UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ANDREW HILLMAN, et al.,

Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-08315-JGK
Plaintiffs,
DECLARATION OF DAVID A.
v. STAMPLEY IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
RINGLEADER DIGITAL, INC., et al., APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT
Defendants.

I, David A. Stampley, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney-at-law duly licensed to practice before all of the courts of the

States of New York and before this Court. I am a partner of KamberLaw, LLC (“KamberLaw”).

I am one of the attorneys responsible for the handling of this litigation on behalf of KamberLaw,

LLC. I make this declaration based upon my own personal knowledge. If called to testify, I could

and would testify to the facts contained herein.

2. I have actively participated in this litigation since its inception and am fully fa-

miliar with those proceedings as well as the proceedings currently pending to resolve this matter.

I make this declaration based upon my own personal knowledge. If called to testify, I could and

would testify to the facts contained herein. I am competent to testify that the following facts are

true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

3. For over three months prior to the filing of the complaint in this matter, I and at-

torneys under my direct supervision worked closely with co-counsel Joseph Malley and certain

class representatives investigating facts and developing legal theories contained in the complaint.

This pre-complaint effort required significant attorney and client time as well as consultations

with certain non-legal, technical experts. Our research, confirmed through the settlement process,

D. Stampley Declaration in Support 1

of Class Action Settlement
is that the class consistent of a substantial proportion of U.S. iPhone users and that numerosity is

satisfied. This case dealt with the creation of databases on consumers’ mobile devices for pur-

poses of tracking consumers in ways the would not expect or be able to control, and transferring

that information to Ringleader Digital, a third-party provider of advertising services to websites

of whom consumers were unaware. I believe this understanding allowed us to plead and negoti-

ate this case with an understanding of Ringleader Digital’s technical and business environment

that motivated early settlement negotiations between the parties. Based on my experience, I be-

lieve the promptness of relief significantly enhances the benefit to consumers, particularly where

that relief takes the form of injunctive provisions that promote consumers’ privacy interests in

their personal information.

4. In the course of representing the Named Plaintiffs in this litigation, our law firm

committed attorney and staff time to thoroughly investigate the claims against Defendants before

filing the lawsuit. This time included consultation with various experts as well as a review of De-

fendants’ actions and relevant case law. Our law firm and that of Joseph Malley also committed

attorney and staff time to engaging in discussions and informal discovery exchanges with a num-

ber of Defendants, which ultimately helped lead to a successful resolution of this matter.

5. Since shortly after the filing of this action, we sought to cooperate with the law-

yers whom we had learned had brought a California action on similar legal theories. These ef-

forts resulted in a single mediation, minimized the duplication of efforts, and maximized the

benefit to the class.

6. Throughout my firm’s involvement in this litigation, we ensured that the tasks

necessary to prosecute the case were allocated among counsel appropriately and were conducted

efficiently, without undue duplication of effort, and at minimal expense. Not being paid by the

D. Stampley Declaration in Support 2

of Class Action Settlement
hour, we had an incentive to conduct our efforts in an efficient manner. Similarly, as our firm

was responsible for advancing all expenses, we had an incentive not to expend funds unnecessar-

ily.

7. As of February 9, 2011, the total number of hours spent by the attorneys and sup-

port staff in my firm on this litigation was 320.50. The total combined lodestar amount, based on

current hourly rates, is $165,327.50. This figure is based on the rates my firm charges in litiga-

tion matters. We account for expenses separately, which are not duplicated in our professional

billing rates. The attorney and support staff fees expended by my firm are as follows:

Years of Hourly
Attorney Practice Hours Rate Total
Scott A. Kamber 20+ 118.00 $570 $67,200.00
David Stampley 20 151.50 $535 $81,052.50
Dana Rubin 10 41.00 $415 $17,015.00
Total NA 320.50 NA $165,327.50

8. I represent that the following disclosures contained herein relating to mediation

and negotiation between the parties are with the consent of David McDowell of the law firm of

Morrison Foerster and are not violative of any settlement or mediation privilege.

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT REGARDING SETTLEMENT

9. This case has been vigorously litigated from its commencement this settlement,

which was only reached after a mediation session with mediator Rodney Max on or about No-

vember 23, 2010 and an additional two months of follow-up negotiations.

10. During the course of this litigation, we spent significant time engaging in exten-

sive discussions and exchanges of information with Defendants. These conversations involved

numerous multi-party telephone conferences and also involved the extensive exchange of infor-

mation regarding the technology at issue and each Defendants role in the underlying dispute.

D. Stampley Declaration in Support 3

of Class Action Settlement
These negotiations involved exchanges of documents and follow up telephone conversations be-

tween both our experts and experts for these Defendants as well. I believe this process signifi-

cantly facilitated the settlement of this litigation and substantially improved the meaningfulness

of the injunctive relief ultimately obtained for the benefit of the Class.

11. Prior to mediation in this matter, and additional, face-to-face meeting was held in

New York between David Stampley of KamberLaw, LLC, Jeremy Wilson of Wilson Trosclair &

Lovins, PLLC, and representatives of Ringleader Digital. This meeting was attended by Ring-

leader Digital’s Director of Technology and involved a frank discussion of the strengths and

weaknesses of Plaintiffs claims in both lawsuits.

