOKS037850
• TR-BROOKS037861
• TR-BROOKS037864
• TR-BROOKS037866
• TR-BROOKS037869
• TR-BROOKS037872
• TR-BROOKS037874
• TR-BROOKS037877
• TR-BROOKS037880
• TR-BROOKS037882
• TR-BROOKS037903
• TR-BROOKS037931
• TR-BROOKS037933
• TR-BROOKS038014
• TR-BROOKS038047
• TR-BROOKS038049
• TR-BROOKS038050
• TR-BROOKS038051
• TR-BROOKS038060
• TR-BROOKS038062
• TR-BROOKS038063
• TR-BROOKS038065
• TR-BROOKS038066
• TR-BROOKS038067
• TR-BROOKS038078
• TR-BROOKS038087
• TR-BROOKS038093
• TR-BROOKS038098
• TR-BROOKS038105
• TR-BROOKS038106
• TR-BROOKS038111
• TR-BROOKS038131
• TR-BROOKS038146
• TR-BROOKS038147
• TR-BROOKS038148
• TR-BROOKS038149
• TR-BROOKS038151
• TR-BROOKS038156
• TR-BROOKS038157
• TR-BROOKS038170
• TR-BROOKS038175
• TR-BROOKS038180
• TR-BROOKS038185
• TR-BROOKS038186
• TR-BROOKS038208
• TR-BROOKS038209
• TR-BROOKS038214
• TR-BROOKS038215
• TR-BROOKS038237
• TR-BROOKS038238
• TR-BROOKS038243
• TR-BROOKS038244
• TR-BROOKS038266
• TR-BROOKS038268
• TR-BROOKS038272
• TR-BROOKS038274
• TR-BROOKS038283
• TR-BROOKS038284
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 141 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

141

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
• TR-BROOKS038297
• TR-BROOKS038354
• TR-BROOKS038355
• TR-BROOKS038362
• TR-BROOKS038363
• TR-BROOKS038364
• TR-BROOKS038366
• TR-BROOKS038367
• TR-BROOKS038368
• TR-BROOKS038369
• TR-BROOKS038370
• TR-BROOKS038397
• TR-BROOKS038420
• TR-BROOKS038463
• TR-BROOKS038472
• TR-BROOKS038481
• TR-BROOKS038490
• TR-BROOKS038499
• TR-BROOKS038505
• TR-BROOKS038508
• TR-BROOKS038509
• TR-BROOKS038511
• TR-BROOKS038523
• TR-BROOKS038525
• TR-BROOKS038526
• TR-BROOKS038527
• TR-BROOKS038532
• TR-BROOKS038538
• TR-BROOKS038547
• TR-BROOKS038557
• TR-BROOKS038559
• TR-BROOKS038562
• TR-BROOKS038569
• TR-BROOKS038578
• TR-BROOKS038583
• TR-BROOKS038587
• TR-BROOKS038588
• TR-BROOKS038592
• TR-BROOKS038593
• TR-BROOKS038594
• TR-BROOKS038603
• TR-BROOKS038604
• TR-BROOKS038615
• TR-BROOKS038643
• TR-BROOKS038645
• TR-BROOKS038650
• TR-BROOKS038666
• TR-BROOKS038668
• TR-BROOKS038673
• TR-BROOKS038674
• TR-BROOKS038684
• TR-BROOKS038707
• TR-BROOKS038720
• TR-BROOKS038721
• TR-BROOKS038731
• TR-BROOKS038748
• TR-BROOKS038752
• TR-BROOKS038754
• TR-BROOKS038756
• TR-BROOKS038760
• TR-BROOKS038764
• TR-BROOKS038765
• TR-BROOKS038767
• TR-BROOKS038769
• TR-BROOKS038771
• TR-BROOKS038773
• TR-BROOKS038776
• TR-BROOKS038777
• TR-BROOKS038778
• TR-BROOKS038779
• TR-BROOKS038784
• TR-BROOKS038790
• TR-BROOKS038795
• TR-BROOKS038799
• TR-BROOKS038809
• TR-BROOKS038815
• TR-BROOKS038817
• TR-BROOKS038836
• TR-BROOKS038838
• TR-BROOKS038860
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 142 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

142

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
• TR-BROOKS038861
• TR-BROOKS038884
• TR-BROOKS038900
• TR-BROOKS038902
• TR-BROOKS038989
• TR-BROOKS038995
• TR-BROOKS039000
• TR-BROOKS039013
• TR-BROOKS039033
• TR-BROOKS039037
• TR-BROOKS039038
• TR-BROOKS039049
• TR-BROOKS039051
• TR-BROOKS039053
• TR-BROOKS039054
• TR-BROOKS039073
• TR-BROOKS039085
• TR-BROOKS039117
• TR-BROOKS039151
• TR-BROOKS039158
• TR-BROOKS039165
• TR-BROOKS039174
• TR-BROOKS039184
• TR-BROOKS039196
• TR-BROOKS039206
• TR-BROOKS039207
• TR-BROOKS039210
• TR-BROOKS039223
• TR-BROOKS039225
• TR-BROOKS039229
• TR-BROOKS039235
• TR-BROOKS039247
• TR-BROOKS039248
• TR-BROOKS039250
• TR-BROOKS039253
• TR-BROOKS039286
• TR-BROOKS039289
• TR-BROOKS039292
• TR-BROOKS039294
• TR-BROOKS039301
• TR-BROOKS039308
• TR-BROOKS039311
• TR-BROOKS039312
• TR-BROOKS039313
• TR-BROOKS039315
• TR-BROOKS039324
• TR-BROOKS039375
• TR-BROOKS039378
• TR-BROOKS039380
• TR-BROOKS040077
• TR-BROOKS041418
• TR-BROOKS041734
• TR-BROOKS044782
• TR-BROOKS044852
• TR-BROOKS046629
• TR-BROOKS046630
• TR-BROOKS046632
• TR-BROOKS046633
• TR-BROOKS046634
• TR-BROOKS046636
• TR-BROOKS046637
• TR-BROOKS046639
• TR-BROOKS046640
• TR-BROOKS046641
• TR-BROOKS046642
• TR-BROOKS046643
• TR-BROOKS046645
• TR-BROOKS046647
• TR-BROOKS046649
• TR-BROOKS046650
• TR-BROOKS046652
• TR-BROOKS046653
• TR-BROOKS046654
• TR-BROOKS046655
• TR-BROOKS047029
• TR-BROOKS047405
• TR-BROOKS048964
• TR-BROOKS049485
• TR-BROOKS049564
• TR-BROOKS049566
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 143 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

