Motion for — Approval of Settlement — In re Plaid Inc. Privacy (Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Document 156)

Summary

Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action settlement in In re Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation, Master Docket No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, dated January 28, 2022 and filed as Document 156, noticed for hearing on May 12, 2022 at 1:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. The motion asks the court to grant final approval, certify the settlement class and enter final judgment as to Plaid Inc. It describes a $58 million settlement fund to be distributed pro rata to claimants, none of which reverts to Plaid, plus injunctive relief on Plaid's interface design, disclosures and deletion of certain transactional banking data. It states that direct notice went to nearly 60 million individuals and that approximately 679,037 claims had been made.

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

MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
HERRERA KENNEDY LLP 
Shawn M. Kennedy (SBN 218472) 
skennedy@herrerakennedy.com 
Bret D. Hembd (SBN 272826) 
bhembd@herrerakennedy.com 
4590 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 500 
Newport Beach, CA 92660 
Tel: (949) 936-0900 
Fax: (855) 969-2050 
 
HERRERA KENNEDY LLP 
Nicomedes Sy Herrera (SBN 275332) 
nherrera@herrerakennedy.com 
Laura E. Seidl (SBN 269891) 
lseidl@herrerakennedy.com 
1300 Clay Street, Suite 600 
Oakland, CA 94612 
Tel: (510) 422-4700 
Fax: (855) 969-2050 
 
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & 
BERNSTEIN, LLP 
Rachel Geman (Pro Hac Vice) 
rgeman@lchb.com 
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor 
New York, NY 10013-1413 
Tel: (212) 355-9500 
Fax: (212) 355-9592 
Co-Lead Class Counsel 
[Additional counsel on signature page] 
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &  
BERNSTEIN, LLP 
Michael W. Sobol (SBN 194857) 
msobol@lchb.com 
Melissa Gardner (SBN 289096) 
mgardner@lchb.com 
Michael K. Sheen (SBN 288284) 
msheen@lchb.com 
Nicholas R. Hartmann (SBN 301049) 
nhartmann@lchb.com 
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 
Tel: (415) 956-1000 
Fax: (415) 956-1008 
BURNS CHAREST LLP 
Christopher J. Cormier (Pro Hac Vice) 
ccormier@burnscharest.com 
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 
Washington, DC 20016 
Tel: (202) 577-3977 
Fax: (469) 444-5002 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
OAKLAND DIVISION 
IN RE PLAID INC. PRIVACY  
LITIGATION 
Master Docket No.: 4:20-cv-03056-DMR 
 
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL 
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 
SETTLEMENT 
 
Date:  
May 12, 2022 
Time: 
1:00 p.m. 
Courtroom: 4 
Judge: 
The Hon. Donna M. Ryu 
 
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:  
ALL ACTIONS 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 1 of 29

 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Page 
 
 
 
- i - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
NOTICE OF MOTION ................................................................................................................... 1 
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................ 2 
I. 
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2 
II. 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................................................... 3 
III. 
SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT TERMS ......................................................................... 5 
A. 
Settlement Class Definition..................................................................................... 5 
B. 
Benefits to the Settlement Class .............................................................................. 5 
C. 
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and Service Awards for Class Representatives ........... 7 
IV. 
THE NOTICE PROGRAM................................................................................................. 8 
V. 
FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT IS APPROPRIATE ............................... 10 
A. 
The Court Should Certify the Settlement Class .................................................... 10 
1. 
Rule 23(a) Is Satisfied ............................................................................... 10 
2. 
Rule 23(b)(3) Is Satisfied. ......................................................................... 12 
B. 
The Settlement Is Fundamentally Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate...................... 13 
1. 
Rule 23(e)(2)(A): The Class Representatives and Class Counsel 
Have Vigorously Represented the Class ................................................... 14 
2. 
Rule 23(e)(2)(B): The Settlement Was Negotiated at Arm’s Length ....... 15 
3. 
Rule 23(e)(2)(C): The Settlement Provides Meaningful and 
Substantial Relief to the Class .................................................................. 16 
a. 
Costs, Risks, and Delay from Trial and Appeal ............................ 18 
b. 
The Effectiveness of Distribution to the Class .............................. 19 
c. 
Terms of Proposed Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses ....................... 21 
d. 
No Other Agreements ................................................................... 21 
4. 
Rule 23(e)(2)(D): The Settlement Treats All Class Members 
Equitably ................................................................................................... 21 
5. 
All Other Factors Weigh In Favor of Approving the Settlement .............. 22 
VI. 
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 23 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 2 of 29

 
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
 
Page 
 
 
 
- ii - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
CASES 
Carlotti v. ASUS Comput. Int’l,  
No. 18-CV-03369-DMR, 2019 WL 613491 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2019) ............................ passim 
Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 
361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004)...................................................................................................... 14 
Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 
955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992)...................................................................................................... 7 
Custom LED, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 
No. 12-350, 2013 WL 6114379 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2013) ........................................................ 7 
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,  
150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998).............................................................................................. 10, 12 
Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp.,  
2011 WL 162797 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011) ............................................................................. 15 
Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 
598 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2010)........................................................................................................ 7 
In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 
327 F.R.D. 299 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ................................................................................................. 7 
In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig.,  
654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011)...................................................................................................... 16 
In re Google Buzz Privacy Litig.,  
No. C 10-00672, 2011 WL 746009 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2011) ................................................... 17 
In re Google LLC Street View Elec. Comms. Litig., 
No. 10-md-021784,  2020 WL 1288377 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020) ......................................... 17 
In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig.,  
926 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2019)................................................................................................ 12, 13 
In re Lenovo Adware Litig., 
No. 15-md-02624, 2019 WL 1791420 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2019) ............................................. 17 
In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litig., 
309 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................................... 18 
In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., 
No. 2672, 2017 WL 672727 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2017) ............................................. 8, 11, 12, 13 
Knight v. Red Door Salons, Inc.,  
2009 WL 24836 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2009) ................................................................................. 16 
Lane v. Facebook,  
696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012)............................................................................................ 6, 16, 17 
McDonald v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, 
No. 13-889, 2014 WL 3867522 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2014) ......................................................... 12 
O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., 
No. 13-03826, 2019 WL 1437101 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2019) ................................................... 21 
Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & Cty. of San Francisco,  
688 F.2d 61 (9th Cir. 1982)........................................................................................................ 13 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 3 of 29

 
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
(continued) 
Page 
 
 
 