12. Counsel for Defendants asserted aggressive defenses in its motion to dismiss in

the California Litigation and communicated to me their intent to assert those same defenses in

this litigation.

13. Thus, the settlement in this case was not reached until our law firms along with

Counsel in the California Litigation, inter alia, (1) thoroughly investigated the potential claims,

including consultation with experts; (2) Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in

the California Litigation; (3) Defendants produced certain documents for discussion purposes;

and (4) a face-to-face meeting with representatives (including the Director of Technology for

Ringleader Digital); and (5) a mediation session and many hours of subsequent negotiations.

14. The settlement of this litigation was negotiated with the assistance and oversight

of Rodney Max, after which the parties continued settlement discussions. The settlement is the

product of dozens of hours of arm’s length negotiations over the course of over several months

between counsel for the parties. The parties did not discuss the amounts of any incentive fee or

payment to class counsel until after the terms of the settlement were agreed upon.

D. Stampley Declaration in Support 4

of Class Action Settlement
 15. The settlement is product of contested litigation and takes into consideration the

significant risks specific to the case. It was negotiated by experienced counsel for Plaintiffs and

Defendants with a solid understanding of both the strengths and weaknesses of their respective

positions.

16. Plaintiffs believe this settlement represents an excellent result for the class, espe-

cially under the circumstances of this case. Substantial investigation, the motion to dismiss filed

by Defendant Ringleader Digital and legal research informed Plaintiffs that, while they believe

their case meritorious, it also had weaknesses which had to be carefully evaluated in determining

what course (i.e., whether to settle and on what terms, or to continue to litigate through class cer-

tification, summary judgment and a trial on the merits) was in the best interests of the class. As

set forth in further detail below, despite the fact that Plaintiffs’ allegations and claims were ar-

guably supported by legal authority, expert opinion and other evidence, the specific circum-

stances involved here presented many uncertainties in Plaintiffs’ ability to prevail if the case pro-

ceeded to a motion for class certification, summary judgment, and/or trial.

17. Plaintiffs also took into account the actual costs of making any distribution to the

Class, the size of the class and the financial wherewithal of the Defendants to be able to pay any

judgment that may be able to be obtained after judgment and appeal.

18. These issues and others were considered by Plaintiffs and their counsel in decid-

ing to settle the litigation on terms which would provide the class with injunctive relief that di-

rectly redresses the harm alleged in the complaint. In reaching the determination to settle, Plain-

tiffs and lead counsel have weighed the documentary evidence and legal authority supporting

their allegations against the documents and legal authority that Defendants assert undercut Plain-

D. Stampley Declaration in Support 5

of Class Action Settlement
tiffs’ claims, as well as Defendants’ characterizations and interpretations of the evidence in this

case.

19. On balance, considering all the circumstances and risks both sides faced, Plain-

tiffs came to the conclusion that settlement on the terms agreed upon was in the best interests of

the class. The settlement confers substantial benefit on the class and eliminates the prejudice to

the Class that may come with delay in resolution, the significant costs of continued litigation, the

risk that certification would be denied, and the risk that summary judgment and/or trial would

not be in Plaintiffs’ favor. It is respectfully submitted that the settlement should be approved as

fair, reasonable, and adequate.

20. The following is a summary of the nature of the settlement class’s claims, the

principal events that occurred during the course of this litigation, and the legal services provided

by Counsel

II. FACTUAL SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS

21. This lawsuit involves Defendants’ alleged tracking of Plaintiffs’ Internet activities

through the use of Plaintiffs’ mobile phone. Plaintiffs and members of the Class use their mobile

devices to, inter alia, visit websites (including Defendants’ websites), check and send emails,

and text. Mobile advertising has become an almost $3 billion a year industry. In an effort to gain

an advantage in this market, advertisers, website publishers, and ad networks constantly seek

new ways to track their website users and present them with targeted advertising relevant to their

interests as expressed in their browsing habits.

22. Because cookies, the traditional method of tracking users, are not as useful on

mobile devices, Defendant came up with a better way to track mobile device users. Defendant,

using HTML5 software, created a database on the mobile devices of consumers who visited its

D. Stampley Declaration in Support 6

of Class Action Settlement
affiliates’ websites, downloaded additional tracking code, and configured a Unique Device Iden-

tifier (“RLDGUID”) to better track consumers. This was done for the purpose of systematic and

continuous surveillance of consumers’ mobile device habits.

23. Ringleader Digital’s tracking code allowed access to, and disclosure of, consum-

ers’ personal information, including personal identifying information. Ringleader Digital’s ac-

tions circumvented users’ browser controls for managing web privacy and security without no-

tice to them and without their consent.

24. In this litigation, Plaintiffs asserted claims for violations of the Computer Fraud

and Abuse Act (“CFAA); Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 U.S.C. §2510 (the

“ECPA”); Violations of Section 349 of New York General Busines Law: Deceptive Acts and

Practices; and Trespass to Personal Property / Chattels

25. This case affected millions of class members and dealt with highly technical areas

of the implementation of the sharing of class member information between Internet sites by the

use of Defendant Ringleader Digital’s technology.

26. At all times, Defendants have denied and continue to deny they have engaged in

any wrongdoing or committed, threatened to commit, or attempted to commit any wrongdoing of

any kind, including that alleged in the complaint in this matter.

