OBJECTION from Colin Rice. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2022) — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 158)

Summary

Objection to the class settlement in In re Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation, No. 4:20-cv-03056, submitted as a letter from Colin Rice and filed February 1, 2022, as Doc. 158, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The letter states that the settlement website does not list the lawyers' fees or the number of potential claimants, and that the payout per person would be small. It asserts that the lawyers are behaving unethically because a claimant can accept the settlement online but must mail a paper letter to reject it. The letter urges the court to reject the settlement, to require a new one that discloses fees, and to refer the lawyers to their ethics boards. It states that the writer will not attend the Final Approval Hearing.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

RECEIVED
JAN 3 1 2022
filed
Dear Sir / Madam / Your Honor
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
JAN 3 1 2022
I object to the settlement for the following casl®?RTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
CLERK U s DISTRIC
northern district O^FmA
In re Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation, the case number is 4:20-cv-03056„ Q
I believe I am a class member based on 3 things. 1) My receipt of information from the lawyers
in this case stating that I am a member of the class settlement (Notice ID: PLD1025387226
Confirmation Code: 6A1566F0AA). 2) My own recollection of having used plaid repeatedly
between January 2013, and Novemember 2021, and 3) The plaid dashboard (at my.plaid.com)
indicates that I have accounts and connections via the service.
My full name is Colin Larimer Rice, My mailing address is 155 Washington St, Apt 714, Jersey
City, NJ, 07302. My email address forJhe purposes of this correspondence is
plaidsettlementobiection@daedrum.net.
My objection to this settlement is over the unethical behaviour of the attorneys involved.
My first objection is that the settlemenent website (httDs://www.plaidsettlement.com/y does not
enumerate the lawyers fees or the amount of potential claimants. As is typical in american
settlement cases - the lawyers fees per person amount to a usurious fraction, and the payouts
per person are trivial. In this case, with a 10 million number of claimants, and a 30% lawyer fee
(both of which I believe are conservate numbers and are undisclosed in the settlement website)
amounts to less than a 5$ payout. This is so small that suing in small claims court would be
better for the average american. Quite frankly, this amount of money is likely to be so small, that
I may lose money on the literal letter I could use to send the letter in to accept the settlement.
This has proven to be true in every single settlement claim I've been involved with, so I despair
that this claim will be different.
Additionally, I believe that the lawyers involved in this case are behaving unethically in their
settlement outreach + acceptance. In order to sign up for this settlement - one may go online to
https://www.plaidsettlement.com/ and electronically register your acceptance of the settlement.
Additionally, the lawyers reached out to me, a claimant, digitally via the email system. However,
to reject the settlement, one must fill out a paper letter and mail it in. This unequal treatment 1)
allows lawyers to increase their fees by making it harder for claimants to remove themselves
from the settlement, 2) shows the clear bias of the lawyers involved as to which action they
would prefer claimants take. It must be as simple for a claimant to reject a settlement as to
accept it. There must not be bias in the behaviour of lawyers attempting to represent unknown
claimants - particularly those who may not be familiar with the legal system.
I urge the court to reject this settlement and force a new one to be made which clearly discloses
the lawyers fees, the number of settlements, includes a reasonable amount of money (>100$
per potential claimant), and allows for claimants to join or exit the settlement via the same
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 158   Filed 02/01/22   Page 1 of 3

methods in a non prejudicial manner. Additionally -1 urge the court to refer the laywers in this
case to their respective ethics boards for unethical behaviour.
On a personal note - My largest loss via class action settlement was roughly 6 figures of wage
suppression, which provided a <5$ payout due to unclear settlement notices.
Thank you for your consideration
I will not be attending the Final Approval Hearing in person, or via an attorney representing me.
If my letter is insufficient to be presented to the court, please inform me via email as I would like
to 1) amend it to be sufficient for presentation to the court, and 2) attach additional unethical
actions by the lawyers, re: inability to correctly instruct claimints on how to object to the
settlement.
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 158   Filed 02/01/22   Page 2 of 3

mm
505S09-25-24-PRI
Colin Rice
155 Washington St
Apt 714
Jersey City, NJ 07302
CERTIFIED MAIL
USPS CERTIFIED MAIL^
9214 8901 3247 3400 1547 0807 50
Clerk of Court, US District Court
for the Northern District of California
1301 Clay Street
Oakland, CA 94612
SIGNATURE REQUIRED PER DMM 3.1.1
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 158   Filed 02/01/22   Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.158.0.pdf

Size

1,398,207 bytes

SHA-256

90c19e5fc17b5595fdc656a1b387111f85488c742933c764108f8fd98ed59977

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.158.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com