LifeLock 2015 Annual Report Download - page 289

Case 3:15-cv-00258-HSG Document 49-1 Filed 11/04/15 Page 131 of 289
Membership Programs” and, as described herein, LifeLock’s network and services are severely limited and/or restricted, LifeLock’s service guarantee does
not cover a variety of identity theft instances and/or losses incurred by LifeLock’s customers.
101. Thus, upon information and belief, LifeLock’s $1 Million Service Guarantee is illusory. Demonstrating the illusory nature of LifeLock’s
guarantee, LifeLock Senior Vice President Mike Prusinski reported that as of September 27, 2011, the largest payout under the service guarantee was
approximately $2,500 (a fraction of 1% of the $1 Million Total Service Guarantee).

102. Through its advertising, website, and Service Terms, LifeLock made analogous offers to Plaintiffs and the members of the Class to protect their
identity by, among other things, providing “comprehensive” protection that “banks and credit card companies” cannot provide, “up-to-the-minute” alerts,
adequate safeguards and personnel, and a $1 Million Total Service Guarantee. See Ex. 4 (LifeLock client agreement).
103. Plaintiffs and the Class accepted LifeLock’s offer and provided consideration through payment of Membership Fees.
104. Upon information and belief, all relevant contracts contain a clause stating:
…any Services provided hereunder will be governed by the laws of the State of Arizona, without regard to any laws that would direct the choice of
another state’s laws and, where applicable, will be governed by the federal laws of the United States.
Accordingly, class-wide application of Arizona law is appropriate.
105. LifeLock breached its contract with Plaintiffs and the members of the Class by making material misrepresentations about the agreement and its
services.
106. Up to 3 million people paid on average between $10.00 and $30.00 for a service LifeLock promised, but did not – and could not – provide. In
reliance on that promise, those who subscribed to LifeLock’s products at worst were left unprotected and suffered further harm, and at best were paying for a
service that they were not receiving.
1279432.1 - 25 - AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-258