27. Scott A. Kamber was the point of contact between Plaintiffs and defense counsel

in this action. While there were conceptual discussions of settlement by telephone there were no

substantive discussions prior to the first mediation. In fact, it was the firm’s position based on

past experience that having a substantive dialogue on possible class-wide resolution without the

assistance of a mediator could expose an early settlement to procedural attack.

D. Stampley Declaration in Support 7

of Class Action Settlement
 28. Because of the nature of technology cases and the fact that I believed Ringleader

Digital’s technology presented an ongoing risk of harm to the class, Kamber worked with De-

fense Counsel to schedule mediation as quickly as possible. We agreed to Mr. Rodney Max be-

cause of his unrivaled reputation, experience, and demonstrated ability to resolve some of the

most difficult litigations.

29. Prior to the mediation we had thoroughly researched the law and understood the

strengths and weaknesses of our case.

30. On November 23 2010, representatives of Ringleader and Plaintiffs met with Mr.

Max in Morrison Foerster’s office in New York. Throughout the day, the parties' representatives

met unilaterally with Mr. Max. In addition, representatives of the parties met with each other to

view and discuss how Ringleader Digital’s technology worked and possible ways to alleviate

Plaintiffs’ privacy concerns. After a full day of mediation, the parties agreed on all substantive

relief. Present at the litigation were some of the most senior members of the Ringleader Digital’s

management team, including its CEO.

31. The most complex issue that had been agreed to but needed to be examined

through further due diligence was the specific breadth of the injunctive relief. This was subse-

quently finalized over the next two months.

IV. PLAINTIFFS UNDERSTOOD CASE’S

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

32. Based on the publicly available documents, documents received from Defendants,

and their own investigation and consultations with experts, Plaintiffs believed they had adduced

and would continue to adduce substantial evidence to support their claims. They also realized,

however, that they faced considerable risks and defenses as the case proceeded. Some of the

most serious risks are discussed in the following paragraphs. Plaintiffs carefully considered these

D. Stampley Declaration in Support 8

of Class Action Settlement
risks during the months leading up to the settlement and during their settlement discussions with

Defendants.

33. Plaintiffs recognized that Defendants contended that Plaintiffs failed to ade-

quately plead damages or losses attributable to and Defendants’ conduct. While Plaintiffs have

strong arguments to counter these contentions, they recognize this issue was unresolved and

could turn in Defendants’ favor.

34. Before advising our clients of and entering into the settlement agreement, we took

into account, among other things, the criteria for determining whether a settlement is fair, rea-

sonable, and adequate. The recognized criteria include: (a) the strength of plaintiffs’ case; (b) the

risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of any further litigation; (c) the risk of certifying a

class and then maintaining class action status through trial; (d) the amount offered in settlement;

(e) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; and (f) the experience and

views of counsel believe that, weighing the circumstances in light of these criteria, as further de-

tailed below, the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

35. Together with my co-counsel as well as discussion with the Named Plaintiffs, we

carefully assessed the probability of ultimate success on the merits vis-à-vis the risks of estab-

lishing liability and damages. While we believe our case is strong, we could not discount Defen-

dants’ defenses or the potential difficulties Plaintiffs would face in certifying a class. In addition,

Defendants’ are represented by very capable counsel whom we believe would mount a vigorous

defense. Should litigation continue, the inevitable motion and appellate practice could easily ex-

tend the litigation for years.

36. Another risk considered was the need for and reliance on expert witnesses were

the case to proceed to a class certification hearing and then to trial. To establish liability and

D. Stampley Declaration in Support 9

of Class Action Settlement
damages in a case of this sort, expert testimony would be essential. The evaluation and develop-

ment of complex factual issues would require substantial expert testimony, of which a jury’s ac-

ceptance is always far from certain, regardless of how distinguished the source. Settlement of

this action avoids the costs of competing experts and the risk of jury fact-finding that could result

in a dispositive finding or ruling against Plaintiffs and the class members.

37. In reaching the settlement, Plaintiffs and counsel weighed the duration and cost of

the litigation that would be necessary to undertake a further motion for class certification, trial

and any appeals, against the likelihood of obtaining a better result than the settlement provides

and determined that, under the circumstances, the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. We

believe the settlement falls within the parameters of settlements in similar actions and is justified

in light of the substantial benefits conferred on the class members as well as the risks avoided.

38. Plaintiffs believe they could have prevailed on the merits of the case. Defendants

were just as adamant that Plaintiffs would fail. There was a very real risk, as discussed above,

that Plaintiffs would not prevail on their motion for class certification or at trial. Had Plaintiffs

successfully reached trial, Plaintiffs faced the risk that the jury would not understand Plaintiffs’

allegation, that Plaintiffs would not convince a jury that Defendants caused loss to Plaintiffs, or

that Plaintiffs had suffered any loss. There was also the very real risk that even if Plaintiffs pre-

vailed at trial, Defendants would appeal, which would take years to resolve and bore the risk of

reversal.

39. I have participated directly in the mediation and negotiation efforts and the prepa-

ration of the petition for approval of the proposed settlement now before this Court. Throughout

our mediation and negotiation efforts and in advising our clients of the proposed settlement,

Plaintiff’s counsel’s has at all times considered the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the

D. Stampley Declaration in Support 10

of Class Action Settlement
settlement for the class, taking into account: the strength of Plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense,

complexity, and likely duration of any further litigation; the risk of certifying a class and then

maintaining class action status through trial; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of dis-

covery completed and the stage of the proceedings; and the experience and views of Plaintiffs’

counsel.