- iii - 
MEMO ISO MTN FOR PRELIM APP OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Perkins v. LinkedIn Corp., 
No. 13-04303, 2016 WL 613255 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2016) ............................................... 16, 17 
Rannis v. Recchia, 
380 F. App’x 646 (9th Cir. 2010) .............................................................................................. 10 
Rodriguez v. W. Publi’g Corp., 
563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009)...................................................................................................... 19 
See In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., 
No. 2672, 2017 WL 672727 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2017) ............................................................. 11 
Shin v. Plantronics, Inc.,  
No. 18-CV-05626-NC, 2020 WL 193489 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2020) ........................................ 13 
Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 
97 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 1996)...................................................................................................... 13 
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 
564 U.S. 338 (2011) ................................................................................................................... 10 
Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 
617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010).................................................................................................... 11 
STATUTES 
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 .................................................................................................... 17 
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2294 ........................................................................................................ 4 
Civil Code § 334 ............................................................................................................................ 17 
RULES 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) .................................................................................................................. 10 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) .................................................................................................................. 11 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) .................................................................................................................. 11 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) .................................................................................................................. 12 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) ....................................................................................................................... 21 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) .................................................................................................................. 14 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C)(ii) ........................................................................................................ 19 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) ...................................................................................................................... 11 
OTHER AUTHORITIES 
Cal. Const., art. I, § I ........................................................................................................................ 4 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 4 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 1 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
NOTICE OF MOTION1 
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiffs Caroline Anderson, James Cottle, Rachel 
Curtis, David Evans, Logan Mitchell, Alexis Mullen, Jordan Sacks, Frederick Schoeneman, 
Gabriel Sotelo, Jeffrey Umali, and Nicholas Yeomelakis (“Plaintiffs”) will move the Court for an 
order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 23(e), granting final approval of the 
proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement entered into by Plaintiffs and Defendant Plaid Inc. 
(“Plaid”) (collectively, the “Parties”), on May 12, 2022 at 1:00 p.m., in Oakland, California, 
before The Honorable Donna M. Ryu, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of 
California.  Specifically, Plaintiffs will request that the Court (1) grant final approval of the 
proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; certify the Settlement Class as defined in 
the Settlement; and (3) enter final judgment as to Plaid in this action. 
This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion; the accompanying 
Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the Notice Compliance Declaration of Steven Weisbrot 
on Behalf of Angeion Group, LLC, filed concurrently herewith (“Angeion Decl.”); the 
Declaration of Shawn M. Kennedy, filed in support of preliminary approval of the Settlement 
Agreement (Dkt. 138) (“Kennedy Decl.”); the Declaration of The Honorable Jay C. Gandhi (ret.), 
filed in support of preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement (Dkt. 140); the argument of 
counsel; all papers and records on file in this matter; and such other matters as the Court may 
consider. 
 
 
 
                                                 
1 Unless otherwise indicated, capitalized terms in this notice and supporting memorandum have 
the same meanings as in the Class Action Settlement Agreement (Dkt. 138-1) (the “Agreement” 
or the “Settlement”). 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 5 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 2 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 
I. 
INTRODUCTION 
Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s November 
19, 2021 Order Granting Preliminary Approval (Dkt. 153) (“Preliminary Approval Order”), 
Plaintiffs move for final approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement reached with 
Defendant Plaid.  Plaid provides a service used by various mobile and web-based applications 
(“apps”)—including apps that allow users to transfer money—to connect to app users’ financial 
accounts.  Plaintiffs allege that, in connection with this process, Plaid misled Class Members and 
violated their privacy rights by obtaining data from their financial accounts without authorization, 
and by obtaining their bank login information through the Plaid Link user interface, which 
Plaintiffs allege was designed to have the look and feel of a user’s own bank account login 
screen.  After more than a year of hard-fought litigation, including significant discovery, and five 
months of arm’s-length settlement negotiations including two mediations with the Hon. Jay 
Gandhi (ret.), Plaintiffs have resolved their class-wide claims against Plaid.   
The proposed Settlement will provide significant and meaningful monetary and injunctive 
relief to a nationwide Class of app users.  First, Class Members will recover from a $58 million 
Settlement Fund, which will be distributed pro rata to claimants after the deduction of 
administrative costs, attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and service awards.  Notably, “the size 
of the Settlement Fund compares favorably with other settlements that have been approved in 
privacy cases in this district.”  Preliminary Approval Order at 21.  None of the Settlement Fund 
will revert to Plaid.  Second, all Class Members will benefit from robust injunctive relief that 
addresses the complained-of conduct by ensuring users have greater transparency into use and 
storage of their data.  The relief requires Plaid to maintain certain changes to the design of its 
standard interface, make more fulsome disclosures to consumers, and delete transactional banking 
data for consumers whose apps did not request that data.  This injunctive relief will ensure that 
Class Members have informed control of their private financial data, and it will provide important 
protections for consumers across the country who increasingly rely on “financial technology” (or 
“fintech”) apps to do business, transfer and invest funds, and otherwise manage their finances 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 6 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 3 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
electronically.  At the same time, the Settlement will eliminate the risk and uncertainty of 
continued proceedings before this Court.   
The notice campaign has been and continues to be successful.  Direct email and mail 
notice was sent to nearly 60 million individuals for whom an email or mailing address was 
available.  And a state-of-the-art digital and social media campaign is estimated to reach over 80 
percent of likely class members.  A straightforward settlement website 
(www.PlaidSettlement.com) and 24-hour automated hotline (1-855-645-1115) have made claims 
easy to complete, while providing Class Members with detailed information about the litigation 
and terms of the proposed Settlement.  Indeed, in less than a month since the notice campaign 
commenced, approximately 679,037 claims have already been made (representing 0.7% of the 
estimated size of the Class)—a figure not inconsistent with the administrator’s prior estimates that 
the claims rate in this matter is likely to be between 1 and 4 percent by the time all claims must be 
submitted, on April 28, 2022. 
For the reasons described herein and reflected in the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order, 
the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate.   
II. 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2 
On May 4, 2020, Class Counsel, on behalf of certain Plaintiffs, filed the first complaint in 
this action.  In the ensuing months, several additional actions alleging the same conduct and 
claims were filed against Plaid.  After the Court consolidated these actions (collectively, the 
“Action”) and appointed interim co-lead class counsel (Dkts. 51, 57), Plaintiffs filed the 
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (Dkt. 61) (“CAC” or “Complaint”).  In summary, 
the Complaint alleges that Plaid misled consumers by inducing users to provide private bank 
login credentials through Plaid’s software, which was embedded in widely used fintech apps.  See 
CAC ¶¶ 3-4.  Then, without disclosing to users or obtaining their consent, Plaid allegedly used 
the credentials to gather private financial data from their bank accounts for purposes unrelated to 
                                                 
