In re Vizio, Inc.

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Plaintiff in an action pending in the Central District of California and the Vizio defendants1 each move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this , litigation in the Central District of California. This litigation consists of fifteen actions pending in seven districts, as listed on Schedule A. The Panel also has been notified of five related actions pending in three districts.2 All responding parties agree that centralization of these actions is appropriate, but they disagree as to the transferee district. In addition to the movants, plaintiffs in ten actions and potential tag-along actions support centralization in the Central District of California. .Plaintiff in the action pending in the Eastern District of Arkansas suggests centralization in that district. Plaintiff in the action pending in the Northern District of Indiana supports centralization in the Northern District of Indiana or, alternatively, in the Central District of California, Finally, plaintiffs in two potential tag-along actions pending in the Northern District of California suggest centralization in that district.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Central Dis*1376trict of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All the actions are putative nationwide class actions against Vizio arising from allegations that it violated its customers’ privacy rights by installing software on Vizio Smart TVs3 called “Smart Interactivity” that allowed Vizio to collect viewing data displayed on the customers’ televisions.4 Plaintiffs further allege that Vizio systematically shared the collected viewing data with third parties, who used this data to push targeted advertisements both to the Smart TV and to other devices (such as smart phones, desktop computers, and tablet computers) that shared the same internet connection. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

We are persuaded that the Central District of California is the appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Both defendants and a majority of the plaintiffs support centralization in the Central District of California. Eight of the twenty related actions (including the potential tag-along actions) are pending in the district. Also, Vizio’s headquarters is located in the Central District of California. Thus, the district is a convenient and accessible forum, relatively close to potential witnesses and evidence. The district also has the resources and capacity to efficiently handle this litigation. Finally, centralization before the Honorable Josephine L. Staton permits the Panel to assign this litigation to an able and experienced jurist who has not yet had the opportunity to preside over an MDL.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the Central District of California are transferred to the Central District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Josephine L. Staton for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

SCHEDULE A

MDL No. 2693 — IN RE: VIZIO, INC., CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION

Eastern District of Arkansas

OGLE, ET AL. v. VIZIO, INC., C.A. No. 4:15-00754

Central District of California

WATTS, ET AL. v. VIZIO HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:15-01860

WEISS v. VIZIO, INC., C.A. No. 8:15-01984

HODGES, ET AL. v. VIZIO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:15-02090

LEVINE v. VIZIO, INC., C.A. No. 8:15-02151

SLOAN v. VIZIO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:15-02166

MILEWSKI v. VIZIO HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:16-00156

*1377 Northern District of California

REED v. COGNITIVE MEDIA NETWORKS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:15-05217

JEWETT, ET AL. v. VIZIO., INC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:15-06281 EDDY v. VIZIO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00167 ANDERSON v. VIZIO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00409

Middle District of Florida

CRAIG v. VIZIO, INC., C.A. No. 5:16-00026

Southern District of Florida

DASSA, ET AL. v. VIZIO HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 9:16-80130

Northern District of Illinois

MASON v. VIZIO HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:15-11288

Northern District of Indiana

PAGOREK v. VIZIO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:15-00472