40. Against the backdrop of counsels’ collective experience in prosecuting complex

class actions, co-counsel and I have considered the claims set forth in the complaint and our con-

tinued confidence in the merit of those claims, the scope of relief offered in the settlement com-

pared to the potential relief at the conclusion of litigation, and the risks and costs of continued

litigation. Taking these factors into account, it is my opinion the proposed settlement is fair, rea-

sonable, and adequate, well within the range of possible approval, and therefore deserving of the

Court’s preliminary approval.

41. While I believe the legal standard applicable to a settlement that does not provide

a class-wide release and is presented pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) does not require the same show-

ing as for a settlement under Rule 23(b)(3), it is my opinion this settlement does fulfill the more

stringent (b)(3) standard. Further, the agreed injunctive relief specifically redresses the conse-

quences of the conduct set forth in the complaint and does not require a release of any damages

claim the class may have.

42. Further, proposed class counsel have diligently investigated and prosecuted this

matter, dedicating substantial resources to the investigation of the claims at issue in the action,

and have successfully negotiated the settlement of this matter to the benefit of the class.

43. KamberLaw’s firm resume is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

D. Stampley Declaration in Support 11

of Class Action Settlement
 44. The parties proposed Order for the final resolution of this matter is attached

hereto as Exhibit B.

45. In addition, the settlement agreement reached between the parties is attached

hereto as Exhibit C.

III. CONCLUSION

46. Having considered the foregoing, and evaluating Defendants’ likely defenses at

trial, it is the informed judgment of Plaintiffs and their counsel, based on all proceedings to date

and their extensive experience in litigating complex actions and class actions, that the proposed

settlement of this matter before this Court is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best inter-

ests of the class.

47. For all of the foregoing reasons, class counsel respectfully requests that this Court

approve the settlement.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: February 10, 2011 s/David A. Stampley

New York, New York David A. Stampley
KamberLaw, LLC
100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10005
Telephone: (212) 920-3072
Facsimile: (212) 920-3081
[email protected]

One of the attorneys for Plaintiff,

individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals

D. Stampley Declaration in Support 12

of Class Action Settlement
EXHIBIT A
 KamberLaw, LLC KamberLaw, LLP
100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor 1180 South Beverly Drive, Ste. 601
New York, New York 10005 Los Angeles, California 90035
t 212.920.3072 f 212.920.3081 t 310.400.1050 f 310.277.0635
www.kamberlaw.com

Practice
KamberLaw excels in litigating complex cases brought as class actions or by plaintiff groups. The
firm acts with the spirit of public service and community-mindedness that has motivated its attor-
neys throughout their legal careers. Our attorneys share a common goal of seeking justice through
meaningful, timely vindication of consumer rights.
We specialize in cases of corporate violations of consumers’ privacy rights, leading one federal
judge to observe, "The attorneys of KamberLaw have made a showing that they possess experience
and expertise in the areas of consumer privacy and technology matters . . . .” We believe these
cases must be approached with skilled legal insight—plus a confident grasp of the defendant’s
information technology model and business environment. That is why our unique technology
expertise and our backgrounds as defense counsel, corporate compliance counsel, and consultants
are important factors in our success. We are capable of explaining what went wrong and communi-
cating a thoughtful view of how to make it right. This leads to resolutions that provide timely relief to
affected consumers while promoting better business-to-consumer relationships.
With ten attorneys in offices in New York and California, KamberLaw is committed to advancing the
cause of consumer rights from coast to coast. Listed below are some of the cases that exemplify our
firm’s work and its attorneys’ leadership.

Selected Cases
Privacy, Security, and Information Technology
Lane v. Facebook, No. 5:08-cv-03845-RS (N.D. Cal. 2010). Lead counsel in data privacy case
relating to Facebook’s Beacon technology.
Slater v. Tagged, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-03697-EMC (N.D. Cal. 2010) . Co-lead counsel in data privacy
case involving social network website’s acquisition and use of consumers’ email address book
information.
Valdez-Marquez v. Netflix, No. 5:09-cv-05903-JW (N.D. Cal. 2010). Co-lead counsel in case
involving privacy consequences of release of anonymized records from customer database.
In Re ATI Tech. HDCP Litigation, No. 5:06-CV-01303-JW (N.D. Cal. 2009). Co-lead counsel in
case that resulted in settlement correcting risk of harm to computer users caused by digital rights
management (DRM) software on music CDs. Settlement included replacement of all affected music
CDs and an award of additional music CDs to class members.
Lalo v. Apple (N.D. Cal.) (active). Co-lead counsel in cases involving the use of Adobe Flash to
override the privacy and security settings on consumers’ browsers to track and profile consumers.
“Flash cookie” cases (multiple actions in N.D. Cal.; S.D.N.Y) (active). Co-lead counsel in cases
involving the use of Adobe Flash to override the privacy and security settings on consumers’
browsers to track and profile consumers. Settlement pending.
ISP behavioral ad targeting cases (multiple jurisdictions, active). Lead counsel in six data
privacy cases in various jurisdictions against ISPs engaging in interception and analysis of
customers’ Internet communications for behavioral ad-targeting.
Valentine v. NebuAd (No. 3:08-cv-05113-THE) (N.D. Cal.) (active). Lead counsel in data privacy
case involving ECPA (Wiretap Act) implications of online ad-serving company’s use of behavioral
targeting technology.
 KamberLaw Firm Resume
Page 2

