Zoom -consolidates 14 cases, reached a $85M (proposed) settlement, admits no wrongdoing

It is a pretty decent win for the affected class members, even sans class certification Zoom proffered 4,444 documents, equating to 26,480 pages of fact-related material for review…


On March 31, 2020 I created a long —painfully long thread which focused on Zoom, it’s security protocols and zoom-bombing. See archived Twitter thread, also see much longer twtext unrolled thread. At the time I noted that even if a fraction of the allegations in the first class action case were true, than Zoom should settle because going to (civil) trial would mean; discovery, interrogatories, bill of particulars and countless depositions —individually each of those would likely mean Zoom would have to open up their kimono. But collectively, all of the aforementioned would cause Zoom significant damage. And on March 31, 2020 I uploaded one (of what would become many) class action lawsuits to my Google Drive and Drieu v Zoom Class Action - Google Drive -note the date/time stamp of both files —I haven’t made any edits since it was originally uploaded some 17+ months ago)

To wit my Twitter Thread was then immediately swarmed and numerous accounts started tweeting response like:

  • You don’t know what You are talking about

  • Zoom doesn’t send data to China, Canada or Ireland

  • Zoom uses the utmost encryption and security protocols

  • Zoom bombing isn’t harmful

  • Facebook has nothing to do with Zoom <—patently false specious narrative consistently tweeted at me to either shut me up or muddy the facts.

Undeterred by the Twitter detractors, I proceeded down the SEC rabbit hole. To be clear there’s nothing remarkable in my research. I’ve long stated that if you want to know what’s really “happening” in a publicly traded company —then read their SEC filings because they contain a ton of actual facts. Not specious prognostications but actual raw facts. See April 2020 Archived Tweet, I mean FFS I even highlighted the relevant subsections of Zoom’s 2020 SEC filings -it’s literally the 23 et seq tweet in that March 2020 long Twitter thread

-I specifically gave my followers multiple (and direct) links of Zoom’s SEC filings. See the “investors” links embedded. Furthermore you might want to revisit Zoom’s recent SEC filings -in December 2020 Zoom disclosed to investors that both the DOJ (see December 2020 DOJ-OPA) and Two US Attorneys Office requested Zoom provide documents. You can read Zoom’s December 2020 blog where they provide “their side”

So the general and predictable response from Moi? I guess who know who was right and who was wrong… because over 17 months ago there was a total PITA Twitter account that repeatedly said Dear Zoom - settle go for a settlement agreement… JULY 31, 2021 HERE WE ARE👇🏻


RE: ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PRIVACY LITIGATION

CDCA Case No 5:20-cv-02155 (see CDCA-ECF Link) MOTION for Settlement (MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT) filed by Caitlin Brice, Heddi N. Cundle, Angela Doyle, Isabelle Gmerek, Kristen Hartmann, Peter Hirshberg, Therese Jimenez, Lisa T. Johnston, Oak Life Church, Saint Paulus Lutheran Church, Stacey Simins. Motion Hearing set for 10/21/2021 01:30 PM in San Jose, Courtroom 8, 4th Floor before Judge Lucy H. Koh. Responses due by 8/16/2021. Replies due by 8/23/2021

Below is an abbreviated summary of the settlement agreement (the Court still needs to approve the agreement);

  • Zoom is required to institute changes that will improve meeting security, enhance privacy disclosures and place safeguards in to protect consumer data.