2 A more extensive description of the factual and procedural history is included in Plaintiffs’ 
motion for preliminary approval (Dkt. 137) and the Declaration of Shawn M. Kennedy in support 
thereof (Dkt. 138) (“Kennedy Decl.”).  Additional detail regarding Class Counsel’s work is 
included in Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees, expenses, and service awards and supporting 
joint declaration, filed concurrently herewith. 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 7 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 4 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
and unnecessary for the function of the apps Plaintiffs used.  See id. ¶ 5.    
Plaid adamantly denied the allegations and vigorous litigation followed.  Early on, 
Plaintiffs successfully opposed multiple attempts by Plaid to stay discovery pending a ruling on 
its motion to dismiss.  Over a period of eight months, from October 2020 through May 2021, 
Plaintiffs sought and received significant formal discovery from Plaid, including thousands of 
pages of internal documents and detailed financial information.  Plaintiffs also received informal 
discovery from Plaid during the mediation process (including confirmatory discovery after the 
parties reached a settlement in principle), responded to Plaid’s discovery requests, and 
commenced third-party discovery.  Kennedy Decl. ¶¶ 5-9.  On April 30, 2021, the Court issued an 
order granting in part and denying in part Plaid’s motion to dismiss the Complaint.  Importantly, 
the Court sustained Plaintiffs’ primary claims for invasion of privacy/intrusion into private 
affairs, unjust enrichment, deceit, and violations of the California Constitution (Art. I, § I) and 
California’s Anti-Phishing Act of 2005, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22948 et seq. (“CAPA”).  Dkt. 
125.  The Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for violations of the Stored Communications Act, 
Unfair Competition Law, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Comprehensive Data and Access 
Fraud Act, as well as Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. 
Between February and July 2021, the Parties engaged in lengthy and contentious arm’s-
length settlement negotiations, including two full-day mediation sessions with the Hon. Jay 
Gandhi (ret.).  Kennedy Decl. ¶¶ 10-13; see also Dkt. 140 (Gandhi Decl.).  In connection with the 
mediation, the parties submitted detailed mediation briefs and participated in a technology tutorial 
session with Judge Gandhi.  Kennedy Decl. ¶ 10.  Plaintiffs also retained and worked with a 
financial analyst to better understand Plaid’s ability to pay a meaningful monetary amount.  Id.  
Those efforts culminated in June 7, 2021 a mediator’s proposal for a class-wide settlement of $58 
million subject to the parties’ negotiation of, and agreement to, appropriate injunctive relief.  That 
proposal was accepted in a double-blind process on June 11, 2021.  Id. ¶ 14.  Following further 
serious negotiations about the injunctive relief terms, the parties executed the final Class Action 
Settlement Agreement (id., Ex. A) on July 30, 2021.  Id. ¶ 14. 
On August 6, 2021, Plaintiffs moved this Court for preliminary approval of the 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 8 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 5 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Settlement.  Dkt. 137.  After holding a hearing on the matter and ordering submission of 
supplemental evidence (Dkts. 146-49), the Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement 
on November 19, 2021, finding it was likely to certify the settlement Class, appointing the named 
Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, appointing interim co-lead class counsel as Class Counsel, 
appointing Angeion Group LLC (“Angeion”) as notice and settlement administrator, appointing 
the form and manner of notice to the Class, and scheduling all remaining dates and deadlines 
pertaining to approval of the Settlement, including a final approval hearing.  See Preliminary 
Approval Order.  
III. 
SUMMARY OF SETTLEMENT TERMS 
A. 
Settlement Class Definition 
The Court has determined it will likely certify the following Settlement Class: “all natural 
persons who reside in the United States and who own or owned one or more Financial Accounts 
at the time such persons resided in the United States from January 1, 2013 to the date preliminary 
approval of the settlement is granted” (the “Class”).  See Preliminary Approval Order at 29 (citing 
Agreement ¶ 19).  The term “Financial Account” is defined to mean a financial institution 
account (1) that Plaid accessed using the user’s login credentials and connected to a mobile or 
web-based fintech application that enables payments (including ACH payments) or other money 
transfers or (2) for which a user provided financial account login credentials to Plaid through its 
user interface “Plaid Link.”  Agreement ¶ 32.  
B. 
Benefits to the Settlement Class  
As set forth more fully in Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval (Dkt. 137-1 at 4-8) 
and the Court’s ensuing order (Preliminary Approval Order at 4-8), the Settlement provides 
substantial and meaningful monetary and injunctive relief to the Class.  Specifically, Plaid agrees 
to pay $58 million to create a non-reversionary cash fund (the “Settlement Fund”) for the benefit 
of Class Members, who will receive a claims-made pro rata payment after the deduction of costs 
relating to notice and claims administration, any attorneys’ fee award and expense 
reimbursements, any service awards for Class Representatives (i.e., named Plaintiffs), and any 
other costs approved by the Court.  Agreement ¶¶ 71-78.  Unclaimed funds, if any, will be 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 9 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 6 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
redistributed to Class Members through a second round of distribution.  Id. ¶ 78.  And in the 
event any further distributions are not economically feasible, Plaintiffs propose that any 
remaining unclaimed funds be distributed cy pres to (1) the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, “a 
nonprofit organization protecting privacy for all by empowering individuals and advocating for 
positive change,” which “strive[s] to provide clarity on complex topics by publishing extensive 
educational materials”;3 and (2) Consumer Reports, which evaluates the privacy implications of 
digital technologies to provide consumers with information about security and privacy risks and 
further corporate accountability, and educates and empowers consumers and to galvanize the 
industry to bring better, safer, products and services to market.4  Id. ¶¶ 78-79; 84-86.  The work of 
both organizations relates to consumer and digital privacy and has the requisite nexus to this 
Action, the goals of the laws underpinning Plaintiffs’ claims, and the interests of the Settlement 
Class.  See Lane v. Facebook, 696 F.3d 811, 819-20 (9th Cir. 2012). 
In addition, Plaid agrees to implement meaningful business practice changes designed to 
remediate alleged privacy violations, improve user control over users’ private login information 
and financial data, and safeguard user privacy going forward.  Specifically, Plaid agrees to (1) 
delete certain user and financial data from its systems; (2) inform Class Members of their ability 
to manage the connections made between their financial accounts and chosen applications using 
Plaid and to delete data stored in Plaid’s systems; (3) continue to include certain disclosures and 
features in Plaid’s standard Link flow; (4) minimize the data Plaid stores; (5) enhance disclosures 
in Plaid’s End User Privacy Policy about the categories of data Plaid collects, how Plaid uses 
data, and privacy controls Plaid has made available to users; and (6) continue to host a dedicated 
webpage with detailed information about Plaid’s security practices.  Agreement ¶¶ 53-63; see 
also Preliminary Approval Order at 6-8.  These requirements will apply for at least three years 
                                                 
3 About, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, https://privacyrights.org/about; see also, e.g., Using Peer-
to-Peer Payments More Safely, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, 
https://privacyrights.org/resources/using-peer-peer-payments-more-safely; Use of Mobile 
Financial Services by Consumers: Comments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, https://privacyrights.org/resources/use-mobile-financial-services-
consumers-comments-consumer-financial-protection-bureau. 
4 See Consumer Reports Digital Lab, https://digital-lab.consumerreports.org/. 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 10 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 7 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
within the United States.  Agreement ¶¶ 64-66. 
In return for the monetary and injunctive relief described above, Class Members will 
release “Plaid and any and all of its present or former predecessors, successors, assigns, parents, 
subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, and attorneys, and 
any and all of the parents’, subsidiaries’, and affiliates’ present and former predecessors, 
successors, assigns, directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, and attorneys” from 
“any and all actions, causes of action, claims, demands, liabilities, obligations, damages 
(including, without limitation, punitive, exemplary and multiple damages), penalties, sanctions, 
losses, debts, contracts, agreements, attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, and rights of any nature and 
description whatsoever, whether based on federal, state, or local statutes, common law, 
regulations, rules or any other law of the United States or foreign jurisdiction, known or 
unknown, fixed or contingent, suspected or unsuspected, in law or in equity, arising from or 
related to allegations in the Action that were asserted or could have been asserted in the Action” 
(the “Release”).  Agreement ¶¶ 45-46.  The scope of the Release is consistent with governing 
standards in this Circuit.5  
C. 
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and Service Awards for Class Representatives 
In accordance with the settlement terms and in a separate motion filed concurrently 
herewith, Class Counsel request an award of attorneys’ fees of $14.5 million—25% of the $58 
million Settlement Fund—plus the reimbursement of actual, out-of-pocket litigation expenses.  
See Agreement ¶ 108.  Class Counsel also seek service awards for Class Representatives, to be 
                                                 