143

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
• TR-BROOKS049886
• TR-BROOKS049889
• TR-BROOKS049907
• TR-BROOKS049908
• TR-BROOKS050846
• TR-BROOKS051170
• TR-BROOKS052564
• TR-BROOKS053386
• TR-BROOKS053483
• TR-BROOKS053499
• TR-BROOKS054545
• TR-BROOKS055702
• TR-BROOKS055704
• TR-BROOKS055706
• TR-BROOKS055707
• TR-BROOKS055709
• TR-BROOKS055711
• TR-BROOKS055713
• TR-BROOKS055715
• TR-BROOKS055717
• TR-BROOKS055720
• TR-BROOKS055722
• TR-BROOKS055723
• TR-BROOKS055729
• TR-BROOKS055730
• TR-BROOKS055733
• TR-BROOKS055735
• TR-BROOKS055737
• TR-BROOKS055739
• TR-BROOKS055740
• TR-BROOKS055742
• TR-BROOKS055744
• TR-BROOKS055746
• TR-BROOKS055748
• TR-BROOKS055749
• TR-BROOKS055751
• TR-BROOKS055753
• TR-BROOKS055754
• TR-BROOKS055756
• TR-BROOKS055758
• TR-BROOKS055760
• TR-BROOKS055762
• TR-BROOKS055764
• TR-BROOKS055766
• TR-BROOKS055768
• TR-BROOKS055775
• TR-BROOKS055777
• TR-BROOKS055779
• TR-BROOKS055782
• TR-BROOKS055784
• TR-BROOKS055786
• TR-BROOKS055788
• TR-BROOKS055789
• TR-BROOKS055791
• TR-BROOKS055792
• TR-BROOKS055794
• TR-BROOKS055799
• TR-BROOKS055801
• TR-BROOKS055803
• TR-BROOKS055805
• TR-BROOKS055807
• TR-BROOKS055808
• TR-BROOKS055810
• TR-BROOKS055813
• TR-BROOKS055817
• TR-BROOKS055820
• TR-BROOKS055822
• TR-BROOKS055824
• TR-BROOKS055827
• TR-BROOKS055829
• TR-BROOKS055831
• TR-BROOKS055832
• TR-BROOKS055834
• TR-BROOKS055837
• TR-BROOKS055839
• TR-BROOKS055841
• TR-BROOKS055844
• TR-BROOKS055846
• TR-BROOKS055855
• TR-BROOKS055857
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 144 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

144

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
• TR-BROOKS055858
• TR-BROOKS055863
• TR-BROOKS055871
• TR-BROOKS055881
• TR-BROOKS055887
• TR-BROOKS055888
• TR-BROOKS057002
• TR-BROOKS059694
• TR-BROOKS060007
• TR-BROOKS060012
• TR-BROOKS060413
• TR-BROOKS060414
• TR-BROOKS060416
• TR-BROOKS060418
• TR-BROOKS060419
• TR-BROOKS060421
• TR-BROOKS060422
• TR-BROOKS060426
• TR-BROOKS060428
• TR-BROOKS060431
• TR-BROOKS060433
• TR-BROOKS060437
• TR-BROOKS061093
• TR-BROOKS061094
• TR-BROOKS061525
• TR-BROOKS061893
• TR-BROOKS061969
• TR-BROOKS061971
• TR-BROOKS062991
• TR-BROOKS062999
• TR-BROOKS063045
• TR-BROOKS064293
• TR-BROOKS064312
• TR-BROOKS064661
• TR-BROOKS064718
• TR-BROOKS064995
• TR-BROOKS065056
• TR-BROOKS065060
• TR-BROOKS065185
• TR-BROOKS066326
• TR-BROOKS066418
• TR-BROOKS067628
• TR-BROOKS067976
• TR-BROOKS068983
• TR-BROOKS070585
• TR-BROOKS073513
• TR-BROOKS074445
• TR-BROOKS074471
• TR-BROOKS074600
• TR-BROOKS076076
• TR-BROOKS077436
• TR-BROOKS078674
• TR-BROOKS082062
• TR-BROOKS083972
• TR-BROOKS086877
• TR-BROOKS090324
• TR-BROOKS092889
• TR-BROOKS102898
• TR-BROOKS102900
• TR-BROOKS106480
• TR-BROOKS107599
• TR-BROOKS107761
• TR-BROOKS107762
• TR-BROOKS110152
• TR-BROOKS110695
• TR-BROOKS114745
• TR-BROOKS122783
• TR-BROOKS123263
• TR-BROOKS124419
• TR-BROOKS125018
• TR-BROOKS126958
• TR-BROOKS127538
• TR-BROOKS127541
• TR-BROOKS127726
• TR-BROOKS129381
• TR-BROOKS130473
• TR-BROOKS131719
• TR-BROOKS135972
• TR-BROOKS137048
• TR-BROOKS144611
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 145 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

145

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
• TR-BROOKS146612
• TR-BROOKS148319
• TR-BROOKS157508
• TR-BROOKS165057
• TR-BROOKS174416
• TR-BROOKS176757
• TR-BROOKS190363
• TR-BROOKS276443
• TR-BROOKS280088
• TR-BROOKS290121
• TR-BROOKS295247
• TR-BROOKS295350
• TR-BROOKS295351
• TR-BROOKS296686
• TR-BROOKS298257
• TR-BROOKS298680
• TR-BROOKS300524
• TR-BROOKS301589
• TR-BROOKS304669
• TR-BROOKS304670
• TR-BROOKS304709
• TR-BROOKS305113
• TR-BROOKS305401
• TR-BROOKS305627