In re Sony BMG CD Technologies, No. 05-cv-09575 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Co-lead counsel in case
that resulted in settlement correcting risk of harm to computer users caused by digital rights
management (DRM) software on music CDs. Settlement included replacement of all affected music
CDs and an award of additional music CDs to class members.
Weaver v. WebTV, No. 793551 (Santa Clara Sup Ct., Cal. 2003). Co-lead counsel in certified
nationwide consumer class action case alleging consumer fraud and deceptive advertising of
computer services and capabilities. The settlement provided the class with a collective award with a
guaranteed minimum face value of six million dollars.
Wormley v. GeoCities, No. 196032 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct., Cal. 2000). Class Counsel in consumer
class action for privacy violations that is believed to be the first Internet privacy case to recover a
benefit for affected class members.

Blackford v. At Home Corp. et al., No. 416131 (San Mateo Sup. Ct.) Co-lead counsel in
consumer class action relating to internet connectivity.

Tepper v. AT&T, No. 99/18034 (New York Supreme Ct., Westchester County) Lead counsel in
consumer class action regarding use of improper boosting of signal strength for cellular phones.

Consumer Protection and Products Liability

Lofton v. Bank of America, No. 3:07-cv-05892 (N.D. Cal. 2009). Lead counsel in class action
alleging deceptive imposition of “fuel-related fees” in connection with airline ticket purchases.
Settled for over $2,000,000 in cash, in addition to other relief.
McFerren v. AT&T Mobility, No. 08-CV-151322 (Fulton Cty. Sup. Ct. 2009). Lead counsel in class
action settlement involving 16 related cases against largest wireless service provider in the nation.
Settlement provided virtually full refunds to a nationwide class of consumers who alleged that
unauthorized charges for mobile content were placed on their cell phone bills.
In re Pet Foods Product Liability Litigation, No. 07-2867 (D.N.J. 2008). Appointed co-lead
counsel in class action involving largest pet food recall in United States history. Settlement provided
$24 million common fund and $8 million in charge backs.
Barrett v. RC2 Corp., No. 07 CH 20924 (Cook Cty., Ill. 2008). Appointed co-lead counsel in lead
paint recall case involving Thomas the Tank toy trains. Settlement valued at over $30 million
provided class with full cash refunds and reimbursement of certain costs related to blood testing.
In re HP Power Plug and Graphic Card Litigation, No. 06-2254 RMW (N.D. Cal. 2008). In
class action relating to defective personal computer power plugs, settlement provided for free
repairs and reimbursement of affected consumers’ out-of-pocket expenses.

Investor and Shareholder Derivative Actions

Stassi et al. v. Loch Harris,No. GN 200180 (Travis Cty. Dist. Ct., Tex. 2003). Brought derivative
action on behalf of technology development company that successfully obtained dissolution of
corporation and distribution of assets to shareholders.
In re Command Systems, No. 98-cv-3279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). Securities class action against
technology company in which participating shareholders recovered over 80% of their losses.
 KamberLaw Firm Resume
Page 3

Selected Attorney Biographies

The attorneys of KamberLaw have been recognized as leaders in their fields by state and federal
legislatures, national and international media groups, the courts, and peers. We have testified before
Congress and a variety of federal and state agencies on various consumer issues and have been
asked to work on federal and state legislation involving issues of import to consumers. Our attorneys
have appeared on national and international television and radio programs to discuss the intersec-
tion of technology and the law, and class action and consumer protection issues more generally.

Our reputation for leadership in class action litigation has led state and federal courts to appoint us
lead counsel in many high-profile class action suits. Our attorneys speak at seminars on consumer
protection and technology issues to corporate and consumer audiences in the United States and
around the world. They lecture on consumer issues and class action law at law schools and are
asked to serve as testifying experts in cases involving various consumer issues.

Scott A. Kamber, a founding member of KamberLaw, has served as lead counsel in dozens of
class actions resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in relief for his clients. His cases have set
precedents for Internet privacy rights and data breach liability.
Mr. Kamber worked as a financial consultant and, after entering private legal practice, represented
both plaintiffs and defendants in a wide range of commercial litigations, initially at the defense firm of
Hughes Hubbard & Reed. His experience and understanding of defense continues to inform his
philosophy of effective litigation.
His interest in Internet privacy rights began in the 1990s when he resolved what is believed to be the
first Internet privacy case to recover a benefit for impacted class members. His interest in consumer
rights and technology extends to new media, and he has led standard-setting litigations and resolu-
tions involving digital rights management software for computer software, video games, and music.
He is the only plaintiff’s class action attorney invited to speak at the international conference of data
protection and privacy commissioners and, in an upcoming speech, by the Israeli Ministry of Justice,
where he will be speaking on the topic of coordinating private class actions with government
enforcement.
In pursuing these matters, Mr. Kamber has gained extensive courtroom experience and tried over 15
cases to verdict. Beyond litigation, Mr. Kamber’s commitment to the value of effective negotiation
and dispute resolution has served him in an active and broad international law practice that has
taken him to over 30 countries, handling negotiations on five continents and structured transactions
with the Olympic Committees of several Eastern European and Latin American nations. Mr. Kamber
has worked to vindicate the rights of African torture victims and worked with the President of the
United Nations General Assembly. He frequently lectures on international matters and is a regular
speaker and moderator for the Center for International Legal Studies based in Austria.
Mr. Kamber graduated cum laude from the University of California Hastings College of the Law in
1991 where he was Order of the Coif, Articles Editor for the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly
and a member of the Moot Court Board. He graduated with University and Departmental Honors
from The Johns Hopkins University in 1986. He is admitted to practice in the State of New York as
well as the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and
Ninth Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New
York. Mr. Kamber is well versed in the procedures and practices of numerous arbitration forums,
both domestic and international.
David A. Stampley, a partner at KamberLaw, handles class actions involving consumer data
privacy and security, which have been the subject-matter focus of Mr. Stampley’s practice for over
ten years.
Mr. Stampley has previously served as an Assistant Attorney General in the New York State Attorney
General’s office, where he led landmark, multistate cases to protect consumers‘ online privacy and
 KamberLaw Firm Resume
Page 4