5 See e.g., In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 327 F.R.D. 299, 327 (N.D. Cal. 2018) 
(approving class settlement release of claims against the relevant entities “related to or arising 
from any of the facts alleged in any of the Actions”); Custom LED, LLC v. eBay, Inc., No. 12-
350, 2013 WL 6114379, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2013) (approving release of claims against the 
relevant entities “arising out of or relating in any way to any of the legal, factual, or other 
allegations made in the Action, or any legal theories that could have been raised based on the 
allegations of the Action.”). See also Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581, 590 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(claims appropriately included in scope of release can include any claim against the relevant 
entities “based on the identical factual predicate as that underlying the claims in the settled class 
action”); Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1287 (9th Cir. 1992) (same, noting that 
released claims need not have been asserted or necessarily presentable in the underlying class 
action). 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 11 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 8 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
paid from the Settlement Fund, in an amount of $5,000 each.  See id. ¶ 112.  The Agreement is 
neither dependent nor conditioned upon the Court’s approval of the aforementioned awards, or 
the Court awarding the particular amounts sought. See id. ¶ 114.  
IV. 
THE NOTICE PROGRAM 
Pursuant to the Court’s preliminary approval order and as described below, Angeion has 
implemented a robust notice program, providing notice to Class Members through direct and 
indirect means (the “Notice Program”).  The substance of the notice approved by the Court 
“provide[s] a summary of the Settlement and clearly explain[s] how Class Members may object 
to or opt out of the Settlement, as well as how Class Members may address the Court at the final 
approval hearing.”  In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prods. Liab. Litig., 
No. 2672, 2017 WL 672727, at *20 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2017) (“Notice is satisfactory if it 
generally describes the terms of the settlement in sufficient detail to alert those with adverse 
viewpoints to investigate and to come forward and be heard.”). 
Direct Notice.  Angeion sent direct notice to 60,271,546 Class Members by email, and 
650,669 Class Members by U.S. mail (via postcard notice)—comprising roughly two-thirds of the 
estimated number of all Class Members).  Angeion Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, 9-10.  As of January 25, 2022, 
Angeion is aware of approximately 647,109 email notices that could not be delivered.  Id. ¶ 7.  To 
maximize the number of mailed notices that are successfully delivered, Angeion will re-mail 
postcard notices using new addresses and forwarding information provided by the U.S. Postal 
Service.  Id. ¶ 10.  In addition, for Class Members for whom an email address was provided by 
Plaid (by Court order) and where those email addresses are used as the primary login for 
Facebook or Instagram, display ads will be delivered directly via those social media platforms.  
Id. ¶ 8.   
Media Notice.  Angeion undertook a state-of-the-art, multifaceted digital and social 
media notice program.  Using programmatic display advertising, digital banner ads were targeted 
and placed on websites and platforms where Class Members are most likely to visit, with the goal 
of driving them to the settlement website.  Id. ¶ 11.  Angeion also utilized Facebook and 
Instagram digital and video ads to maximize exposure to Class Members through social media 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 12 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 9 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
platforms and drive them to the settlement website.  Id. ¶¶ 12-13.  Together, the digital and social 
media notice campaign is scheduled to run for 45 days and designed to deliver approximately 326 
million impressions.  Id. ¶ 14.   
Angieon executed several additional methods for building Class Member interest and 
driving individuals to the settlement website.  Angeion implemented a paid search campaign 
targeting Class Members who actively searched for information about the Settlement.  Id. ¶ 15.  
Sponsored listings on two leading class action settlement websites—Top Class Actions and 
ClassActions.org—were implemented.  Id. ¶ 16.  Beginning January 26, 2022, Angeion also 
began monitoring public Twitter traffic for discussion of the Settlement, including historical 
discussions preceding that date, in order to provide information or respond to specific questions.  
Id. ¶ 17.   
Settlement Website.  Angeion established a settlement website 
(www.PlaidSettlement.com), which contains general information about the Settlement, including 
answers to frequently asked questions, important dates and deadlines pertinent to this matter, and 
copies of important documents.  Id. ¶ 18.  The settlement website has a “Contact Us” page 
whereby Class Members may submit questions regarding the Settlement to a dedicated email 
address: Questions@PlaidSettlement.com.  Id.  The settlement website also includes a claim 
filing portal whereby Class Members can complete and submit their claim form, or where they 
can download a PDF of the claim form to submit by mail.  Id. ¶ 19.  The claim filing portal 
includes a customized video providing step-by-step instructions on how to submit a claim.  Id. 
¶ 20.  As of January 27, 2022, the settlement website has had 4,140,671 page views and 
1,971,061 sessions, which represents the number of individual sessions initiated by all users.  Id. 
¶ 21.   
Toll-Free Hotline.  Separately, Angeion established a toll-free hotline dedicated to the 
Settlement of this action: 1-855-645-1115.  The hotline—accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a 
week—utilizes an interactive voice response system to provide Class Members with responses to 
frequently asked questions, the ability to request a claim form, information about filing a claim, 
and important dates and deadlines.  Id. ¶ 22.  As of January 27, 2022, the toll-free number has 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 13 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 10 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
received approximately 8,770 calls, totaling 37,197 minutes.  Id. ¶ 23.  
In addition to complying with the Court-approved Notice Plan, Plaid also complied with 
its obligation to provide notice under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) by timely 
notifying appropriate federal and state officials.  See id.  ¶ 5. 
V. 
FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT IS APPROPRIATE 
A. 
The Court Should Certify the Settlement Class 
In preliminarily approving the Settlement, the Court found it will likely certify the Class 
pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3).  Preliminary Approval Order at 13-17.  Since that time, 
nothing has changed.  Certification of the Class for purposes of settlement is now warranted.  
1. 
Rule 23(a) Is Satisfied 
As the Court previously determined, Rule 23(a) is readily satisfied.  See Preliminary 
Approval Order at 13-15. 
Numerosity.  The numerosity requirement is satisfied when the class is “so numerous that 
joinder of all members is impracticable.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1).  While there is no fixed rule, 
numerosity is generally presumed when the potential number of class members reaches forty.  See 
Rannis v. Recchia, 380 F. App’x 646, 651 (9th Cir. 2010).  Here, the Class satisfies the 
numerosity requirement because it “includes approximately 98 million individuals.”  Preliminary 
Approval Order at 14; see also Kennedy Decl. ¶ 24.   
Commonality.  Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be one or more questions common to the 
class.  See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1018 (9th Cir. 1998).  The Class shares 
several common questions of fact and law, each of which “is capable of classwide resolution—
which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the 
validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.”  Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 
350 (2011).  Common questions include, inter alia: whether Plaid invaded reasonable 
expectations of privacy through improper, illegal, or offensive conduct; whether Plaid omitted or 
concealed material facts from Class Members that it had a duty to disclose; whether Plaid gave 
effective notice of its privacy policy under an objectively reasonable consumer standard; whether 
Plaid’s End User Privacy Policy discloses Plaid’s alleged conduct; whether Plaid obtained 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 14 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 11 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
consent to obtain, store, and use Class Members’ banking credentials or private financial 
information; whether Plaid’s software induced Class Members to provide “identifying 
information” within the meaning of CAPA by representing itself to be a business, without the 
authority or approval of the business; and whether Class Members were “adversely affected” 
within the meaning of CAPA by Plaid’s collection of their financial institution login credentials 
or by Plaid’s subsequent use of their login information to access, use, and provide their private 
banking data to Plaid’s clients.  Indeed, Class Members’ claims arise from a common course of 
alleged conduct—i.e., Plaid obtained without permission users’ confidential login information 
through an interface designed to have the look and feel of a user’s bank account login screen, and 
Plaid obtained more financial and other data than was authorized or needed by users’ apps.  See 
Volkswagen, 2017 WL 672727, at *13.  Commonality is therefore satisfied. 
Typicality.  The Plaintiffs’ claims are “typical of the claims or defenses of the class.”  
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3).  Typicality “assure[s] that the interest of the named representative aligns 
with the interests of the class.’” Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1175 
(9th Cir. 2010) (citation and quotations omitted).  Here, typicality is satisfied because Plaintiffs’ 
claims stem from the same course of conduct and pattern of alleged wrongdoing as the claims of 
the other Class Members.  Plaintiffs, like all Class Members, had their confidential login 
information collected by Plaid by means of an interface that Plaintiffs allege improperly 
mimicked the look and feel of bank login screens, or allegedly had certain transactional 
information and data collected by Plaid without proper permission.  As a result, Plaintiffs and all 
Class Members are alleged to have suffered the same injury.  See Volkswagen, 2017 WL 672727, 
at *13. 
Adequacy.  The adequate representation requirement is satisfied when the representative 
party is able to “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); 
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).  Here, Plaintiffs and their counsel have no conflicts of interest with 
other Class Members, and they have vigorously pursued their claims on behalf of the Class.  See 
Carlotti v. ASUS Comput. Int’l, No. 18-CV-03369-DMR, 2019 WL 6134910, at *18 (N.D. Cal. 
Nov. 19, 2019); see also Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1021 (adequacy satisfied where “each . . . plaintiff 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 15 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 12 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
has the same problem”).  Further, as the Court has determined in previously approving Class 
Counsel’s three law firms as interim class counsel (Dkt. 57), and again in finding it will likely 
certify the Class (Dkt. 153), Class Counsel have extensive experience litigating, trying and 
settling class actions, including consumer cases, throughout the country.  Indeed, throughout this 
litigation, Class Counsel have zealously represented the interests of the Class and entered into 
settlement negotiations only after developing a sufficient understanding of the strengths of 
Plaintiffs’ claims and the potential risks of further litigation.  See Kennedy Decl. ¶ 19.  Plaintiffs 
and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately protected the interests of all Class Members and 
will continue to do so.  
2. 
Rule 23(b)(3) Is Satisfied 
The Settlement Class also satisfies Rule 23(b)(3) because (1) questions of law or fact 
common to class members predominate over questions affecting only individual members, and 
(2) a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the 
controversy.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).  “Certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is appropriate 
‘whenever the actual interests of the parties can be served best by settling their differences in a 
single action.’” Carlotti, 2019 WL 6134910, at *18 (quoting  Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022). 
Predominance.  As the Ninth Circuit has held, “predominance is ‘readily met’” in cases 
such as this alleging consumer fraud.  Id. (quoting In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., 926 
F.3d 539, 559 (9th Cir. 2019)); see also McDonald v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, No. 13-889, 
2014 WL 3867522, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2014) (standardized conduct and policy that violated 
statutory privacy rights supported a finding of predominance in privacy class action).  Here, 
common questions of the kind noted above predominate because there are few, if any, 
individualized factual issues, and because the core facts involve Plaid’s uniform conduct that 
allegedly harmed all Class Members.  Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Plaid utilized an interface 
embedded in certain fintech apps to collect their and the other Class Members’ private login 
information, and this conduct uniformly injured Plaintiffs’ and the other Class Members’ legally 
protected interests under CAPA and other state and federal statutes.  Plaintiffs also allege Plaid 
uniformly injured Plaintiffs’ and the other Class Members’ protected privacy interests through 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 16 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 13 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
this conduct.  Thus, Plaid engaged in the same alleged illegal conduct “in the same manner 
against all Class Members.”  Volkswagen, 2017 WL 672727, at *14.  Moreover, Class Members 
do not have a strong interest in bringing individual cases, because the maximum amount of 
recovery for an individual Class Member would likely be a fraction of the cost of bringing a 
lawsuit and there are no apparent individual issues to weigh against the many common issues.  
See Carlotti, 2019 WL 6134910, at *18-19.  
Superiority.  A class action is the superior, efficient, and fair method for adjudicating the 
claims here because “no realistic alternative exists.”  See Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97 
F.3d 1227, 1234-35 (9th Cir. 1996).  Indeed, Class Members would find the cost of litigating 
individual claims to be prohibitive, especially considering the risk factors of the case and the 
damages amounts they could reasonably expect to recover if successful.  If individual lawsuits 
were asserted against Plaid, each Class Member “would be required to prove the same wrongful 
conduct to establish liability and thus would offer the same evidence.”  This would also leave 
open “the possibility of inconsistent rulings and results.”  Volkswagen, 2017 WL 672727, at *14.  
Accordingly, the class action procedure “reduce[s] litigation costs and promote[s] greater 
efficiency.”  Valentino, 97 F.3d at 1234. 
For the reasons set forth above, this Court should certify the Class for settlement purposes.  
B. 
The Settlement Is Fundamentally Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate 
The Ninth Circuit maintains a “strong judicial policy” that favors settlement, particularly 
“where complex class action litigation is concerned.”  In re Hyundai, 926 F.3d, at 556 (quotation 
omitted).  In determining whether a court should grant final approval to a class action settlement, 
“the universally applied standard is whether the settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and 
reasonable.” Shin v. Plantronics, Inc., No. 18-CV-05626-NC, 2020 WL 1934893, at *3 (N.D. 
Cal. Jan. 31, 2020) (quoting Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & Cty. of San 
Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 625 (9th Cir. 1982)).  Rule 23(e)(2) instructs that, in evaluating whether 
a proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, district courts must consider whether: (1) 
the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class, (2) the proposal 
was negotiated at arm’s length, (3) the relief provided for the class is adequate, and (4) the 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 17 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 14 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other.6  As the Court determined in its 
Preliminary Approval Order, each of these factors is satisfied here. 
1. 
Rule 23(e)(2)(A): The Class Representatives and Class Counsel Have 
Vigorously Represented the Class 
As detailed in Section II above and in Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval, the 
Settlement is the culmination of over a year of hard-fought litigation.  A substantial portion of the 
independent investigation pertinent to the Action took place before the first complaint was filed 
on May 4, 2020.  See Carlotti, 2019 WL 6134910, at *7.  In particular, Class Counsel spent 
months investigating Plaid’s software and business practices and engaged an expert to analyze 
various aspects of Plaid’s software before filing a detailed and thorough complaint.  See Kennedy 
Decl. ¶ 4.  After that extensive pre-suit investigation, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel worked 
together to prepare a comprehensive consolidated complaint.  In Plaid’s subsequent attempt to 
dismiss the complaint, this Court sustained Plaintiffs’ principal claims for invasion of 
privacy/intrusion into private affairs, unjust enrichment, deceit, and violations of the California 
Constitution and CAPA.  Dkt. 125.   
In discovery and during settlement discussions, Plaintiffs served and Plaid responded to 
57 document requests, 21 interrogatories, and 51 requests for admission.  Kennedy Decl. ¶ 7.  In 
response, Plaid produced over 12,000 pages of documents, including internal policies and 
procedures, agreements, correspondence, investigatory materials, client lists, and detailed 
financial information.  Id.  Plaintiffs also commenced third-party discovery, having subpoenaed 
                                                 