Other Documents
• TransUnion LLC v Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021)
• Kidd v Thomson Reuters Corporation, 925 F.3d 99 (2019)
• Kidd v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, 299 F. Supp. 3d 400 (2017)

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 146 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

146
Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
EXHIBIT D: EXAMPLES OF CLEAR USE CASES
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
TR-BROOKS000746;
TR-BROOKS000896
June 14, 2021 – Everyday
Heroes: How CLEAR
Helped a Family in
Trouble
Online article (TR)
Child support liaison
Child and family services
(Assisting families)
Return of children to father; mother to
get mental health assistance
TR-BROOKS000766;
TR-BROOKS002251
November 2017 – Using
CLEAR to Keep Children
Out of Virginia’s Foster
Care System
Online article (TR)
Social services (DSS)
investigators
Child and family services
(Finding child’s family members
to avoid foster care)
Search for child’s extended
family/relatives to provide care before
resorting to foster care
TR-BROOKS000876
Memorial Healthcare
System/Information
Management Consultants
in Hollywood, Florida
Online article (TR)
Memorial Healthcare
System (MHS)
healthcare network
Healthcare fraud / Know your
vendor (Detecting vendor red
flags/fraud protection)
Installed VETTED system to
proactively stop a vendor with
convicted pedophile in its leadership
from doing business with children’s
hospital
TR-BROOKS001097
March 2021 – Drug Cartel
Money-Laundering
Methods and the Capture
of El Chapo
Online article (TR)
Law enforcement
Anti-money laundering (Money
laundering and drug trafficking)
Did not describe concrete case where
CLEAR was used to stop money
laundering / drug trafficking
TR-BROOKS001168
June 2021 – Bank
Investigator Uncovers
Substantial Double
Identity Plot
Online article (TR)
Bank hired ex-FBI
investigator
Retail fraud investigations / Skip
tracing (Uncovering financial
fraud)
Found missing borrower and plot to
defraud more than 10 banks and steal
millions of dollars
TR-BROOKS001564
July 2021 – How CLEAR
Helped Track Down a
Fugitive Who Owed
$63,000 in Unpaid Child
Support
Online article (TR)
Federal investigation
officer
Child and family services / Skip
tracing (Locating individuals
with child support delinquency)
Found fugitive who was prosecuted for
“gross child neglect”
TR-BROOKS001688
March 2020 – Kinecta
Federal Credit Union
Online article (TR)
Financial cooperative
(Kinecta Federal
Credit Union)
Retail fraud investigations
(Investigating suspicious details,
streamlining validation
processes)
Kinecta Federal Credit Union’s general
use of CLEAR
TR-BROOKS001816
May 2017 – How CLEAR
Helps Steer the Trucking
Industry Straight
Online article (TR)
Transportation
factoring (Outsource
Financial Services
Inc. – private lender)
Commercial lending (Verifying
clients’ identities to detect
suspicious activities)
General use by OFS to make sure
invoices purchased are backed by
legitimate business entities
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 147 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

147

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
TR-BROOKS001872
June 2017 – Tax
Assessors’ Survey: Using
CLEAR Has Helped
Agencies Collect
Additional Money &
Resolve Investigations
More Quickly
Online article (TR)
Tax Assessor Office /
Tax Department
Tax fraud prevention / Skip
tracing (Locating taxpayers,
update addresses, verify new
names/phone numbers)
General use by tax assessors/collections
agencies to locate taxpayers/taxpayer
information
TR-BROOKS001988
March 2020 – Providing
Community Support
Online article (TR)
Code Enforcement
Department
Child and family services
(Identifying and contacting
registered owner of abandoned
car)
Identified records of registered car
owner; located homeless family and
connected with community
support/resources
TR-BROOKS001991
September 2017 – Social
Security/Bank Fraud
Online article (TR)
Bank hired ex-FBI
investigator
Retail fraud investigations / Skip
tracing (Identity verification:
matching individual with
missing borrower)
Identified missing borrower with false
identity and false SSN
TR-BROOKS001995
April 2018 – Innovative
Use of CLEAR Helps
Find Absent Parents in
Brown County,
Wisconsin
Online article (TR)
Child support official
Child and family services / Skip
tracing (Locating absent parents)
Located address of absent/missing
parent; obtained contempt citation for
nonpayment of child support
TR-BROOKS002003
August 2019 –
Uncovering the Truth
Online article (TR)
County detective;
federal agency
special agent
Federal government (Identifying
suspect of cyber tip: sexual
exploitation of children,
production and distribution of
child pornography)
Identified suspects responsible for
sexual exploitation of children,
production and distribution of child
pornography; opened way for federal
investigation
TR-BROOKS002051
December 2019 – How
Thomson Reuters Helped
the Federal Government
Verify Millions of
Identities and Make the
Nation’s Healthcare
System More Secure
Online article (TR)
Federal agency
Federal government (Verifying
60 million addresses)
Thomson Reuters CLEAR results
superior to competitors in a pilot test,
awarded government’s contract by
agency; used CLEAR ID Confirm
TR-BROOKS002101
July 2017 – Healthcare
Fraud 101
Online article (TR)
Medicaid official (ex
Medicaid General
Inspector)
Healthcare fraud (Detecting and
preventing healthcare fraud)
General description of use of CLEAR to
combat healthcare fraud; make
connections between individuals,
incidents, activities, locations
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 148 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

