In Williams v. Pillpack LLC, No. 3:19-cv-05282-DGE, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46640, at *5-9 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 20, 2023), Judge Estudillo approved a reverse-lookup class administration plan.

PillPack objects to Mr. Williams’s proposed notice plan because “(1) the reverse lookup process is an inaccurate and unreliable methodology to identify class members; and (2) Plaintiff’s proposed process lacks steps to verify the accuracy of the reverse lookup results and will result in notice being sent to an over- and under-inclusive list of individuals.” (Dkt. No. 267 at 12.) PillPack argues the reverse lookup process is unreliable and Mr. Williams’s proposed notice plan will be both over and underinclusive of potential class members. (See id. at 12-14.) PillPack points, for example, to Transunion’s own admission to PillPack’s counsel that the company’s ‘”data is sometimes entered poorly, processed incorrectly, and generally not free from defect. TLO Products should not be relied upon as accurate.”‘ (Dkt. No. 270 at 2.) Additionally, PillPack argues that Mr. Williams’s proposed notice plan “lacks any steps to verify the accuracy of the reverse lookup results and fails to explain how deficiencies in the reverse lookup process would be corrected.” (Dkt. No. 267 at 14.) PillPack does not suggest any alternatives to the notice plan proposed by Mr. Williams.  The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s notice plan is largely reasonable and will provide the best notice as is practicable to class members. Despite PillPack’s protestations, the Court has found on multiple occasions that the reverse lookup process is an adequate starting point to provide notice to class members. (Dkt. Nos. 140 at 14; 259 at 15.) The Court sees no compelling reason to overturn its prior findings.  While the Court recognizes the reverse lookup process may not yield perfect results, that is not the standard for class notice. Rather, the Court is directed to provide “the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) (emphasis added). “[T]he word ‘reasonable’ cannot be ignored. In every case, reasonableness is a function of anticipated results, costs, and amount involved. A burdensome search through records that may prove not to contain any of the information sought clearly should not be required.” In re Nissan Motor Corp. Antitrust Litig., 552 F.2d 1088, 1099 (5th Cir. 1977). Ultimately, “[d]ue process does not require actual notice or actual receipt for every class member. And the Court’s analysis does not focus on the rate of actual notice received by class members.” LaVigne v. First Cmty. Bancshares, Inc., 330 F.R.D. 293, 296 (D.N.M. 2019) (internal citation omitted); see also Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654, 665 (7th Cir. 2015) (“While actual individual notice may be the ideal, due process does not always require it.”).  There is ample support for the use of reverse lookup procedures in providing individual notice to class members in TCPA cases. See, e.g., Hand v. Beach Ent. Kc, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-00668, 2021 WL 199729, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 19, 2021) (“Even if the reverse look-up results in some people receiving notice who are not class members, overbreadth does not require Hand to proffer a different notice plan.”); Chinitz, 2020 WL 7042871, at *3; LaVigne, 330 F.R.D. at 296. The Court also notes that PillPack does not put forward an alternative method of notification that is preferable to the one proposed by Mr. Williams. See LaVigne, 330 F.R.D. at 297 (approving a class notice plan in the absence of an alternate proposal from the defendants).  Nonetheless, the Court acknowledges that the current procedure to provide notice to class members may be overinclusive and exercises its considerable discretion to modify in part the proposed notice plan. Where the Class List and reverse lookup process provide conflicting names of class plaintiffs or where the reverse lookup process itself produces conflicting or multiple names, the Court DIRECTS that Mr. Williams subpoena the relevant wireless carriers to determine, if possible, the identity of the owner of the telephone number at the time the call was transferred to PillPack and to provide notice only to those individuals. To the extent such efforts [*9] fail to identify a single individual associated with a phone number on the class list, Epiq may then either email or physically mail notice to multiple individuals. The Court otherwise APPROVES Mr. Williams’s class notice plan.