Letter from John Grosklaus. (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2022) — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 161)

Summary

John William Grosklaus wrote this letter, dated 2/22/2022 and filed as Document 161 on 03/01/22, to object to the proposed settlement in In re Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation, Case # 4:20-cv-03056. The writer says the Settlement Administrator gave notice of class membership, that Plaid Portal shows 7 accounts connected using Plaid to 12 apps, and that the objector is an 18 year old college student with no counsel. The letter argues the settlement is unfair because every class member except the class representatives receives the same payment, although some users linked many financial accounts and gave Plaid a detailed picture of their finances while others linked a single account. It also asks the Court to weigh class member Colin Rice's objection about class counsel's compensation and the claim and opt-out process, and to reject the proposal.

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

Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 161 Filed 03/01/22 Page1of4
[illegible] | L. E D John William Grosklaus
1845 E Northgate Dr #407
MAR 0 1 2022 Irving, TX 75062
johngrosklaus@gmail.com
S. DISTRICT COURT Jo
NORTHERN [illegible] OF CALIFORNIA (773) 554-6291
2/22/2022
Your Honor,
I write today to object to the Proposed Settlement of Jn re Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation, Case #
4:20-cv-03056. I have substantial reason to believe that I am a member of the Class, as I was
notified of such by the Settlement Administrator on January 17" by electronic mail (Notice ID:
PLD1036219428 and Confirmation Code: MAC2D01D2A), have strong personal recollection of
linking various accounts and apps via Plaid Link between January 1, 2013 and November 19, 2021,
and by using Plaid Portal, have identified 7 accounts connected using Plaid to 12 apps. As part of
verifying this through Plaid Portal, I had to re-share my account credentials, which did not happen
through what could visibly be identified as an external domain’s OAuth Process, and the tendency
to receive emails after linking an account to Plaid at certain institutions saying “‘a new device has
been added” (rather than indicating a link to Plaid) makes me (combined with the notification from
the Settlement Administrator) reasonably certain that not all of them are managed OAuth
processes. The nature of the reason many of the listed apps were linked via Plaid makes me certain
they occurred during the time period in question, such as one link that occurred during the process
of applying for a credit card back in Spring 2021 soon after I turned 18.
I am not an attorney, am not represented by any counsel in making this objection, have no
connection to Plaid Inc other than the aforementioned use of their services, and am not attempting
to object for my own personal gain by seeking payment to drop an objection. Rather, I am an 18
year old college student, who simply received notice of the Settlement and thought it didn’t seem
fair. As such, if it is determined that I have made a technical error, I request that you contact me
so I can cure the issue rather than simply dismissing my objection altogether. At this time, I am
not intending to physically attend the Final Approval Hearing in-person due to the impracticality
of me travelling to Oakland, but should the hearing become remotely accessible via Zoom (or
similar audio/videoconferencing technology), I will virtually be in attendance and wish to speak
to the Court. Regardless of the format and/or my attendance, I will not be represented by any
counsel.
The Proposed Settlement is unfair and should be rejected because it does not account for the fact
that Class Members may have significant differences in the amount of data that was unknowingly
and/or unnecessarily provided to Plaid. Under the current arrangement of the Settlement, all Class
Members (except the Class Representatives) will receive the same monetary benefit. One of the
most common use cases for Plaid Link is for services like SoFi Relay (and many others) to combine
information from a variety of Financial Accounts into one dashboard, allowing for combined
visualization of assets, liabilities, spending, and income. This encourages users to connect every
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 161 Filed 03/01/22 Page 2 of 4
Financial Account possible. Depending on the financial affairs of the user, this could mean linking
multiple Checking, Savings, Retirement, Investing, Credit Card, Mortgage, HELOC, Student
Loan, Auto Loan, and Personal Loan accounts- all at different institutions. This contrasts with the
other common use case for Plaid, which is simply verifying the ownership and details of one
Account for the purpose of making ACH transfers. I used Plaid for both cases, under the reasonable
impression (I would imagine similar to most of the Class) that my Plaid was simply verifying my
identity and serving as a “bridge” between the two institutions- not accessing the data itself. As
such, I unknowingly was providing Plaid an incredibly detailed picture of my financial affairs. It
just does not make sense that I should receive the same amount of compensation as someone who
simply linked one account (say to minimize fees related to a charitable donation), and possibly did
not even have transaction data shared.
In addition to these concerns, | ask that Your Honor give strong consideration to the objection
raised by my fellow Class Member Colin Rice. Mr. Rice’s concerns regarding the amount of
compensation for Class Counsel relative to the expected compensation for Class Members, and
the disparity between the process for filing a claim vs. opting out of the settlement. All of these
issues combined give significant reason for the Settlement to be rejected by the Court. I thank Your
Honor for your time, and make a final prayer that you reject this proposal- maybe then Class
Counsel can negotiate a new proposed settlement that offers just and adequate compensation for
Plaid’s actions.
Sincerely,
John William Grosklaus
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 161 Filed [illegible]
bey
[illegible] 3 of 4
YS
in
food.
ini
iF}
[illegible]
[illegible]
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 161 Filed 03/01/22 Page 4of4
— [illegible]


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.161.0.pdf

Size

788,310 bytes

SHA-256

fd4b9b3aff546d6e8949fd0678a8d6afc92968a921b1c6a3a743d412aba7f776

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.161.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com