148

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
TR-BROOKS002253
July 2017 – Using the
Right Tools Helps
Investigators in the Fight
Against Medicaid Fraud
Online article (TR)
Medicaid fraud
investigator and
agency consultant
Healthcare fraud (Detecting and
preventing healthcare fraud)
General interview describing use of
CLEAR to combat healthcare fraud
TR-BROOKS002292
October 2020 – Indiana
Child Support Bureau
Chooses Thomson
Reuters CLEAR
Online article (TR)
Indiana Child
Support Bureau
Child and family services
(Locating individuals with child
support delinquency)
General adoption of CLEAR by Indiana
Child Support Bureau
TR-BROOKS003259
September 2019 –
Protecting Victims of
Human Trafficking and
Sexual Exploitation with
CLEAR
Online article (TR)
Polaris (Nonprofit
organization)
Anti-money laundering
(Identifying and exposing
crimes/networks of human
traffickers)
General adoption and use of CLEAR by
Polaris
TR-BROOKS055702
N/A
Use case template
Alcohol and
marijuana
distributors
Know your customer (Age and
address verification to ensure
legality of both the purchaser
and the recipient)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055704
N/A
Use case template
Online gaming
companies
Know your customer (Age
verification, ID verification,
fraud prevention around
payment processing for people
purchasing avatars, coins,
upgrades, or entry payment for
tournaments/e-sports events)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055706
N/A
Use case template
Churches
Corporate security
(Investigating threats made
against pastors, staff, church
locations, and members as well
as looking up license plate,
callback phone numbers,
alerting, and monitoring);
Know your vendor (Due
diligence for partner
organizations and when pastors
travel)
N/A
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 149 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

149

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
TR-BROOKS055707
N/A
Use case template
Sports teams and
venues
Corporate security
(Investigations into threats
made to players, coaching
staff, cheerleaders, and
organizational staff as well as
license plate look ups, reverse
phone look ups, alerting, and
monitoring); Know your
vendor (due diligence on
transportation and hotels as
well as employee
investigations/fraud or
ticket/suite fraud)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055709
N/A
Use case template
Litigation support
Corporate security (Before
process servers are deployed, it
is necessary for the company’s
investigators to confirm
recipient’s best address, phone
number, if there is a criminal
history, or if the person is
currently incarcerated and
where, bankruptcies, and if
they are alive)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055711
N/A
Use case template
Precious Metals
Anti -money laundering
(FinCEN mandates that dealers
in precious metals, stones, or
jewels have an anti-money
laundering program in place)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055715
N/A
Use case template
Retail
Corporate security
(Investigating threats made
against their staff, owners,
locations, and brand); Know
your vendor (Due diligence
into other businesses a firm
works with)
N/A
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 150 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

150

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
TR-BROOKS055717
N/A
Use case template
Healthcare
Know your vendor
(Investigating currency and
validity of health
professionals’ licenses as well
as investigating criminal
backgrounds along with
associates/relatives); Corporate
security (Investigations into
safeguarding of vaccines as
well as standard corporate
security use cases)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055720
N/A
Use case template
Collection
Skip tracing (Best address,
phone, relatives, associates,
web analytics to conduct
collection)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055722
N/A
Use case template
Oil, gas, and
minerals companies
Know your vendor (Verifying
who owns a piece of land
before purchase)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055737
N/A
Use case template
Payment processors
Retail fraud investigation (ID
verification and fraud
prevention around people
making purchases or
transferring money using peer-
to-peer money transfer or
merchant payment processing)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055744
N/A
Use case template
Banks (crypto
clients)
Know your customer
(Conducting due diligence on
corporate account applicants
from bitcoin/cryptocurrency
companies)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055746
N/A
Use case template
Banks (MRB
clients)
Know your customer
(Conducting due diligence on
dispensaries and cultivators
applying for corporate banking
account)
N/A
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 151 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

151

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
TR-BROOKS055748
N/A
Use case template
Banks (Elders)
Fraud (30% of fraud within a
bank is traced back to clients’
friends, family, or connections.
Combating “familiar” fraud,
especially among vulnerable
customers like elders)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055751
N/A
Use case template
Online banking
Know your customer
(Verifying the identity of
online applicants)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055760
N/A
Use case template
Merchant lending
Know your customer (Perform
due diligence for underwriting
loans)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055762
N/A
Use case template
Broker and dealers
Know your customer (Risk
screening for new account
onboarding)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055764
N/A
Use case template
Casinos
Anti-money laundering
(Verifying clients and
preventing money laundering)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055768
N/A
Use case template
Insurance
Insurance fraud (ID
verification, age verification,
death records, criminal history
check, bankruptcies/liens/
judgments)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055775
N/A
Use case template
Investments and
private equity
Know your customer
(Complete due diligence on
both the source of funds from
investors and ensure the
businesses they are investing in
are not illegal, sanctioned, or
illicit)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055777
N/A
Use case template
Crypto
Know your customer
(Verifying the identity of
customers for compliance)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055779
N/A
Use case template
Debt buyers
Know your vendor (Assessing
risk of debt by looking for
N/A
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 152 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

152

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
liens, judgments, assets, and
place of employment)
TR-BROOKS055782
N/A
Use case template
Nonprofits
Know your vendor (Donor due
diligence); Corporate security
(Ensuring security of
building/venue for charity
events)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055784
N/A
Use case template
Factoring
Know your customer (Help
factoring companies, which
specialize in financing invoices
from businesses with cash flow
problems due to slow-paying
customers, vet their customers)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055786
N/A
Use case template
Real estate
Know your customer (Due
diligence is required on cash
transactions to determine
source of funding)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055789
N/A
Use case template
REITs
Corporate security (Preventing
fraud/theft and fictitious
vendors being set up in
accounting)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055801
N/A
Use case template
Security,
intelligence, and
facilities services
Law enforcement (Assisting
counter-narcotics, criminal and
civil investigations, public
safety, and national security)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055803
N/A
Use case template
Pharmaceuticals
Know your vendor (Ensuring
consistency in compliance
across supply chain through
verification)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055805
N/A
Use case template
Logistics and
transportation
Know your vendor (Due
diligence on contractors);
Corporate security
(Combatting fraud, including
falsified company or personal
information provided,
N/A
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 153 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

