--- title: "Economics Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Technical Difficulties" meta: "og:description": "The economics expert was barred from opining on the technical difficulties Amazon would face in trying to reduce the number of false wakes" "og:title": "Economics Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Technical Difficulties" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "The economics expert was barred from opining on the technical difficulties Amazon would face in trying to reduce the number of false wakes" --- # Economics Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Technical Difficulties Posted on April 20, 2026 by Expert Witness Profiler This class action lawsuit arises out of Amazon’s practice of using smart-speaker technology (“Alexa”) to surreptitiously: (a) intercept; (b) eavesdrop; (c) record; (d) disclose; or (e) use millions of Americans’ voices and communications, all without their knowledge or consent. Such conduct blatantly violates Washington’s wiretapping law, which applies nationwide to Plaintiffs and all members of the Class. Defendants here, Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC (collectively, “Amazon” or “Defendants”), are therefore liable as a result of their egregious violations of the State Wiretapping laws – and are also liable for their violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (“Federal Wiretap Act”), and the Stored Communications Act of 1986 (“SCA”). Plaintiffs Kaeli Garner, Jodi Brust, Diane McNealy, Michael McNealy, Ricky Babani, Jeffrey Hoyt, Lorlie Tesoriero, Ronald Johnson, Selena Johnson and Caron Watkins (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought this action individually, and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals, to redress those violations of law. Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude Defendants’ expert, [Lorin Hitt](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Lorin-Hitt/1531861), because (a) his opinions do not rebut the opinions offered by Plaintiffs’ experts and are untimely, (b) they are not supported by relevant experience, knowledge, or expertise, and (c) they are unreliable. ## **Economics Expert Witness** [Lorin Moultrie Hitt](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Lorin-Hitt/1531861) has decades of experience teaching and researching “the economics of consumer behavior, firm organization, and market structure, with particular emphasis on the role of information on pricing, performance, and competition.” He received his Bachelor and Master of Science degrees in electrical engineering from Brown University in 1988 and 1989, respectively, with a Ph.D. in management from MIT in 1996 that focused on economics and statistics. Hitt has written on the pricing and management of information products/services, the influence of information on consumer behavior in the online retail sphere, and how privacy concerns influence consumer choices. He has also been involved in consumer class actions, using various modeling techniques to measure economic injury, particularly in class actions involving data security incidents and the misuse of personal information. [Get the full story on challenges to Lorin Hitt’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1531861&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** ### **A. Knowledge and Expertise** #### **1. Legal Conclusions** Plaintiffs argued that Hitt is not qualified to opine on what the law requires to state an invasion of privacy or intrusion upon seclusion claim. Hitt is an economist with experience and expertise in the impacts of information and privacy concerns on consumer behavior. He also has experience modeling and measuring damages in consumer class actions. While causation/reliance may be presumed for purposes of a CPA claim where the act or conduct at issue is an omission, the presumption is rebuttable and it may not apply to all of the causes of action asserted by Plaintiffs in this case. Hitt’s opinion that causation and/or damages cannot be accurately determined in this case without considering individualized factors is within his area of expertise and is a legitimate avenue through which to critique Plaintiffs’ damages theory. #### **2. Hardware and Computer Processing Opinions** Hitt offered opinions regarding the technical difficulties Amazon would face in trying to reduce the number of false wakes and the hidden costs of preventing Amazon from relying on and utilizing the voice recordings of Alexa users. Hitt studies “markets generally and markets for personal information specifically.” While his expertise and knowledge arguably form a basis for modeling the market for voice recordings (including demand, pricing, and the impact of the seller’s privacy concerns), they are inadequate to support opinions regarding hardware requirements and software limitations or trade-offs. Nor did his regurgitation of “academic literature” serve any purpose or form the basis of any opinion that is within his knowledge and expertise. #### **3. Markets and Valuation** Plaintiffs argued that Hitt lacked the necessary qualifications to opine regarding the market for voice recordings and that his degrees in economics have no bearing on this case. The Court found these arguments unpersuasive given his experience, expertise, and curriculum vitae. ### **B. Reliability and Relevance** #### **1. Use of a Research Team** Plaintiffs objected to Hitt’s use of a research team from Cornerstone Research to assist in the collection and analysis of documents. An expert’s use of support staff, be they Ph.D. students, employees, or a third-party, in the preparation of a report is neither unusual nor prohibited. Plaintiffs argued, however, that Hitt had nothing to do with the selection or review of the documents on which his report relies and that his proffered opinions are therefore unsupported by any facts or evidence. This argument ignored significant portions of Hitt’s deposition testimony and misquotes others. The actual testimony showed that, after consultations with counsel and Cornerstone Research, Hitt outlined an initial report, identified relevant documents, and