Zoom Class Action Says Webinar Hacked With Child Porn

UPDATE: On Dec. 2, 2020, Zoom filed a motion to dismiss several class action lawsuits filed this year claiming privacy invasions and harm. 

Video conferencing platform Zoom is facing a class action lawsuit after allegedly allowing a 400-person video conference to be interrupted by child pornography.

Plaintiff Victor Rios, an associate dean in the University of Southern California, Santa Barbara’s social sciences department, filed the class action lawsuit June 2, claiming the company is responsible for two such incidents on a webinar he was hosting on April 30. 

Rios says Zoom allowed a “known offender” — someone who had already been reported to the authorities multiple times — to “Zoombomb” everyone on the webinar with pornographic images portraying an adult performing a sexual act on a crying infant. 

Because of the disturbing and traumatizing nature of the videos, two participants in Rios’ video conference have filed worker’s compensation claims.

Webinar attendees had their screens hijacked and their control buttons disabled, the class action lawsuit says.

Rios contacted Zoom immediately following the Zoombomb incident, only to be told the offender, identified as Christine (iPad), was “a known serial offender who disrupts open meetings by showing the same video, which has been reported multiple times to the authorities.” Yet Zoom has been unable to stop the attacks.

Rios accuses Zoom of unlawful sharing of users’ information with third-parties, including Facebook; failing to safeguard users’ personal information; failure to provide adequate security; and “unfair, unlawful, and deceptive business practices related to Zoom’s data security.”

The demand for Zoom’s service has increased exponentially as people around the globe have faced stay-at-home orders because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Millions of people have been using the service for business, recreation and staying in touch with family remotely; the number of meeting participants on Zoom has increased from 10 million in December to 200 million in March, according to Rios’ complaint.

News reports from several outlets in early April revealed Zoom uses data-mining tools to collect user information and shares it with third-parties without users’ permission. 

Rios’ Zoom lawsuit says Zoom videos aren’t end-to-end encrypted, Zoom has the technical ability to “spy on video conferences” and, if compelled, to reveal the contents of the conferences to the government or others without users’ consent.

Zoom maintains on its website that it does, in fact, end-to-end encrypt its videos.

Twenty-seven state attorneys general and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have expressed concern over Zoom’s security practices.

Zoom’s website warns users it collects data via cookies and advertising tracking technologies unless the users’ cookie settings are adjusted, Rios’ complaint says. 

Though Zoom’s privacy policy concedes that the term “use” might include the ability to sell information, the company insists it is not selling the data.

According to Rios’ Zoom class action lawsuit, an April 15 report on BleepingComputer, an information security and technology news publication, revealed hackers were selling half a million Zoom accounts on the dark web.

In some cases, the accounts were given away for free “to be used in Zoombombing pranks and other malicious activities,” the class action lawsuit says.

As a result, Rios and other putative Class Members are subject to increased risk of harm to their privacy.

The class action lawsuit, filed in California, accuses Zoom of violating the California Consumer Privacy Act, California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, common law and Article 1 of the California Constitution.

Rios’ complaint is not the only Zoom lawsuit to be filed recently. 

A church in California filed a class action lawsuit against Zoom in May. The church claims a Bible study meeting was interrupted by a hacker who displayed a disturbing video. 

Again, as in Rios’ Zoom lawsuit, the hackers behind the incident were known offenders.

In yet another case, a Texas woman claims her online pole-dancing and burlesque classes were viewed by “uninvited men” due to a Zoom glitch. She had been teaching the classes online after her physical location was shut down due to coronavirus concerns.

Rios’ Zoom lawsuit seeks a jury trial and “actual, compensatory, consequential, punitive, and treble” damages, including statutory damages available under CCPA; pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees; and any other relief deemed proper. 

The Zoom class action lawsuit also asks for the Court to stop Zoom’s unfair and unlawful business practices and to declare Zoom liable for “negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.”

In addition, Rios asks that Zoom return all benefits and profits retained through the misconduct alleged in the complaint.

Have you experienced an inappropriate intrusive video while on a Zoom conference call? Tell us the story in the comments below.

Rios is represented by John L. Fallat, Timothy J. Tomlin and Mark A. Vaughn of the Law Offices of John L. Fallat.

The Zoom Child Pornography Class Action Lawsuit is Victor M. Rios, et al. v. Zoom Video Communications Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-03670, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Flight Attendants Seek $60 Million in Virgin America Wage Lawsuit

Banner Bank May Charge an Overdraft Fee Inappropriately

Lyft Class Action Claims the Rideshare App Sends Unauthorized Texts

Car Dealership TCPA Violations: Text Message Spam, Robocalls, Cell Phone Calls & Prerecorded Messages