153

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
shipments of illegal
substances)
TR-BROOKS055807
N/A
Use case template
Repos
Skip tracing (Finding most
current phone numbers,
addresses, and employment
information)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055808
N/A
Use case template
Utilities and co-ops
Know your vendor (Verifying
vendors/sub-contractor
partners are legitimate and not
in regulatory trouble)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055813
N/A
Use case template
Software and tech
companies
Know your vendor (Vetting
vendors and customers)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055817
N/A
Use case template
Auctions and
museums
Anti-money laundering
(Verifying identity of sellers to
prevent fraud and money
laundering)
N/A
Use case templateTR-
BROOKS055824
N/A
Use case template
Accounting, audit,
and tax firms
Tax fraud prevention
(Assisting forensic accounting
teams to evaluate suspicious
financial activities within their
clients’ financials)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055827
N/A
Use case template
Automotive
companies
Fraud prevention (Flagging
loans that are suspicious); Skip
tracing (Vehicle recovery on
outstanding debts); Corporate
security (Due diligence run on
threats to staff)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055829
N/A
Use case template
Mortgage
Know your customer
(Verifying identity and
flagging suspicious loans)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055832
N/A
Use case template
Consulting and
professional service
firms
Know your customer (Due
diligence on potential clients)
N/A
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 154 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

154

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
TR-BROOKS055839
N/A
Use case template
Rentals (cars,
homes, etc.)
Know your customer
(Verification of prospective
renters)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055844
N/A
Use case template
Manufacturing
companies
Know your customer/vendor
(Perform due diligence on
customers and vendors to
ensure they are solvent,
reputable, and have clean
backgrounds)
N/A
TR-BROOKS055855
N/A
Use case template
Credit card
companies
Know your customer; Fraud
prevention
N/A
TR-BROOKS055846
N/A
Testimonials/
Success Stories
Banks, debt
collectors,
healthcare,
insurance,
investigation,
services
Know your customer; Fraud
prevention, Corporate security
See, e.g., "Using Risk Inform brought
multiple applicants to our attention
that we were able to determine were
applying for the sole purpose of
committing fraud, helping us avoid
well over $100,000 in fraud losses
within the first 2 months."
TR-BROOKS055871
N/A
Testimonials/
Success Stories
See, e.g.,

Law enforcement
See, e.g., "Within 2 weeks of the sale
closing and 1 week of access - the
customer has recovered 25 of 29
stolen cars they have in their caseload.
Along with the recovery, they
uncovered the crime ring responsible
for the thefts which were taking place
at an airport rental facility."
TR-
BROOKS030530;
TR-
BROOKS041418;
TR-
BROOKS070585;
TR-
BROOKS146612;
TR-
2018-2019
White papers
See, e.g., Medicare;
Medicaid
Corporate Security; Know your
customer; Healthcare fraud
(Verifying the right patients are
receiving their
Medicare/Medicaid card)
See, e.g., "Thomson Reuters had the
highest rate of identifying the
beneficiary in their system, had the
highest match rate with the
successfully delivered certified
mailings, and offered the least
expensive price for the pilot project."
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 155 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

155

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
BROOKS148319;
TR-BROOKS165057
TR-BROOKS041734
9/15/2016
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Skip tracing ("The missing
person stopped
communications with everyone
she knew, leaving very little
clue as to whom she may be
with, who she may have called
etc. All I had to go on was her
prior phone numbers from her
last communication on her
phone. I also needed to track
those numbers to find out last
known associates that may
know of her disappearance.")
"Unfortunately,
was
found deceased in her SUV after I
received a tip at my office. At this
time we do not know how

died as it is now a police
investigation. There is no doubt that
by using CLEAR and developing
names and leads, those people that I
called knew that we were actively
looking for
, and these calls
may have assisted in locating her. It is
also my belief that some of her
associates that I located through my
CLEAR searches assisted the police
in their ongoing investigation. When I
went to talk to Adams County Sheriff
Detectives, they asked for my
CLEAR reports to gather DOB's etc
on any possible suspects."
TR-BROOKS044782
11/14/2016
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Law enforcement ("I had 2
elderly woman who worked
their entire lives as civil
servants. All they had to show
for their hard work was a
home. A man who only gave a
nickname showed up at their
door with promises and cash in
a paper bag. He gave them
hope to save their home from
foreclosure but instead stole
their title and them moved to
"I found "Alex," gathered enough
evidence to make an arrest and he was
indicted and found guilty of all
charges. One of the conditions the
prosecutors asked for was the return
of property title to the 2 very frail
elderly woman or financial restitution
of over one million dollars to
compensate the true value of the
home he had stolen from them."
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 156 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

156

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
evict them. They had lost
everything. The home they
worked so hard for and the 15k
in cash they had deposited to
the new home in Mississippi.
All but gone!")
TR-BROOKS046629
6/12/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories
Cendrowski Corp
Advisors
Know your customer, Fraud
prevention (“Cendrowski Corp
Advisors was hired by a bank
to investigate a customer who
stopped communication and
payments with the bank”;
“Bank was faced with a
customer who owed millions of
dollars of a loan, customer was
not paying and was not
communicating with the
bank”)
“Through CLEAR I was able to
determine that the bank customer was
in fact using a SSN which was not
assigned to him. When the bank
initially lent him the millions of
dollars they paid $100 to a company
to verify his identity which came out
fine. CLEAR showed me that in fact
he caused losses in the millions with
banks under his true SSAN, then he
filed bankruptcy. He started using a
false SSAN and obtained millions of
dollars in loans from other banks.
Now we knew why he was not
communicating with the bank. We
were able to notify Social Security
Office of Inspector General as to the
SSAN fraud.”
TR-BROOKS046630
9/29/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Skip tracing ("

was given the task to locate a
truck that belonged to the
company she worked for.
While searching for the truck
she discovered the truck had
underwent title fraud and the
person involved was recently
released from Federal Prison
for fraud, forgery, false
"Later,
uncovered the man
was working at a tax return and credit
repair business where he would have
access to information that could be
used for identity theft and tax return
check fraud. These were all direct
violations of this federal supervision.
contacted his probation
officer and informed him of his illegal
work. A police report was also filed."
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 157 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