6 These considerations, which were codified in the Federal Rules in 2018, reflect factors 
developed and considered by the federal courts over several decades.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) 
2018 Advisory Committee Notes (“The goal of this amendment is not to displace any factor, but 
rather to focus the court and the lawyers on the core concerns of procedure and substance that 
should guide the decision whether to approve the proposal.”).  In the Ninth Circuit, courts 
including this one consider the fairness factors set forth in Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 
361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004), in determining whether to approve a class action settlement.  
The “Churchill factors” include: “(1) the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; (2) the risk, expense, 
complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status 
throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed 
and the stage of the proceedings; (6) the experience and views of counsel; (7) the presence of a 
governmental participant; and (8) the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.”  
Churchill, 361 F.3d at 575.  Because the Churchill factors substantially overlap with the Rule 
23(e)(2), they will be addressed, where applicable, below. 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 18 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 15 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
and started discussions with certain banks.  Id.  A number of discovery-related disputes arose over 
the course of the litigation.  Each was highly contested, and over the span of several months, 
through dozens of written and telephonic communications, the parties met and conferred to 
narrow and reach agreement as to several disputes.  Id. ¶ 8.  At the same time, Class Counsel, 
with the assistance of Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, responded to Plaid’s discovery requests to 
Plaintiffs.  In anticipation of additional requests, Class Counsel also engaged a forensics 
consultant to properly preserve and analyze the data on several Plaintiffs’ personal mobile 
devices.  Id. ¶ 9.   
At bottom, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have more than adequately represented the Class, 
as their interests are aligned with, and are not antagonistic to, the interests of Class Members.  
Each Class Representative has cooperated fully with Class Counsel in representing the Class, 
assisting in drafting the Complaint, staying informed about the case, searching for and providing 
documents to Class Counsel, and providing relevant information needed to respond to formal 
discovery.  See Kennedy Decl. ¶ 26.  Class Counsel, by the same token, have vigorously 
represented the Class throughout the litigation and ultimately obtained significant monetary and 
injunctive relief.  See id. ¶ 18.  Accordingly, this factor supports final approval. 
2. 
Rule 23(e)(2)(B): The Settlement Was Negotiated at Arm’s Length 
The Settlement was the result of months of informed, arm’s-length negotiations between 
experienced counsel in a process overseen by a highly respected mediator, the Hon. Jay C. 
Gandhi (ret.).  Kennedy Decl. ¶¶ 10-17.  That process included two separate, all-day mediation 
sessions and extended, tough negotiations following each session.  Id.  As a result, the proposed 
Settlement is presumptively fair.  Carlotti, 2019 WL 6134910, at *6; see also Harris v. Vector 
Mktg. Corp., 2011 WL 1627973, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011) (finding that involvement of a 
mediator suggested the settlement “was not the result of collusion or bad faith by the parties or 
counsel”).  Indeed, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel engaged in negotiations with a wealth of 
information obtained through Class Counsel’s pre-suit investigation and discovery in this case—
“enough . . . to make an informed decision about settlement.”  Preliminary Approval Order at 22.  
Their understanding of the litigation, coupled with Class Counsel’s knowledge and experience 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 19 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 16 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
litigating and settling similar class actions, supports Class Counsel’s belief that the Settlement is 
fair, reasonable, and adequate.  See id. at 22-23; Knight v. Red Door Salons, Inc., 2009 WL 
248367, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2009) (“The recommendations of plaintiffs’ counsel should be 
given a presumption of reasonableness.”) (citation omitted). 
Moreover, the Settlement bears no indicia of collusion.  See In re Bluetooth Headset 
Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946-48 (9th Cir. 2011); Carlotti, 2019 WL 6134910, at *8.  
Each Class Member who submits a valid claim form will receive pro rata compensation from the 
Settlement Fund, and all Class Members will receive the benefit of valuable injunctive relief 
moving forward.  Class Counsel seek attorneys’ fees of the Ninth Circuit’s benchmark of 25 
percent of the Settlement Fund plus reimbursement of actual, out-of-pocket expenses.  There is no 
clear sailing provision.  And no amount of the Settlement Fund will revert to Plaid under any 
circumstances.  As a result, the Settlement is the “product of serious, informed, non-collusive 
negotiations.”  Carlotti, 2019 WL 6134910, at *9 (quotation omitted). 
3. 
Rule 23(e)(2)(C): The Settlement Provides Meaningful and Substantial 
Relief to the Class  
The monetary and injunctive relief provided to the Class under the Settlement is more 
than “adequate” considering (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; (ii) the effectiveness 
of the proposed distribution of benefits to the Class; (iii) the requested award of attorney’s fees; 
and (iv) the fact that no side agreements exist.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C).  
The Settlement achieves significant monetary and injunctive relief for the Class.  The 
monetary benefit alone compares very favorably to what plaintiffs have obtained in comparable 
privacy class settlements.  Indeed, courts frequently approve settlements providing monetary 
relief to class members amounting to either a small fraction of the total potential damages or 
nothing at all—particularly in cases involving rarely tested statutory damages provisions, such as 
Plaintiffs’ assertion of CAPA claims here.  See, e.g., Lane, 696 F.3d at 823-25 (approving cy pres 
settlement where class members asserting one of the statutory claims stood to recover possible 
statutory damages of $2,000); Perkins v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 13-04303, 2016 WL 613255, at *18 
(N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2016) (approving settlement where each class member submitting a valid 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 20 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 17 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
claim form stood to receive about $20 while the available statutory damages of $750 per class 
member could have attached); In re Google LLC Street View Elec. Comms. Litig., No. 10-md-
02184, 2020 WL 1288377, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020) (approving cy pres settlement where 
each class member stood to recover up to $10,000 in statutory damages); In re Google Buzz 
Privacy Litig., No. C 10-00672, 2011 WL 7460099, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2011) (approving cy 
pres settlement where each class member stood to recover up to $10,000 in statutory damages 
under the SCA).   
Moreover, Class Counsel has obtained robust injunctive relief for the Class addressing 
important privacy violations alleged in the Complaint.  For example, as set forth in more detail in 
the Settlement (and Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval), Plaid has agreed to delete certain 
data from its systems, and provide a prominent reference and link to Plaid Portal on its website; 
by creating a Plaid Portal account, users, including Class Members, can view and manage the 
connections that have been made between apps and their financial accounts using Plaid.  These 
changes to Plaid’s business practices provide additional substantial value to the Class.  See, e.g., 
Lane, 696 F.3d at 826 (in nationwide class action alleging defendant gathered class members’ 
personal information and online activities without consent in violation of the Electronic 
Communications Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Video Privacy Protection 
Act, and California’s CLRA and Computer Crime Law, approving cy pres-only fund of $9.5 
million and injunctive relief that ended the alleged misconduct); Perkins, 2016 WL 613255, at 
*18 (in nationwide class action alleging violations of California’s UCL, common law right of 
publicity, and Civil Code § 334, approving fund of $13 million and injunctive relief terms 
consisting of improved disclosures, provision of additional information about defendants’ 
relevant practices, and implementation of process where users could stop receiving unrequested 
communications); Google Street View,  2020 WL 1288377, at *16 (in nationwide class action 
alleging violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, California’s wiretap statute, and California 
Business and Professions Code § 17200, approving cy pres-only fund of $13 million and 
injunctive relief consisting of defendant’s agreement to not collect the relevant data from class 
members without notice or consent for five years); In re Lenovo Adware Litig., No. 15-md-02624, 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 21 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 18 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
2019 WL 1791420, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2019) (in nationwide class action alleging 
violations of California’s UCL, CLRA, Computer Crime Law, Invasion of Privacy Act, the 
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and trespass, approving $8.3 million fund where defendant 
separately entered into consent decree with the FTC and certain states to remedy the conduct at 
issue); In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litig., 309 F.R.D. 573, 592 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (in nationwide 
class action alleging violations of California’s UCL and breach of contract, approving fund of 
$1.25 million and injunctive relief to remedy the alleged misconduct).  
a. 
Costs, Risks, and Delay from Trial and Appeal 
Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(i) first directs courts to consider “the costs, risks, and delay of trial and 
appeal.”  Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ confidence in the merits of their claims, continued 
prosecution of this Action entails genuine and potentially case-dispositive risks at each stage of 
the litigation, from class certification and summary judgment to trial and appeal.  Compounding 
those risks are the substantial costs and potential for delay were Plaintiffs to proceed to trial and 
perhaps appeal.  Considering those uncertainties, there is little question that the proposed 
Settlement provides an adequate remedy on behalf of the Class. 
First, despite the fact that classes are routinely certified in consumer fraud cases like this 
one, there are still risks at the class certification stage.  For instance, Plaid would have strenuously 
opposed certification of any class based on purported differences among the apps or banks that 
used Plaid, as well as changes to those apps’ or banks’ policies, practices, or privacy disclosures 
over time.  Indeed, as the Court has recognized, even if a litigation class were certified, Plaintiffs 
faced the real possibility that Plaid could move to decertify that class at any time.  Preliminary 
Approval Order at 19.  Moreover, class certification—a practical, procedural decision—is not all 
or nothing.  Thus, in addition to the risk of a denial of class certification, Plaintiffs faced the risk 
that the Court might certify a smaller litigation class than the one sought.  By contrast, the large 
nationwide class achieved through settlement, which affects Plaid’s conduct over the entire 
relevant period and without narrowing limitations, ensures that the extensive injunctive relief that 
Class Counsel has obtained applies to the broadest group of affected individuals, who also benefit 
from the certainty and continuity the Settlement brings.   
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 22 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 19 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Second, there is a risk that Plaid might prevail in motion practice on merits issues, 
whether pretrial, at trial, or on appeal, resulting in substantial delay or no relief at all for Class 
Members.  At summary judgment and beyond, Plaid would have raised multiple defenses on 
liability under the relatively untested CAPA, including by arguing that the statute targets only 
certain types of activity that do not apply to a business like Plaid, and that many or all Class 
Members were not adversely affected by its business practices and thus lacked standing and/or 
could not establish harm or damages because they suffered no harm.  See generally Dkts. 78, 111.  
Indeed, despite CAPA’s authorization of statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 per violation, 
recovery of that full amount for the entire Class, totaling nearly half a trillion dollars, would have 
been “outside the realm of possibility” in this Action, and in any event, Plaid would have argued 
the statute was inapplicable to companies like Plaid.  See Preliminary Approval Order at 20.   
Third, in the absence of a class-wide claim with attendant statutory damages such as 
Plaintiffs’ CAPA claim (or their now-dismissed SCA claim), the value of the Class’s claims 
would undoubtedly be impacted.  While Plaintiffs believe they would prevail in any legal 
challenge, success would not be guaranteed.  See Rodriguez v. W. Publi’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 
966 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that the elimination of “[r]isk, expense, complexity, and likely 
duration of further litigation” weighed in favor of approving settlement).  In addition, the parties 
would very likely dispute the appropriate measure of any restitutionary remedy.  
In view of the above risks and others, which could result in the Class obtaining 
significantly less relief, or none at all, the Settlement is more than adequate.  As the Court 
preliminarily determined, the $58 million recovery, along with the proposed injunctive relief, 
“represents a fair and adequate compromise”—particularly in view of the “significant risk to 
individual and class recovery if the case were to proceed further in litigation.”  Preliminary 
Approval Order at 19-21.  This factor supports final approval. 
b. 
The Effectiveness of Distribution to the Class 
Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(ii) instructs courts take into account the “effectiveness of any proposed 
method of distributing relief to the class, including the method of processing class-member 
claims.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C)(ii); see also Carlotti, 2019 WL 6134910, at *9.   
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 23 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 20 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
As provided by the terms of the Settlement, each Class Member who submits a valid 
claim form will receive pro rata compensation from the Settlement Fund, and all Class Members 
(regardless of whether they submit a claim) will receive the benefit of valuable injunctive relief 
moving forward.  As the Court previously determined, the claims process is not burdensome for 
Class Members.  Preliminary Approval Order at 26-27.  Class Members may make a claim by 
completing a simple, straightforward claim form either through the settlement website or on a 
paper copy to be mailed to the address listed.  The claim form allows claimants to enter a “Notice 
ID” and “Confirmation Code,” which are linked to a direct notice received by email or mail.  
Claimants who do not have a “Notice ID” and “Confirmation Code” must provide additional, 
easy-to-access information to substantiate their claim.  See Agreement Ex. A.7  Claimants must 
then provide their contact information (including mailing address and email address), and to 
select a preferred method of payment (i.e., PayPal, Venmo, direct deposit or physical check).  By 
collecting this limited information, Angeion ensures that Class Members can easily and quickly 
make claims while also providing sufficient information with which to audit and verify claims.   
This claims process is supported by a robust Court-approved Notice Program aimed at 
maximizing the number of Class Members who opt to make a claim for monetary recovery.  As 
detailed in Section IV above, Angeion has designed and executed a detailed and comprehensive 
Notice Program that provides the best notice to Class Members that is practicable under the 
circumstances, including by providing individual direct notice to all reasonably identifiable Class 
Members via email or mail, combined with a strategic media campaign comprised of state-of-the-
art digital advertising, social media advertising, search engine marketing, sponsored listings on 
two leading class action settlement websites, and engagement on social media.  See also Angeion 
Decl. ¶¶ 6-23. 
The Notice Program is broad in reach.  The direct notice efforts have resulted in nearly 60 
million contacts by email or mail, while the digital and social media notice efforts are designed to 
deliver approximately 326 million impressions, with an approximate reach of 80.40% and an 
                                                 
