Opinion

IN RE: AT&T INC. CUSTOMER DATA

SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION MDL No. 3114

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:∗ Pro se plaintiff in the action listed on Schedule A (Williams II) moves

under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the order conditionally transferring the action to the Northern

District of Texas for inclusion in MDL No. 3114. Defendant AT&T Inc. opposes the motion and

supports transfer.

After considering the parties’ arguments, we find that the action involves common

questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 3114, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C.

§1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient

conduct of the litigation. In our order establishing this MDL, we held that centralization was

warranted for actions concerning “an alleged data security breach announced by AT&T in

March 2024 concerning the personal information of over 70 million former and current AT&T

customers released on the dark web.”1 See In re AT&T Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,

737 F. Supp. 3d 1350, 1351-52 (J.P.M.L. 2024). The Williams II action involves overlapping

factual issues concerning the AT&T data breach announced in March 2024. Notably, plaintiff

filed a substantially similar action against AT&T in June 2024 that is pending in the MDL.2

Transfer will facilitate the efficient conduct of overlapping pretrial proceedings in Williams I and

Williams II, as well as the other actions in the MDL, and avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings.

In opposition to transfer, plaintiff principally argues that (1) she has opted out of the class

settlement in the MDL; (2) her individual action does not share sufficient common questions of

fact with the class-based issues in the MDL to support transfer; (3) transfer would be inconvenient;

and (4) her pro se status weighs against transfer. We find these arguments unpersuasive.

∗ Judge Karen K. Caldwell and Judge David C. Norton did not participate in the decision of this

matter.

1 The personal information allegedly compromised by the breach was from a 2019 data set and

included customer names, addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, dates of birth,

AT&T account numbers, and passcodes. See In re AT&T Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,

737 F. Supp. 3d at 1352 n.2.

2 See Williams v. AT&T, Inc., No. 24-01386 (N.D. Tex. filed June 6, 2024) (Williams I). Plaintiff

filed the action directly in the transferee district. On June 27, 2024, the transferee court ordered

Williams I consolidated for pretrial proceedings with the actions in MDL No. 3114.

First, we routinely transfer opt-out actions to MDLs with class settlements because of the

efficiencies to be gained from the transferee court’s management of overlapping actions and

expertise in the issues. Indeed, dozens of putative opt-out actions have been transferred to the

MDL on this basis.3 Settlement approval proceedings remain pending, and if the settlement is not

granted final approval, substantial pretrial proceedings will remain. Additionally, the transferee

court is in the best position to oversee proceedings in any actions that remain pending after

approval proceedings have concluded.

Moreover, transfer of plaintiff’s opt-out action does not “undo” her election to opt out of

the class settlement, as she puts it. As we often have observed, this MDL, like many others,

includes both individual and class-based actions, and transfer does not force a plaintiff to become

part of the settlement class.4

Second, the alleged case-specific damages and discovery in Williams II do not preclude

transfer. Section 1407 does not require a complete identity of common factual issues or parties

when the actions arise from a common factual core.5 Here, the pretrial proceedings in all actions

concerning the AT&T data breach will overlap, regardless of whether the claims are styled as

individual or class actions. The existence of individualized factual issues does not negate the

efficiencies gained by transfer.

Further, many of plaintiff’s alleged injuries – for example, increased risk of identity theft

and fraud, undertaking mitigation efforts, and emotional distress – are largely the same types of

injuries alleged in the MDL. Indeed, they are the same injuries alleged in the Williams I action

currently pending in the MDL. Inclusion of plaintiff’s duplicative action in the MDL maximizes

efficiency, rather than undercutting it.

Third, the alleged inconvenience and burden of a distant forum also is unpersuasive. The

Panel looks to “the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses in the litigation, not just those

of a single plaintiff or defendant in isolation.” See In re Watson Fentanyl Patch Prods. Liab. Litig.,

883 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1351-52 (J.P.M.L. 2012). Moreover, because transfer is for pretrial

proceedings only, there likely will be no need for plaintiff to travel to the transferee forum.

3 See, e.g., Transfer Order at 2, In re AT&T Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL No. 3114

(J.P.M.L. Aug. 7, 2025).

4 See, e.g., Transfer Order at 2, In re AT&T Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL No. 3114

(J.P.M.L. Sept. 30, 2025) (“Transfer does not force plaintiffs to litigate their claims as a class

action . . . . [T]hey will be provided an opportunity to opt out of the proposed class action settlement

currently pending in the MDL.”); Transfer Order at 1-2, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater

Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, MDL No. 2179 (J.P.M.L. June 8, 2012) (“[P]laintiffs’ contention

that transfer would deprive them of their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection

is unsupported by any authority. To the extent that the contention is grounded in dissatisfaction

with the proposed partial settlement reached in the MDL, plaintiffs are under no obligation to

participate in that settlement.”).

5 See In re Valsartan Prods. Liab. Litig., 433 F. Supp. 3d 1349, 1352 (J.P.M.L. 2019).

-3-

Fourth, it is well-settled that a plaintiff's pro se status does not preclude transfer. We

regularly transfer actions brought by pro se plaintiffs to MDLs to ensure that common pretrial

proceedings are coordinated. See, e.g., In re Snowflake, Inc., Data Sec. Breach Litig., 813 F. Supp.

3d 1349, 1351 (J.P.M.L. 2025). Plaintiff asserts that, as a pro se plaintiff, she will be excluded

from pretrial proceedings due to the complexities of the MDL’s leadership structure and pretrial

proceedings. But this argument is speculative and based on the presumption that plaintiffs’

leadership in the MDL cannot represent the interests of pro se plaintiffs in conducting pretrial

proceedings. We have rejected similar arguments in the past, observing that the common pretrial

proceedings in an MDL will inure to the benefit of individual plaintiffs and transfer will not deny

plaintiffs the opportunity to meaningfully participate in pretrial proceedings.°®

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action listed on Schedule A is transferred to the

Northern District of Texas and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Ada E.

Brown for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Matthew F. Kennelly

Acting Chair

Dale A. Kimball Madeline Cox Arleo

M. Casey Rodgers Richard Seeborg

® See e.g., In re Equifax, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL No. 2800, 2018 WL

3770539, at *2 & n.1 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 8, 2018) (transferring pro se action over due process objection

premised on potential “interference by . . . leadership counsel”; noting that “[w]hat has happened

and what remains to happen in [the] MDL will inure to the substantial benefit of litigants in later-

filed actions” and “that transfer does not deny plaintiff the opportunity to meaningfully participate

in pretrial proceedings before the transferee court”).

IN RE: AT&T INC. CUSTOMER DATA

SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION MDL No. 3114

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of California

WILLIAMS v. AT&T INC., C.A. No. 5:26−02458