In re Lifelock, Inc Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation

Case # 08-md-01977
Case Name In re Lifelock, Inc Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
Jurisdiction US District Court for AZ
Summary

Lawsuit concerns misleading advertising practices by the Defendant, LifeLock.  In particular, LifeLock's claims to provide protection up to $1,000,000 are fraudulent, since they amount to an insurance policy but are not administered in accordance with the relevant statutes regarding insurance products.

Final Approval Date 08/31/2010
Result
  1. Final Approval granted.
  2. Objectors Klinge (through Attorney Cox), Daniels (through Attorney Palmer), and Pentz (through Attorney Pentz) appealed the Final Approval.
  3. All appeals were consolidated.
  4. All appeals were voluntarily dismissed.
Dismissal of Last Appeal 01/06/2011
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Master Consolidated Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiff's Response to Objections.pdf
Final Approval Order.pdf
Consolidated Appeal Docket.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Kris Klinge, Tracey Klinge

Objectors Kris Klinge
Tracey Klinge
Signers Kris Klinge
Tracey Klinge
Attorneys Thomas L. Cox Jr.
Summary
  1. Injunctive relief provides no benefit to class members.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Kris and Tracey Cox Klinge.pdf
Cox Appearance for Klinge Objectors.pdf
Notice of Deposition of Klinge Objector.pdf
Appeal of Klinge Objectors.pdf
Dismissal of Klinge Appeal.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Billy Daniels

Objectors Billy Daniels
Signers Joseph Darrell Palmer
Attorneys Joseph Darrell Palmer
Summary
  1. Purported benefits to the class came about as a result of a separate settlement between the Defendant and the FTC.
  2. Insufficient information has been made available for evaluating the attorneys' fee request.
    • Attorneys' fees are likely excessive.
Attachments Objection of Billy Daniels.pdf
Notice of Deposition of Daniels Objector.pdf
Appeal of Objector Daniels.pdf
Dismissal of Daniels Appeal.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of James E. Pentz

Objectors James E. Pentz
Signers John J. Pentz
Attorneys John J. Pentz
Summary
  1. Settlement provides no benefit to the class.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive and improperly calculated.

According to Plaintiff's Response to Objections, Objector Pentz joined LifeLock on March 2, 2010, after the case had settled.

Attachments Objection of James E. Pentz.pdf
Appeal of Objector Pentz.pdf
Dismissal of Pentz Appeal.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated