Zoom Mutes Claims in Class Action Lawsuits Over Data Sharing, ‘Zoombombing’

Zoom convinced a federal judge to trim claims in consolidated class action lawsuits accusing the popular remote meeting platform of illegally sharing data and failing to shield users from “Zoombombings.” 

Zoom, which skyrocketed in popularity as most workplaces were forced to go remote under coronavirus lockdowns, was named as a defendant in several class action lawsuits last year. Users accused the company of sharing information with third parties, such as Facebook and LinkedIn, without permission. Users also blamed the online platform for uninvited guests crashing their Zoom meetings, a move dubbed as “Zoombombing.” The claims were consolidated in California federal court in July 2020.

Zoom asked a judge to toss the class action lawsuits back in December, calling the claims baseless and misdirected.

In a ruling issued late last week, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh seemed to agree with Zoom about some of the claims, however the judge allowed allegations regarding Zoom’s business practices and breach of contract to remain. 

Zoom argued that a provision in federal law immunizing web service providers from the actions of third parties on its platforms shielded the company from allegations that it should have done more to protect users from Zoombombings. The provision is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and Judge Koh agreed that Zoom was immune from claims stemming from third parties who subjected unwitting meeting participants to disruptive material.  

“The bulk of Plaintiffs’ Zoombombing claims lie against the ‘Zoombombers’ who shared heinous content, not Zoom itself,” noted the judge in her order. “Zoom merely ‘provid[ed] neutral tools for navigating’ its service.” 

Judge Koh also dismissed class action lawsuit claims based on California privacy law, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate the private data they alleged was disclosed by Zoom.  

“Plaintiffs must … allege facts that plausibly show that plaintiffs’ private data was disclosed, such as facts ‘regarding the participants in the conversations, the locations of the conversations or examples of content from the conversations’ in which plaintiffs’ private data was disclosed,” pointed out the judge in her order. “Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead these facts.” 

Though Zoombombing and privacy claims were trimmed, the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to amend their allegations. In addition, Zoom will still face claims it violated its contract with users.  

Are you concerned about Zoombombings or your privacy on Zoom? Do you used the platform? Tell us what you think in the comment section below.  

The plaintiffs are represented by Ahdoot & Wolfson, Cotchett Pitre, Gibbs Law Group LLP, Gustafson Gluek, Outride Safier, Hartley LLP, Loevy & Loevy, Lowey Dannenberg, Morgan & Morgan, along with others. 

The Zoom Privacy Class Action Lawsuits are In re: Zoom Video Communications Inc. Privacy Litigation, Case No. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. 

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Zoom Class Action Says Virtual Pole Dancing Class Crashed
• Zoom Class Action Says Bible Study Interrupted By Porn
• Do You Qualify: Data Breach Lawsuit Claim Review
• Credit and Debit Card Receipt Privacy Lawsuit Investigation