security in enforcement against DoubleClick, Ziff Davis Media, Eli Lilly (the prozac.com data breach),
and AOL/Netscape (SmartDownload spyware). In that role, he coordinated cases and policy issues
with regulators in the U.S. and abroad, consumer advocacy organizations, and Internet industry
representatives. Mr. Stampley gained extensive trial experience as an Assistant District Attorney in
the premier public prosecutor's organization, the Manhattan D.A.'s office. Among his 30 trials, he
served as co-counsel in People v. Edward Leary, the case of the Manhattan Subway Bomber.
For Neohapsis, a highly regarded provider of information risk management and security consulting
services, Mr. Stampley managed digital forensics services. He regularly served as a member of
Neohapsis’ consulting teams performing information technology audits. Mr. Stampley also served as
General Counsel, routinely reviewing the terms of engagements for Neohapsis’ expert services and
for Neohapsis’ engagement of expert service-providers.
In the private sector, he also served as Director of Privacy for Reynolds & Reynolds, a global Fortune
1000 technology solutions provider, where he integrated privacy and security compliance standards
into the solutions development life cycle. He regularly participated in the evaluation of privacy and
security standards for Reynold’s solutions and in its engagement of technology service providers.
Mr. Stampley served as an invited expert on the Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P) Vocabulary
Working Group of the WorldWide Web Consortium (W3C). He is a Certified Information Privacy
Professional and has been a Certified Information Systems Security Professional.
Mr. Stampley is a 1991 graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law where he was a Dillard
Fellow and received his B.A. from Mississippi State University in 1979. He clerked for the Honorable
Lenore L. Prather on the Supreme Court of Mississippi. He is admitted to practice in the State of
New York, the United States District Courts of the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and
the United States Supreme Court. Prior to entering the legal profession, Mr. Stampley worked in
application design and development in the information technology field.

Deborah Kravitz, senior counsel at KamberLaw, has a unique career history that spans the
corporate world, U.S. government, and a high-profile private practice. She has focused on complex
civil and criminal litigation, including SEC enforcement and securities litigation, white-collar criminal
defense, and corporate compliance. In addition to practicing with defense firms of national and
international stature, most recently with Heller Ehrman, Ms. Kravitz served as a federal prosecutor in
the Tax Division of the Department of Justice. In addition, as the chief compliance officer of a global
company serving the oil and gas industry, Ms. Kravitz was an integral member of the senior man-
agement team and was responsible for the implementation of a global compliance program during a
period of time when the company was under a deferred prosecution agreement arising from viola-
tions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This broad range of experience allows Ms. Kravitz to
develop practical solutions to a wide array of commercial, litigation, and compliance matters.
Ms. Kravitz graduated with honors from the University of Maryland School of Law in 1991, where she
was an assistant editor for the Law Review and member of the Moot Court Board. Following law
school, Ms. Kravitz clerked for the Honorable Deborah K. Chasanow in the U.S. District of Maryland.
Ms. Kravitz received her B.A. in International Studies from the Johns Hopkins University in 1987. She
is admitted to practice in the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Dana B. Rubin, a senior associate at KamberLaw, focuses on a wide range of class action issues.
Previously, Ms. Rubin played a role in numerous private and class actions on behalf of shareholders
and consumers. She has also represented both plaintiffs and defendants in employment litigation
and civil rights matters.
Ms. Rubin received her J.D. in 1999 from Fordham University School of Law, where she was an
Associate Editor of the Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal. She graduated with
honors from the University of Maryland, College Park in 1993. Ms. Rubin is admitted in the State
Courts of New York and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of
New York and is a member of the New York State Bar Association.
 KamberLaw Firm Resume
Page 5

Grace E. Parasmo, an associate at KamberLaw focuses on class action lawsuits involving

employment, consumer and antitrust claims. Previously Ms. Parasmo participated in cases involving
wage and hour claims, Truth in Lending Act violations, and consumer protection claims. She has
also worked in the New York State Attorney General’s office.
Ms. Parasmo received her J.D. in 2006 from New York Law School, where she was the Executive
Articles Editor for the New York Law School Law Review. She received a B.A. from Fordham
University. Ms. Parasmo is admitted in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and is a
member of the Federal Bar Council, the National Employment Lawyers Association, and the New
York County Lawyers’ Association.
EXHIBIT B
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ANDREW HILLMAN, et al.,

Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-08315-JGK
Plaintiffs,
v. [PROPOSED]
ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION
RINGLEADER DIGITAL, INC., et al., SETTLEMENT, JUDGMENT, AND
DISMISSAL
Defendants.

This matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to the Plaintiffs’ Notice of Mo-

tion For Approval Of Class Action Settlement; Plaintiffs’ Brief in Support of Motion for Ap-

proval of Class Action Settlement; Declaration of David A. Stampley; Declaration of Jeremy R.

Wilson; and the parties’ Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement”) (attached as Exhibit C to the

February 10, 2011 Declaration of David A. Stampley).

The Court, having considered all papers filed with the Court related to this issue and the

proceedings held herein, and taking into consideration the solely injunctive nature of the relief

agreed to by the parties and the lack of any relinquishing of rights to seek damages by the mem-

bers of Class other than Plaintiffs, and otherwise being fully informed in the premises and good

cause appearing therefore, hereby ORDERS as follows:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and all Class

members, and jurisdiction to consider and enter this Final Approval Order and Judgment.

2. The Court hereby finds that the Class meets all the requirements for certification

pursuant to 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Class is defined as:

All individuals or entities in the United States who, from

September 16, 2008 through the date of class certification, had a

1
 Ringleader Digital database or any other identifying tag or mark
placed on their mobile device by Ringleader Digital.

Excluded from the Class are the Judge in this case and the Judge’s
immediate family, the Court staff for this Court, and any judge or
staff involved in any appellate proceedings regarding this litiga-
tion.

3. In light of the fact that this Settlement is entered into pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the solely injunctive nature of the relief accorded under the

Settlement, and the lack of any relinquishing of rights to claims for damages by the members of

Class other than Plaintiffs, the Court finds that notice to the Class is unnecessary under Rule

23(c)(2).

4. The Court appoints as lead counsel, under Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, Scott A. Kamber and David A. Stampley of the law firm of KamberLaw, LLC

and Jeremy R. Wilson of the law firm of Wilson, Trosclair & Lovins, PLLC.

5. The parties conducted extensive arm’s-length negotiations, including a face-to-

face mediation session, in good faith that resulted in the proposed Settlement.

6. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court hereby

approves the Settlement and finds that said Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and

adequate with respect to the Class, and directs that the Settlement be consummated in accordance

with the terms and conditions set forth therein.

7. The Court hereby imposes the following injunction against Ringleader Digital,

Inc.:

a. Ringleader Digital will use commercially reasonable efforts to engage

with the Mobile Marketing Association to develop data-specific industry standards for the pri-

vacy and information security of mobile device advertising information—that is, standards gov-

2
erning the collection, use, and transfer of information from and about mobile device users that is

passed from publishers of websites designed for use with mobile devices to service providers

such as Ringleader Digital by means of mobile device-based web advertisement requests. If the

Mobile Marketing Association successfully develops such data-specific industry standards, Ring-

leader Digital will abide by them.

b. Ringleader Digital will delete and/or cause to be deleted all information in

its possession and/or control that has previously been collected using the mobile-device-resident

Ringleader Digital Global User Identification (“RLD GUID”) from mobile device users who

have opted out of the Ringleader Digital mobile advertising platform.

c. Ringleader Digital will abide by Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C)

standards that apply to storage of the Ringleader Digital mobile advertising platform RLD GUID

on mobile devices.

d. Ringleader Digital shall refer to and, where possible, provide a hyperlink

to the Ringleader Digital privacy policy in the database description for any Ringleader Digital

database stored on a user’s mobile device, to the extent permitted by mobile device operating

system.

e. Ringleader Digital will clarify opt-out language for its mobile advertising

platform to the extent necessary to ensure mobile device users are provided with clear notice of

the means to opt out via the RLD GUID, the means to preserve their opt-out choice, and the ef-

fect of opting out.

f. Ringleader Digital will not perform best match analysis or otherwise at-

tempt to uniquely identify mobile device users using information it acquires from the mobile de-

3
vices whose users have opted out via the RLD GUID of the Ringleader Digital mobile advertis-

ing platform.

g. For all mobile publishers with which Ringleader Digital agrees to provide

its targeted advertising technology, Ringleader Digital shall require by contract that such entity

comply with notice standards that substantially conform on those described in the Network Ad-

vertising Initiative’s (“NAI”) Self-Regulatory Code of Conduct (the “2008 Code”). In particular,

Ringleader Digital shall require, by contract, that the owner or operator of a website for which

Ringleader Digital provides targeted advertising services shall clearly and conspicuously post

notice, or ensure that such notice be made available in a clear and conspicuous manner on the

website where data are collected for targeted advertising purposes. Such notice shall contain (1)

a statement of the fact that targeted advertising is occurring; (2) a description of types of data

that are collected for targeted advertising by Ringleader Digital; (3) an explanation of how, and

for what purpose, that data will be used or transferred to third parties; and (4) a conspicuous link

to Ringleader Digital’s proprietary opt-out mechanism.

h. Ringleader Digital shall cause its opt-out databases shall carry a “0” modi-

fier to indicate opt-out status.

8. The injunctive provisions set forth above in paragraphs 7(a) through 7(h), above,

shall be in force through December 31, 2014.

