By Bonnie Eslinger
LA California federal judge last Thursday gave swift and final approval to Zoom’s US$85 million deal ending class action privacy and data security claims over so-called Zoombombing disruptions and other concerns, saying she didn’t need to hear an objector’s arguments because she’d already read the parties’ written submissions.
Minutes into last Thursday’s proceedings, US Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler said she was prepared to issue a final approval order.
Then Ari Brown, a lawyer for objector Judith Cohen, spoke up. “Can objectors be heard?” he asked.
The judge said no.
“I’m not going to have a hearing on the objectors,” she said. “Thank you for your submissions. I did consider them.”
In their motion for final approval of the settlement, the plaintiffs noted that in October, US District Judge Lucy H. Koh had granted preliminary approval to the agreement reached with Zoom Video Communications Inc.
Judge Koh also certified a nationwide settlement class of people who downloaded, opened, used or registered the Zoom meetings application between March 30, 2016, and the present.
“There is no reason to depart from the court’s preliminary conclusion that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable,” the plaintiff’s motion for final approval said.
In her written objection, Judith Cohen said she and other members of the class who used Zoom’s services as part of a business that was legally or contractually required to maintain client confidentiality are getting a raw deal by the settlement.
“Whereas the proposed settlement addresses the privacy interests of general Zoom users, it ignores the harm to class members who used Zoom to conduct meetings that they were obligated to keep confidential,” said Cohen, who tells the court that she is a licensed mental health counselor.
While other class members say they overpaid for video conference services that turned out not to be encrypted, class members like Cohen suffered different harms, she said. The lack of confidentiality exposes them to potential legal and professional consequences.
“Moreover, because confidentiality is a material part of the services they provide, the public perception that the Zoom platform they use are compromised likely have a chilling effect on their respective businesses,” she said.
Instead of trying to address the shortcoming, the lead plaintiffs have suggested that these class members should just exclude themselves and file an individual claim, the objector said.
Brown said his client intends to appeal the court’s approval of the settlement. The deal shields Zoom from liability, and now a professional sued by a client over a confidentiality breach can’t file a third-party claim against the video conference provider.
“Hopefully this will have a hearing in the Ninth Circuit,” he said.
The claims were brought by 11 individuals and two churches who accused Zoom of unlawfully sharing their personal data with unauthorized third parties such as Facebook and LinkedIn, failing to prevent malicious meeting disruptions known as “Zoombombings,” and misrepresenting the strength of its encryption protocols.
In March, Judge Koh allowed the users to move forward with four claims alleging contractual breaches and unfair business practices, while dismissing with leave to amend five other claims, including those tied to Zoom’s purported unauthorized data sharing and the company’s alleged negligence.
According to the deal, users who paid for a Zoom account will be eligible to receive 15 per cent of the money they paid for their subscription during the class period or US$25, whichever is greater. Those class members not eligible to submit a paid subscription claim can make a claim for US$15, the deal states.
Those claim amounts could go up or down, depending on the number of claims made, according to the settlement, and any money left over will be given to two nonprofits: the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
The deal also provides class counsel with a 25 per cent cut of the US$85 million settlement fund, or US$21.25 million, according to the motion for final approval.
Along with the monetary fund, Zoom agreed to more than a dozen major changes to its practices, designed to “improve meeting security, bolster privacy disclosures and safeguard consumer data,” the motion for final approval said.
The deal also requires Zoom to develop and maintain a user-support ticket system for tracking reports of meeting disruptions, a documented process for communicating with law enforcement about meeting disruptions involving illegal content, and security features like waiting rooms for attendees, a suspend-meeting button and the ability to block users from specific countries.
Other objections were also filed against the deal, including one from two class members, Sammy Rodgers and Alvery Neace, who said the claim form misleadingly stated that evidence was required, so “many people, including objectors, did not submit a claim.”
Counsel for the users did not immediately respond last Thursday to a request for comment on the settlement’s approval. Counsel for Zoom declined to comment.
The users are represented by co-lead counsel Tina Wolfson, Robert R. Ahdoot, Theodore Maya, Bradley K. King, and Christopher Stiner of Ahdoot & Wolfson PC and Mark Molumphy, Tyson Redenbarger, Noorjahan Rahman, Julia Peng and Elle Lewis of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP.
Zoom is represented by Michael G. Rhodes, Travis LeBlanc, Kathleen R. Hartnett and Benjamin Kleine of Cooley LLP.
Objector Judith Cohen is represented by John Edward Giust of The Law Offices of John Giust and Ari Y. Brown.
The case is In re: Zoom Video Communications Inc. Privacy Litigation, case number 3:20-cv-02155, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
–Additional reporting by Lauren Berg, Emma Whitford, Allison Grande and Ben Kochman. Editing by Alex Hubbard.