157

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
documents, and identity theft—
along with theft of tax return
checks. With further research,
found that the
individual transferred 8 other
luxury vehicles to family and
friends to wash the titles and
defraud the banks. He opened a
new business and purchased
three new vehicles within the
last few months and had been
transferring titles for the last 4
years."
TR-BROOKS046632
3/30/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Skip tracing ("I try to locate
individuals who have
investment accounts, where the
individuals have moved, but
didn't notify us of their new
address. If I cannot find them, I
am required by state law to
turn their investments over to
the state of their last
residency.")
"I am finding a high degree of
positive results in finding lost account
holders! When I speak with clients
who have forgotten about their
accounts, and they are reunited with
thousands of dollars in investments, I
know I am doing the right thing by
helping them."
TR-BROOKS046633
9/27/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories
Brown County Child
Support
Child and family services
("Locating absent parents who
owe child support or custodial
parents who are due support.")
"This program has been one of the
best resources I've used to locate
absent parents who owe support. The
address information we find, more
often than not, is more current than
what we have
and once we confirm through a postal
check, we can serve the individual or,
in some cases, contact them about a
jobs program we're offering. On the
flip side, it has helped us locate
custodial
parents who may not have updated
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 158 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

158

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
their address with us to whom we can
send funds that have been collected
on their case."
TR-BROOKS046634
9/27/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Skip tracing ("

was suspicious about a client's
payment of minimal amounts
and income reported from
rental properties. Year after
year
and his colleagues
were unable to determine why
the client was receiving rental
income without actually
owning a property—he
claimed to be the property
manager. By using CLEAR,
was able to run a report
that revealed the client had
previously owned these
properties which were all
nominal transfers to his
children.")
"The CLEAR Person Search results
allowed us to pursue Nominee Liens
against all of the properties, in order
to protect The States interest. These
nominee liens placed a cloud on all
the properties, preventing any transfer
or future financing which in turn
forced our customer pay off the
liability in full in order to remove the
clouds."
TR-BROOKS046636
3/30/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Child and family services
("Tracking down untold
numbers of absent parents.")
"Since 1998, CLEAR has helped [the
organization] locate 27,709 absent
parents and get the children the
assistance they deserve."
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 159 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

159

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
TR-BROOKS046639
9/28/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Skip tracing ("
is
a criminal defense investigator
for the Innocence Program. He
was informed of an individual
who had information regarding
a wrongfully convicted man.
used the reverse phone
look-up search to locate and
eventually interview the
witness."
"On August 8, 2017 the client walked
out of Suffolk County Superior Court
a free man after serving 38 years in
prison for a crime he didn't commit."
TR-BROOKS046640
3/31/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Law enforcement ("An arrested
individual fled while out on
bond for very serious sexual
assault charges. Many years
had passed and L/E was unable
to locate the wanted subject.
Many years later the wanted
individual was applying for
citizenship very far from our
jurisdiction. The individual had
to be fingerprinted & when he
was fingerprinted the active
warrant showed up & he was
taken into custody.")
"We were able to get accurate,
concise contact info for the victim.
The victim was now a US soldier. We
were finally able to make contact with
the victim and receive their input.
This victim was serving our country
in the armed forces, protecting our
freedom and it was rewarding to help
one of America's soldiers see justice,
closure & finally be at peace knowing
this dangerous individual would be
held accountable & not have an
opportunity to become a US citizen!"
TR-BROOKS046641
12/12/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Law enforcement ("

were alerted to a
missing person and were
provided a phone number.")
"Using CLEAR, they were able to
identify the carrier and was able to
identify a subject. They were able to
recover the body in 37 days and the
suspect was charged on multiple
accounts."
TR-BROOKS046642
12/5/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Law enforcement ("The

was faced with a live explosive
in a vehicle with no evidence
to the perp.")
"Using CLEAR, they were able to
obtain the data on the phone and
identify that the suspect did in fact
drive to the location and place the
bomb. The suspect was off the streets
in 48 hours."
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 160 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

160

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
TR-BROOKS046643
9/28/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Child and family services
("
who is a
federal criminal investigator,
was tipped off about an
individual who was physically
and sexually harming a child
under the age of thirteen, for
five years. By only having an
image with latitude and
longitude coordinates,

and her colleagues used
CLEAR to geo-locate the
subject and his various
residences. Once the addresses
were established, they
performed a reverse address
search to identify the subject
and other family members.
also used CLEAR to
locate the minor.")
"The subject is now incarcerated for
federal and local charges related to
molesting a minor, and the
possession, receipt, and distribution of
child pornography."
TR-BROOKS046645
10/5/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Tax fraud prevention ("

works in the

She
was looking for a man who
was marked deceased but did
not have a published
obituary.")
"With CLEAR, they were able to
identify that he was arrested 3 years
after his death' because he did not
register in Texas as a sex offender.
They leveraged the lineup images to
tie him to his driver's license and
transfer the debt to a collections
agency."
TR-BROOKS046647
9/28/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Child and family services
(

was
assigned to an investigation
involving an abduction of an
11 month old child. She had
little information pertaining to
the abductor and the possible
"The abductor was arrested and
charged with 1st degree kidnapping
and the child was safely returned to
the mother."
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 161 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

161

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
location they were traveling to.
By utilizing CLEAR, Erin was
able to piece together some of
the puzzle and obtain
information about the
abductor's telephone which led
to a full name and pedigree
info. Batch phone results led
her to identify accomplices and
the location of the child.")
TR-BROOKS046649
6/12/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Law enforcement ("A man was
sending nude pictures of
himself to many people,
including children.")
"Using the phone search tool in
CLEAR, Marilyn was able to locate
the Perp's wife, who complied with
the investigation. The perp is
undocumented, and a warrant has
been put out for his arrest."
TR-BROOKS046650
10/20/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories
Springfield Police
Department
Law enforcement ("Attempting
to identify a suspect who held a
woman against her will and
raped her with very limited
information.")
"Analysts shared their information
with the detective bureau. The lead
detective agreed that the information
was compelling and brought the
victim in to look at a photo array. As
soon as the victim saw his photo, she
pointed right to him and exclaimed,
"That's him!" He was arrested and
charged with kidnapping, assault and
battery, aggravated rape, and indecent
assault and battery."
TR-BROOKS046652
12/18/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Law enforcement ("A fugitive
was wanted for two separate
homicides that occurred 15
years ago. They assumed a new
alias and was nearly impossible
to locate.")
"Using CLEAR's associate analytics
identified that the fugitive's
brother had a new address (though he
was also currently incarcerated). With
this information,
and his team
was able to locate the fugitive and are
starting the extradition process."
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 162 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