9. Any person making a complaint for perceived violations of any provision con-

tained within paragraphs 7(a) through 7(h), above, must comply with the following procedures

concerning notice and opportunity to cure before pursuing any court action to enforce said terms:

If any person covered within the scope of this Injunction perceives a violation of any provision

contained in paragraphs 7(a) through 7 (h), such person shall notify Ringleader Digital of the

4
violation in writing (“Written Notice”), either (a) by letter, addressed to Ringleader Digital, Inc.,

286 Fifth Avenue, Sixth Floor, New York, New York 10001, or (b) by email, addressed to

[email protected]. Upon receipt of the Written Notice, Ringleader Digital shall

have thirty (30) days to investigate and opportunity to cure the perceived violation and notify the

complainant of its actions in response to the Written Notice. Only after Ringleader Digital has

been afforded thirty (30) days to investigate, cure the perceived violation, and notify the com-

plainant of its actions in response to the Written Notice shall the person(s) claiming that particu-

lar violation pursue a court action to enforce the terms contained in paragraphs 7(a) through 7

(h), above.

10. Solely as to the named Plaintiffs in this matter, Andrew Hillman, Charlie Augh-

enbaugh, Arlando Cooks, Marissa Dean, G.G., a minor by and through parent Rhonda Gueringer,

Ryan Groeneweg, Billy Gueringer, Dawn Harbin, Kenneth Harrison, J.N., a minor by and

through parent Semyon Narosov, Stephanie Owens, Maulik Parikh, Charmaine Smith, Brooke

Stafford, Tony Weber, Richard Weiner, and Steve Williams (the “Named Plaintiffs”), this matter

is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without costs, except as set forth in the Settlement.

11. Upon this Judgment’s becoming final, the above-captioned Named Plaintiffs, on

behalf of themselves, their successors, and their assigns, and any other persons now or in the fu-

ture claiming through or on behalf of them as individuals, shall be deemed to have, and by opera-

tion of this Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged

all of such Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Ringleader Digital, Inc., or its officers, directors,

employees, agents, attorneys, predecessors, successors, insurers, affiliates, and assigns, including

any and all actual or potential claims, actions, causes of action, liabilities, damages (whether ac-

tual, nominal, punitive, exemplary, or otherwise), injunctive relief, costs, fees, attorneys’ fees, or

5
penalties of any kind that, for the class period as defined in the Hillman and Aughenbaugh Liti-

gations (as defined herein) that: (i) arise in whole or in part out of, or relate to, the use of Ring-

leader Digital’s mobile device advertising platform and technology, including but not limited to

the Ringleader Digital Media Stamp technology; or (ii) are, have been, or could have been as-

serted under the same or similar claims alleged in Hillman, et al. v. Ringleader Digital, Inc., et

al., No. 10-CV-8315 (S.D.N.Y.) (the “Hillman Litigation”) or Aughenbaugh, et al. v. Ringleader

Digital, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:10-cv-01407-CJC –RNB (C.D. Cal.) the (“Aughenbaugh Litiga-

tion”).

12. This Judgment is a final judgment in this matter as to all claims among Defen-

dants, on the one hand, and Named Plaintiffs, on the other.

13. This Court finds, for purposes of Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-

dure, that there is no just reason for delay and expressly directs entry of judgment as set forth

herein.

14. As provided for in paragraph fourteen (14) of the Settlement, the Court approves

and orders an award in the amount of $__________ to pay Plaintiffs’ counsel’s attorneys’ fees

and costs to reimburse Plaintiffs’ counsel for payment of costs and expenses reasonably incurred

in prosecuting and settling of this matter. Such award shall be allocated amongst plaintiffs’ coun-

sel according to its contribution to the successful resolution of the case as determined in the ex-

ercise of reasonable discretion by Class Counsel. As provided for in paragraph eleven (11) of the

Settlement, the Court approves a incentive awards to Named Plaintiffs in this action in the

amount of $30,000, to be equally divided among the Named Plaintiffs.

15. Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, this Court hereby re-

tains exclusive jurisdiction over (a) implementation of the Settlement; (b) any award established

6
pursuant to the Agreement, including interest earned thereon; and (c) all other proceedings re-

lated to the implementation and enforcement of the terms of the Agreement and/or the Settle-

ment. The time to appeal from this Judgment shall commence upon its entry. Without limiting

the generality of the foregoing, any dispute concerning the provisions of this Judgment, includ-

ing but not limited to any suit, action or proceeding in which the provisions of this Judgment are

asserted as a defense in whole or in part to any claim or cause of action asserted by any named

Plaintiff herein or otherwise raised as an objection, shall constitute a suit, action or proceeding

arising out of or relating to this Judgment. Solely for purposes of any such suit, action or pro-

ceeding, to the fullest extent possible under applicable law, the named Defendants and the named

Plaintiffs herein are deemed to have irrevocably waived and to have agreed not to assert, whether

by way of motion, as a defense or otherwise, any claim, argument or objection that they are not

subject to the jurisdiction of this Court or that this Court is in any way an improper venue or an

inconvenient forum.

16. In the event that this Judgment does not become Final, this Judgment shall be

rendered null and void and shall be vacated, nunc pro tunc.

17. Without further order of the Court, the parties settling hereunder may agree to

reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Settlement.

Dated: _______________________

______________________________________
Hon. John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge

7
EXHIBIT C