This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Consumer Protection
Consumer Privacy Act

In re: Zoom Video Communications Inc. Privacy Litigation

Published: Aug. 13, 2021 | Result Date: Jul. 31, 2021 |

Case number: 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Settlement –  $85,000,000

Judge

Lucy H. Koh

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Tina Wolfson
(Ahdoot & Wolfson PC)

Theodore W. Maya
(Ahdoot & Wolfson PC)

Christopher E. Stiner
(Ahdoot & Wolfson PC)

Rachel R. Johnson
(Ahdoot & Wolfson PC)

Mark C. Molumphy
(Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP)

Tyson C. Redenbarger
(Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP)

Joseph W. Cotchett Jr.
(Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP)

Noorjahan Rahman
(Cotchett, Pitre & Mccarthy LLP)

Julia Q. Peng
(Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP)


Defendant

Michael G. Rhodes
(Cooley LLP)

Travis G. LeBlanc
(Cooley LLP)

Kathleen R. Hartnett
(Cooley LLP)

Benjamin H. Kleine
(Cooley LLP)


Facts

Plaintiffs, Caitlin Brice, Heddi N. Cundle, Angela Doyle and others, filed class action suits against Zoom Communications Inc., which provides video conferencing services, alleging security and privacy concerns, all of which were consolidated into one action.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: The operative complaint alleged that Zoom's representations about the encryption on its application were misleading based on the definition of the relevant terminology, that Zoom's iOS app shared users' data with Facebook, and that Zoom offered an integration with LinkedIn which allowed Zoom users to view other Zoom users' LinkedIn profiles. Lastly, plaintiffs alleged that Zoom had failed to counteract "Zoombombing," a practice where uninvited third parties would interfere with video-conferences in progress, at times interjecting offensive content.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Zoom denied any liability, but has agreed to a settlement under which it will take additional steps to further protect user privacy.

Result

A cash fund of $85 million will be established with a subset of eligible paid subscribers qualifying for a refund of 15 percent of the money they paid to Zoom or $25 (whichever is greater) while other eligible users will receive $15. Zoom also agreed to over a dozen changes to its practices, designed to improve meeting security, bolster privacy disclosures and safeguard consumer data. For example, Zoom has committed not to reintegrate the Facebook Software Development Kit (SDK) into the Zoom iOS app for a year, and will request that Facebook delete any U.S. user data obtained from the SDK.


#137562

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390