162

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
TR-BROOKS046653
4/10/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories
Department of
Veterans Affairs
Skip tracing ("A veteran who
was receiving disability
compensation moved without
informing the VA. Due to this,
he didn't receive payments for
11 months, and missed out on
$31,317 that was due to him.")
"The VA was in a bind, and with
CLEAR they were able to locate him
and get him the money he was due."
TR-BROOKS046654
6/19/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Skip tracing ("The
needed
to track down veterans who
were owed money and are hard
to find.")
"Using CLEAR's address report, they
located family members or neighbors
who could get them in contact with
the Veterans and paid out 10s of
thousands of dollars."
TR-BROOKS046655
6/2/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Child and family services ("In
our Department, the situation
we face every single day, is to
locate absent, or non-custodial
parents and putative parents.")
"The outcome is that we can now file
for Court ordered Paternity for a child
who otherwise may have never been
sure who their fathers were. We can
also obtain court orders for Child
Support. This can be life changing for
these children and their mothers as a
partial source of income."
TR-BROOKS048964
5/9/2018
Testimonials/
Success Stories
Cheyenne Police
Department
Law enforcement ("A
homicide occurred in the city
of Cheyenne, and the suspect
fled the scene. They were able
to reach her by phone, but
couldn't triangulate her
position well.")
"Using CLEAR, they ran a search on
her and reviewed her associate's
addresses - one fell within the phone
tower that the carrier provided.
Surveillance was set to be established
at the property, however the suspect
and another person left the property,
causing a mobile surveillance to
occur. A traffic stop was conducted
and the suspect was taken into
custody without incident 4 hours after
the crime was committed."
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 163 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

163

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
TR-BROOKS049564
9/10/2019
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Child and family services
("
is a detective with the

and he is
responsible for cases involving
sexually abused children. One
specific case involved two little
girls who were sexually
assaulted by a family-friend
when he was in town visiting
the family. After the girls'
mother passed away, they were
taken from their father and
placed in CPS custody; that's
when they made their outcry.")
"With just a possible first and last
name, and the town the girls lived in,
turned to CLEAR to help find
their abuser.
was able to find
three names and addresses that could
be the potential suspect. With the help
of a local Texas Ranger, they were
able to contact the first person on their
list and bring him in for questioning.
This individual confessed to sexually
assaulting both girls. He is currently
waiting for trial."
TR-BROOKS049566
9/9/2019
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Child and family services
("Trying to locate non-
custodial parents who have an
obligation to support their
children.")
"In many cases we are able to locate
the non-custodial parents, so we can
enforce the child support orders and
send them to court if necessary in
order to enforce those orders. This
ultimately provides much needed
support for children."
TR-BROOKS049886
12/2/2019
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Skip tracing ("Finding people
that were involved in court
process"
"
works for the

where he leverages CLEAR to find
individuals that are evading the court
process. With the help of the Person
Search feature in CLEAR, he is able
to locate those people and bring them
to court."
TR-BROOKS049889
12/3/2019
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Child and family services
("Daily we face children who
are put into dangerous
situations with neglectful and
abusive parents. A lot of times
we don't have a name or
"CLEAR helps
and her team
locate those caretakers so the child
protective services team can help
protect the children. Because of the
up-to-date information CLEAR
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 164 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

164

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
address of those caretakers, so
we have to search daily for
people in the state of GA to get
our child protective services
team to go out and find the
children to help protect and
save them.")
provides, they are able to save the
children before the abuse worsens."
TR-BROOKS049907
12/11/2019
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Skip tracing ("
works for
the

and utilizes
CLEAR to find missing
people. Since there aren't many
tools available to help law
enforcement find people, they
rely heavily on CLEAR to
make those connections.")
"During the holiday season, the

receives
many inquiries about missing
individuals. With the help from
CLEAR, the department can bring
families together."
TR-BROOKS049908
12/10/2019
Testimonials/
Success Stories
Saunders County
Attorney Office
Law enforcement ("As the
Criminal Investigator for the
Saunders County Attorney's
office I was asked to review
and work on a March 25, 1969
Homicide cold case.")
"I was able to interview and re-
interview witness's many of whom
came forward with new and pertinent
information about our living suspect. I
have been able to follow this suspect
through many different states,
marriages and keep up on current
information about this suspect. The
information gained through Clear also
allow our office to forward the case
with a current witness list on to our
State Attorney Generals office for
possible future prosecution."
TR-BROOKS060413
11/30/2016
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Skip tracing ("I received a call
from a military member
relaying a recently discharged
Marine he had went to high
school with had placed a
suicide post on his Facebook
account. All we had was his
"I was able to ascertain his current
location, a local VA Hospital where
he was a patient, and contacted the
local police who responded and
stopped the member from taking his
own life."
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 165 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