indicated areas where additional support and analysis were needed. While Cornerstone Research was free to obtain other documents to support the requested analyses, the report was prepared under Hitt’s direction, using an iterative process, and he reviewed any documents on which the report relies. As a result, the Court overruled the Plaintiffs’ objection. #### **2. Failure to Conduct Independent Research or Identify Supporting Evidence** Plaintiffs argued that Hitt’s opinions regarding consumers’ privacy preferences should be excluded because (a) he failed to conduct his own research and (b) the sources on which he relied are irrelevant or contradict his conclusions. Hitt opined that “consumers (in aggregate) do not appear to materially change their behavior when information about Amazon’s retention and use of Alexa Recordings became more available.” While Hitt’s conclusions regarding consumer preferences are not unassailable, shaky but admissible evidence is to be attacked by cross examination, contrary evidence, and attention to the burden of proof, not exclusion. #### **3. Analytical Gaps and Internal Inconsistencies** Plaintiffs argued that Hitt’s opinions regarding consumer privacy preferences are inadmissible because the studies he relied upon relate to other forms of personal information disclosed in other contexts. Those studies are used to support the proposition that there is a “privacy paradox” between what individuals say they intend to or are willing to disclose and their actual behavior. Plaintiffs did not explain why the cited studies are insufficient for that purpose. Hitt’s opinions regarding consumer privacy preferences are partly based on his analysis of media coverage between 2014 and 2024 regarding how Alexa works and whether there was a change in the number of users or purchases during periods of intensive coverage. Plaintiffs pointed out the superficiality of this analysis: Hitt searched “major” news and business publications on “Factiva” for articles that mention “Alexa” and/or “Echo” in conjunction with a wide range of marginally relevant “keywords.” He then reviewed the headlines of the 4,995 hits and excluded articles that seemed to be unrelated to false wakes or Amazon’s retention/use of voice recordings. Once periods of heightened media coverage were identified, Hitt (or his team) attempted to identify what precipitated the coverage and included an example quotation in the chart at Figure 2 of his report. As long as Hitt refrained from suggesting that all of the practices and conduct about which plaintiffs complain were disclosed in the articles represented in Figure 2, Plaintiffs’ other criticisms of his analysis go to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility. ## **Held** The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert, Lorin Hitt. ## **Key Takeaway:** Ultimately, the test under _[Daubert](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard)_ is not the correctness of the expert’s conclusions but the soundness of his methodology. The Court is a gatekeeper, not a fact finder. Accordingly, the district court is not tasked with deciding whether the expert is right or wrong, just whether his testimony has substance such that it would be helpful to a jury. Please refer to the blog previously published about this case: [Computer Science Expert’s Testimony on the Value of Data Admitted](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/computer-science-experts-testimony-on-the-value-of-data-admitted) [Privacy Expert’s Testimony on Alexa Users Limited](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/privacy-experts-testimony-on-alexa-users-limited) [Marketing Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Consumer Reaction](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/marketing-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-consumer-reaction) ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Law And Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Contract Formation](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-20T213123.718.jpg) [**Law And Legal Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Contract Formation**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/economics-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-technical-difficulties/law-and-legal-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-contract-formation)![Economics Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Technical Difficulties](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-20T192020.223.jpg) [**Economics Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Technical Difficulties**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/economics-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-technical-difficulties/economics-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-technical-difficulties)![Hospitality Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Guest Safety](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-20T153714.677.jpg) [**Hospitality Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Guest Safety**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/economics-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-technical-difficulties/hospitality-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-guest-safety)![Radiology Expert was Allowed to Opine on the Extent of the Injuries](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-17T212119.557.jpg) [**Radiology Expert was Allowed to Opine on the Extent of the Injuries**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/economics-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-technical-difficulties/radiology-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-the-extent-of-the-injuries)![Radiology Expert Allowed to Opine on Emergency Care](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-17T151703.135.jpg) [**Radiology Expert Allowed to Opine on Emergency Care**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/economics-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-technical-difficulties/radiology-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-emergency-care)