7 See also Submit Claim, Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation, https://www.plaidsettlement.com/submit-
claim.php.   
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 24 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 21 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
average frequency of 3.62.  Id. ¶ 14.  As Angeion previously advised, based on a variety of 
factors, the estimated claims rate in this matter is likely to be between 1 and 4 percent.  Dkt. 149 
¶ 14-23.  Indeed, as of January 27, 2022, with three months remaining for Class Members to 
submit claims, Angeion has received approximately 679,037 claim form submissions, which 
represents 0.7% of the estimated Class size.  See Angeion Decl. Id. ¶ 24.   
c. 
Terms of Proposed Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses 
Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iii) instructs courts to consider “the terms of any proposed attorney’s 
fees, including the timing of payment.”  In accordance with the Settlement terms, Class Counsel 
concurrently request attorneys’ fees in the amount of $14.5 million—or 25% of the $58 million 
Settlement Fund—plus reimbursement of reasonable litigation expenses.  As detailed in 
Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and service awards, the relief obtained for the 
Class is substantial by any metric, and the requested fee award is justified under this Circuit’s 
case law.  See O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 13-03826, 2019 WL 1437101, at *14 (N.D. 
Cal. Mar. 29, 2019).   
d. 
No Other Agreements  
Rule 23(e)(2)(C)(iv) requires consideration of “any agreement required to be identified 
under Rule 23(e)(3).”  This provision is aimed “at related undertakings that, although seemingly 
separate, may have influenced the terms of the settlement by trading away possible advantages for 
the class in return for advantages for others.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) 2003 Advisory Committee 
Notes.  Plaintiffs have entered into no such agreements.8 
Taking into account the considerations above, the relief provided by the Settlement is 
more than sufficient to justify final approval.  
4. 
Rule 23(e)(2)(D): The Settlement Treats All Class Members Equitably 
The Settlement is designed to benefit all Class Members equally and equitably, by 
providing equal access to a Settlement Fund and providing meaningful injunctive relief to all 
Class Members, regardless of whether they make a claim for monetary relief.  Each Class 
                                                 