165

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
last name and a town he had
grown up in.")
TR-BROOKS060414
10/26/2016
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Law enforcement ("Our
department played a huge role
in a multi county investigation
seizing 22,400 pounds of
marijuana,")
"Seizing 11 tons of marijuana. The
case is still ongoing, but with the help
of CLEAR, it saved countless hours
of investigative work. One name
turned into 30 more names helping
connect the dots of this large case."
TR-BROOKS060416
9/26/2016
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Law enforcement ("A small
Kentucky town was facing a
rash of laced heroin overdoses.
Authorities were able to target
the courier, but not the
supplier.")
"Police were going to go undercover,
but because the courier provided two
phone numbers, they leveraged
CLEAR and located an associate to
the supplier. They located the
supplier, arrested him and found he
had possession of carfentanil, a highly
potent opioid. Police were kept out of
harm's way and they were able to
successfully arrest multiple
individuals who were responsible for
this."
TR-BROOKS060418
11/18/2016
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Child and family services
("Searching for a parent to give
them a change before their
parental rights get terminated,
so the kids can get placed in
the foster care system or to be
adoptive.")
"Using both CLEAR and an internal
system, Virginia searches for parents
to give them a chance to take care of
their child, otherwise the child is
placed in foster care or adopted. DMV
and SS search have been fruitful."
TR-BROOKS060419
11/16/2016
Testimonials/
Success Stories
Detroit Police
Department
Law enforcement ("An 11
month old child with sickle cell
anemia was at a physician's
office with her foster mother.
The biological mother, who is
a reported narcotics user, also
"Within 3 hours of being notified,
Jason and his team used CLEAR to
locate the abductor's home, and
arrested her. The child was brought to
the hospital, treated and given
necessary medication, and returned to
her foster mother."
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 166 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

166

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
attended the visit, but then
abducted the child.")
TR-BROOKS060422
11/15/2016
Testimonials/
Success Stories
State of Michigan
Office of Child
Support
Skip tracing ("Stephanie
assisted an associate in
Kentucky who had a deceased
client and needed to locate a
minor child in another state.")
"By using CLEAR, she used the birth
certificate name and cross referenced
it with a state to locate the child
within 30 minutes. The child will now
receive $882 in social security each
month until he turns 18, which he
may not have received without her
work."
TR-BROOKS060426
11/17/2016
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Skip tracing ("A friend of mine
was trying to find her daughter
after the daughter's father had
passed away. I'm the Probate
Specialist for an American
Indian Tribe.")
"Using a maiden name, DOB and old
address and CLEAR, she was able to
track down the correct person.
Because of
, the daughter was
able to attend the funeral and has
since reconnected with the family."
TR-BROOKS060428
11/18/2016
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Law enforcement ("Missing
persons complaint that had
been reported 3 days prior to
officers of this agency.")
"Resulted in locating victim deceased
and arrest of person responsible for
homicide within 48 hours of
investigation.")
TR-BROOKS060431
9/19/2016
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Skip tracing ("A debtor had
filed bankruptcy using a
different social security
number than one she had used
previously in Mississippi. She
had been moving from state to
state, creating a new social
security number, using it for
financing, and then filing
bankruptcy using that number.
This was found to be a 16 year
lifestyle for her. She was active
"Using CLEAR, they identified that
the person had done this in many
different states for over 16 years.
Because of the information stored in
the product,
was able to get an
indictment on this individual."
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 167 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

167

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
in Mississippi, Alabama,
Alaska, and Tennessee.")
TR-BROOKS060437
11/22/2016
Testimonials/
Success Stories
Reed Smith
Skip tracing ("Attorney Kelley
Miller, along with 20 law
students are working on a Pro
Bono project along with the
Innocence Project. The goal is
to help wrongfully incarcerated
people obtain their full tax
refunds. The team was tasked
with locating affected
individuals to educate them
and offer free legal services.")
"The project is currently in progress,
started on November 11, 2016. We
will update the results as they are
received. I would anticipate a
December 19, 2016 update. Thomson
Reuters was their last hope to find the
affected people and offer services."
TR-BROOKS061525
2/3/2016
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Law enforcement ("I was
assigned an arrest warrant for a
fugitive that was wanted for
Aggravated Assault with a
Deadly Weapon on a Police
Officer. The charges stemmed
from an incident where the
suspect attempted to run over a
police officer in her vehicle
after a botched theft attempt.")
"The fugitive was arrested for
Aggravated Assault with a Deadly
Weapon on a Police Officer without
incident."
TR-BROOKS064293
12/20/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Law enforcement ("An online
sale meeting was established in
a public place, where the
subject was then robbed from
the buyer at semi-automatic
gun point.
and her team
had descriptions of the robbers
and their vehicle, including a
license plate.")
"Using CLEAR to establish a new
photo for the subject, she was able to
call off surveillance to allow the team
to search further and within 7 hours
they located and arrested the robbers."
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 168 of 169

Dr. Kivetz Rebuttal Expert Report

168

Case No. 3:21-CV-01418-EMC
Confidential
Document
Date – Title
Document Type
CLEAR Customer Use Case
Description/Outcome
TR-BROOKS064312
12/27/2017
Testimonials/
Success Stories
Prior Lake Police
Department
Law enforcement ("Suspicious
person at a McDonald's
Restaurant in our city. Male
was being evasive with his
answers and officers suspected
he was supplying a false name
and date of birth.")
"Upon further conversation, an
address was provided which proved
that the person was in fact lying, and
was wanted for a $100,000 warrant in
Missouri. He is booked & being
extradited to MO."
TR-BROOKS102898
7/19/2018
Testimonials/
Success Stories
Davis County
Sheriff's Office
Law enforcement ("John and
his team conducted a two-year
investigation of a doctor who
was using Yahoo to
communicate with others
regarding sexual exploitation
of minors via Skype chat.")
"The team used CLEAR Web
Analytics to identify the people
behind the Yahoo user ids, which has
led to the arrest of two men for
sexually exploiting minors."
TR-BROOKS102900
7/16/2018
Testimonials/
Success Stories

Law enforcement ("

conducted a fraud investigation
for over 150 victims
throughout Wisconsin via
evidence identification.")
"He used CLEAR to locate victims
and was able to link the suspects to 3
addresses. These addresses led

to identify two suspects, who are now
being processed for committing fraud
for over two years."

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 186-4 Filed 03/28/23 Page 169 of 169

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cand.374304.186.4.pdf
Size: 2,977,728 bytes
SHA-256: 5ecedc1dd3cab250795271ffc6fe34b308d4a617ae1cbf15c82f935c49c87307
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cand.374304.186.4.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)

Exhibit A-14 to Declaration of Susan Fahringer — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 186-4, N.D. Cal. No. 3:21-cv-01418)

Record facts

Full text

File and source

Related records