  • Global Settlement timeframe of adversely impacted Zoom customers; March 30, 2016, to the date of the settlement (upon which the Court approves)

  • On March 11, 2021 the Coirt ruled that CDA-230 shielded Zoom from many of the Zoom-bombing complaints (see CDCA-ECF for the Court’s 41 page ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ZOOM’S MOTION TO DISMISS) -read pages

  • Compensation for class members: the members that actually paid for a zoom account will receive 15% of their subscription cost, however if the class member paid for “core Zoom meetings subscription” will receive up to $25, whichever ever amount is greater -see page 5, subsection entitled B “The Settlement’s Monetary Benefits” (see CDCA-ECF)

  • Attorneys representing the various classes and class members end up making the most. The attorneys are seeking up to 25% of fees which is equivalent to approximately >$25M

Section C. Injunctive Relief

Which reads in part;

Zoom has agreed to over a dozen major changes to its practices, designed to improve meeting security, bolster privacy disclosures, and safeguard consumer data. Limiting Zoom meeting Access and proactively altering Zoom meeting-host:

  • Zoom agreed to provide in-meeting notifications to make it easier for users to understand who can see, save, and share Zoom users’ information and content by alerting users when a meeting host or another participant uses a third-party application during a meeting

  • Zoom will ensure that its privacy statement will disclose the ability of Zoom users to share user data with third parties via integrations third party software, or otherwise to record meetings, and/or to transcribe meetings.


Important NEW policy Re Facebook Integration


I remember receiving a ton of hate-tweets that I was “uninformed…Zoom doesn’t integrate their service with Facebook…I was intentionally spread misinformation” well clearly someone was right and a whole bunch of trolls were wrong.
I now refer you to pages 6 & 7 of the proposed settlement agreement which explicitly states the following;

The Settlement also requires Zoom to;

  • (i) not reintegrate the Facebook SDK for iOS into Zoom meetings for a year and will request that Facebook delete any U.S. user data obtained from the SDK

  • (ii) develop and maintain, for at least three years, documented protocols and procedures for admitting third party applications for dissemination to users through Zoom’s “Marketplace”

  • (iii) develop and maintain a user-support ticket system for internal tracking of, and communication with users about reports of meeting disruptions

  • (iv) develop and maintain a documented process for communication with law enforcement about meeting disruptions involving illegal content, including dedicated personnel to report serial meeting disrupters to law enforcement

  • (v) develop and maintain security features such as waiting rooms for attendees, the suspend meeting activities button, and blocking of users from specific countries for a minimum of three years

  • The Settlement also requires Zoom to better educate users about the security features available to protect meeting security and privacy, through dedicated space on the Zoom website and banner-type notifications.

  • Zoom’s website will also have centralized information and links for parents whose children are using school-provisioned K-12 accounts

Again the Court still needs to approve the proposed settlement agreement, also see the Proposed Order (see CDCA-ECF or via my Scribd Account) re Proposed Settlement Agreement (also see CDCA-ECF or via my Scribd Account) -the proposed settlement is a byproduct intense negotiations, over the course of nine months and four separate mediation sessions. The parties agreed that should the Court approve the proposed settlement then the parties would seek to dismiss their respective cases “with prejudice” which would bar them from future litigation concerning the claims set forth in the various class action lawsuits. In short this is what you would refer to as equitable for all parties.

But on the balance Zoom came out on top, mainly because the proposed settlement required parties agreed that “Zoom admits no wrongdoing” —the caveat being CDA-230 does not immunize Zoom from liability as it relates to user data-privacy. But as the March 2021 Order makes clear Zoom was largely shielded by CDA-230. In addition the parties filed their Joint Case Management Report on July 31, 2021…

August 2, 2021 Docket Entry - cancellation of today’s (August 4, 2021) Case Management Conference

CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (see CDCA-ECF Docket Report).

Pursuant to this notice, the Further Case Management Conference is CONTINUED from August 4, 2021 to November 17, 2021 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 8, 4th floor, in San Jose, California before Judge Lucy H. Koh. A Joint Case Management Statement is due November 10, 2021

So now you should be up to speed. And yes it is both frustrating yet satisfying to know that back in March 2020 my predictions were correct and yet I’m not on Twitter. Which is probably good because undoubtedly if I was on Twitter I’d likely tag the various Twitter Accounts that harasses and trolled me —saying I was wrong. Yes some were wrong and someone was right. So here’s my message to those👇🏻 “people”

-Snarky Filey saying out loud “in your face losers”