8 Plaintiffs agreed to retain Angeion to serve as the Notice Administrator, consistent with the 
Court’s preliminary approval order.  Plaintiffs do not, however, understand this type of agreement 
to be the subject of Rule 23(e)(3)’s disclosure requirement. 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 25 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 22 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Member may submit only one claim for monetary relief.  Accordingly, each claimant will receive 
the same pro rata share of the Settlement Fund.   In addition, the Settlement ensures important 
injunctive relief, as described above.  Because this injunctive relief occurs via Plaid, the benefits 
will not be user-specific but rather will be shared equally among all Class Members.  This factor 
supports final approval. 
5. 
All Other Factors Weigh In Favor of Approving the Settlement 
In support of their motion for preliminary approval, Plaintiffs submitted and the Court 
found ample evidence to support approval of the Settlement, consistent with the Federal Rules, 
prevailing case law, and the Northern District’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action 
Settlements.  See Preliminary Approval Order.  The only remaining obligation set forth under the 
Procedural Guidance is a description of Class Members’ responses.  See Procedural Guidance, 
Final Approval § 1.   
Class Counsel and Angeion are actively communicating with Class Members to respond 
to inquiries about the litigation and the proposed Settlement.  Response from the Class has thus 
far been overwhelmingly positive.  Indeed, as of January 27, 2022, Angeion has received 
approximately 679,037 claim form submissions.  Angeion Decl. ¶ 24.   
By contrast, Class Counsel are aware of only two objections, both of which were filed 
with the Court.  See Dkts. 154 & 155.  In the first objection (Dkt. 154), Mr. Laven asserts that 
Plaid, in his opinion, “did not mimic or did not have the look and feel of my bank’s account login 
screen.”  Plaintiffs disagree9—but even if true, that would not bear on the reasonableness of the 
Settlement or the relief it provides to Class Members.  In the second objection (Dkt. 155), Mr. 
Soldis takes issue with certain aspects of the notice program and/or its execution.  Class Counsel 
and Angeion have reached out to Mr. Soldis to assist in addressing the technical issues identified 
in his letter.  Angeion Decl. ¶ 26.  In addition, contrary to Mr. Soldis’ understanding, the online 
claim form gives Class Members the option to receive their settlement payments via mailed paper 
                                                 
9 It is not clear from his letter when Mr. Laven examined the Plaid interface—that is, whether it 
was before or after Plaid implemented changes to its interface subsequent to the filing of this 
lawsuit.   
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 26 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 23 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
check rather than PayPal, Venmo, or direct deposit.10  Because the deadline for Class Members to 
submit objections or requests for exclusion is March 4, 2022, Plaintiffs anticipate submitting a 
more fulsome set of responses to these and any future objections by the Court-ordered deadline 
on March 21, 2022.   
VI. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an order, 
substantially similar to the proposed order filed and lodged herewith: (1) granting final approval 
of the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) certifying the Settlement Class; and (3) 
entering final judgment as to Plaid in this Action.   
 
 
 
                                                 
10 Class Members can select that option by clicking a hyperlink displayed directly beneath the 
other three payment methods.  Because Plaintiffs’ claims concern Class Members’ use of Plaid to 
link their financial accounts to fintech apps, however, Plaintiffs maintain that PayPal, Venmo, and 
direct deposit will be the most convenient and efficient methods for the vast majority of Class 
Members to receive payment under the Settlement.   
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 27 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 24 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
Dated: January 28, 2022 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &  BERNSTEIN, LLP 
 
By: /s/ Rachel Geman            
       Rachel Geman 
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & 
BERNSTEIN, LLP 
Rachel Geman (Pro Hac Vice) 
rgeman@lchb.com 
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor 
New York, NY 10013-1413 
Tel: (212) 355-9500 
Fax: (212) 355-9592 
 
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &  
BERNSTEIN, LLP 
Michael W. Sobol (SBN 194857) 
msobol@lchb.com 
Melissa Gardner (SBN 289096) 
mgardner@lchb.com 
Michael K. Sheen (SBN 288284) 
msheen@lchb.com 
Nicholas R. Hartmann (SBN 301049) 
nhartmann@lchb.com 
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 
Tel: (415) 956-1000 
Fax: (415) 956-1008 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 28 of 29

 
 
 
 
 
- 25 - 
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
HERRERA KENNEDY LLP 
 
By: /s/ Shawn Kennedy 
 
Shawn M. Kennedy 
HERRERA KENNEDY LLP 
Shawn M. Kennedy (SBN 218472) 
skennedy@herrerakennedy.com  
Bret D. Hembd (SBN 272826) 
bhembd@herrerakennedy.com  
4590 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 500 
Newport Beach, CA 92660 
Telephone: (949) 936-0900 
Fax: (855) 969-2050 
 
HERRERA KENNEDY LLP 
Nicomedes Sy Herrera (SBN 275332) 
nherrera@herrerakennedy.com 
Laura E. Seidl (SBN 269891) 
lseidl@herrerakennedy.com 
1300 Clay Street, Suite 600 
Oakland, CA 94612 
Telephone: (510) 422-4700 
Fax: (855) 969-2050 
 
 
 
BURNS CHAREST LLP 
 
By:  /s/ Christopher Cormier  
 
 
Christopher J. Cormier 
 
BURNS CHAREST LLP 
Christopher J. Cormier (Pro Hac Vice) 
ccormier@burnscharest.com 
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20016 
Tel: (202) 577-3977 
Fax: (469) 444-5002 
 
BURNS CHAREST LLP 
Warren T. Burns (Pro Hac Vice) 
wburns@burnscharest.com 
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 
Dallas, TX 75202 
Tel: (469) 904-4550 
Fax: (469) 444-5002 
 
 
Co-Lead Class Counsel  
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 156   Filed 01/28/22   Page 29 of 29

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.156.0.pdf

Size

161,047 bytes

SHA-256

d867033b701732558e8add401d3161d74f0c21181a26e609bb035e56639a1127

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.156.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com