Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 1 of 28
`
`DAVID J. GALLO (California Bar No. 127722)
`LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. GALLO
`12702 VIA CORTINA, SUITE 500
`DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92014
`Telephone: (858) 509-3652
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
`S. WESTRON, and J. MILNE
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`S. WESTRON, and
`J. MILNE,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`ZOOM VIDEO
` COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a
` Delaware corporation,
`Defendants.
`
`Case Number:
`
`COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF THE
`NON-AMERICAN PEOPLES OF THE
`FIVE EYES COUNTRIES;
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`
`55555555555555555555555555555555
`
` 5
`444444444444444444444444444444444448
`
`
`COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF THE NON-AMERICAN PEOPLES OF THE
`FIVE EYES COUNTRIES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – PAGE 1
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 2 of 28
`
`JURISDICTION
`This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims for relief
`1.
`asserted herein pursuant to Title 28, U.S.C., Section 1332(d)(2)(B).
`
`VENUE
`Venue of this civil action is properly fixed in the Northern District of
`2.
`California, pursuant to Title 28, U.S.C.,Section 1391(b)(2); at least a substantial part,
`and likely all, of the wrongful conduct which is the subject of this civil action were
`planned, directed, and perpetrated within the Northern District of California.
`
`DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on such basis aver, that all, or at
`3.
`least a substantial part, of the events and/or omissions giving rise to the claims
`asserted herein occurred within the County of Santa Clara, California. (Cf.: Civil L.R.
`3-2(c).)
`
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff, S. Westron (hereinafter “Westron”), is an individual citizen
`4.
`of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter the “UK”).
`Plaintiff, J. Milne (hereinafter “Milne”), is an individual citizen of New
`5.
`Zealand who, during at least some of the times relevant hereto, has been domiciled in
`Australia.
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon aver, that Defendant,
`6.
`Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (hereinafter “Zoom”), is a corporation organized
`and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware, whose principal place of
`business is within the Northern District of California.
`///
`///
`///
`
`COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF THE NON-AMERICAN PEOPLES OF THE
`FIVE EYES COUNTRIES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – PAGE 2
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 3 of 28
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`On or about 21 April 2022, this Court granted final approval of a class-
`7.
`action settlement in the civil action (hereinafter the “Prior Litigation”) styled, “In
`re: Zoom Video Communications, Inc. Privacy Litigation”, Case No. 3:20-cv-02155-
`LHK in the above-captioned court. (See, Prior Litigation Document 249.)
`8.
`Judgment was entered the same day. (See, Prior Litigation Document
`
`250.)
`
`The Settlement Class in the Prior Litigation was limited by its express
`9.
`terms to, “... Persons in the United States ...” (See, Prior Litigation Document 191-1,
`Page 9, at § 1.40.)
`10.
`The limitation of the Settlement Class in the Prior Litigation to, “...
`Persons in the United States ...”, did not result from inadvertence.
`11.
`The limitation of the Settlement Class in the Prior Litigation to, “...
`Persons in the United States ...”, excluded the people of Australia, Canada, New
`Zealand, and the United Kingdom.
`12.
`The people of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom,
`share our values, our common language (see, Cal. Const., art. III, § 6), and even
`the common law (see, Civ. Code, § 22.2).
`13.
` Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, are so closely
`aligned with the United States that they are the five parties to the Five Eyes agreement,
`a long-standing secret intelligence agreement that allocates electronic surveillance
`collection among the five states and anticipates a high level of coordination and
`intelligence sharing. See, ex rel., Intelligent Waves, LLC v. United States, 135 Fed.Cl.
`299, 302 n.1 (2017).
`14.
`The members of the proposed Plaintiff Class described, infra, are so
`numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. Zoom’s SEC Form 10-K, filed
`18 March 2021, states that Zoom’s, “... platform addresses the communications needs
`
`
`COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF THE NON-AMERICAN PEOPLES OF THE
`FIVE EYES COUNTRIES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – PAGE 3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 4 of 28
`
`of users worldwide, and [Zoom] see[s] international expansion as a major
`opportunity.” The same document recites that thirty-one percent (31%) of Zoom’s
`total revenue in the year commencing 1 February 2020, and concluding 31 January
`2021, was derived from marketing areas to which Zoom refers as Asia-Pacific
`(“APAC”), and Europe, Middle East, and Africa (“EMEA”). On the basis of the
`foregoing, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief
`aver, that there are hundreds of thousands of members of the proposed Plaintiff Class
`described, infra.
`15.
`There are numerous questions of both law and fact common to the
`members of the proposed Plaintiff Class described, infra. Common issues will be
`enumerated within Plaintiffs’ forthcoming motion for class certification.
`16.
`Plaintiffs’ claims asserted herein are typical of the claims of the members
`of the proposed Plaintiff Class described, infra. Each class member’s claim arises
`from the same course of events; Plaintiffs’ claims are, at a minimum, reasonably
`co-extensive with those of the absent class members.
`17.
`Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed
`Plaintiff Class described, infra; neither any Plaintiff, nor their undersigned counsel,
`has any conflict of interest with other class members; and (2) Plaintiffs and their
`undersigned counsel will prosecute this action vigorously on behalf of the proposed
`Plaintiff Class described, infra.
`18. With regard to each claim for injunctive relief asserted herein, Zoom has
`acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to each Class and Subclass
`described, infra, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is
`appropriate respecting the proposed Plaintiff Class described, infra, as a whole.
`19. With regard to each claim for monetary relief asserted herein, questions
`of law and/or fact common to the class members will predominate over any questions
`affecting only individual members; class-action treatment will be superior to other
`
`
`COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF THE NON-AMERICAN PEOPLES OF THE
`FIVE EYES COUNTRIES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – PAGE 4
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 5 of 28
`
`available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
`
`PROPOSED CLASS DEFINITION
`The Plaintiff Class which Plaintiffs propose to represent is proposed to
`20.
`be defined as follows:
`All Persons in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and/or the United
`Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who, at any time
`subsequent to 31 May 2018, registered, used, opened, or downloaded the
`Zoom Meetings Application (“App”), except for (i) all Persons who have
`only registered, used, opened, or downloaded the Zoom Meetings App
`through an Enterprise-Level Account or a Zoom for Government
`Account, (ii) Zoom and its officers and directors; (iii) any judicial officer
`of the United States who exercises any authority over the above-
`captioned civil action; and (iv) any employee of any court which
`exercises any authority over the above-captioned civil action.
`... including any and all sub-classes the Court may deem
`appropriate, and/or such other class defined in such manner as the Court
`may deem conducive to the use of the class-action procedural device to
`adjudicate the claims asserted herein.
`
`FACTS
`21. Over the past few decades a new industry has arisen which generates
`hundreds of billions of dollars of annual revenue by targeting consumers with
`espionage through their phones and computers. The perpetrators of this massive
`espionage campaign would state that their objective is to gather sufficient information
`(hereinafter “Personal Data”) about an individual to provide them with “relevant”
`and “personalized” advertisements. This is not, however, limited to innocent matter
`such as advertising diapers to a person who has just welcomed a new baby into their
`
`
`COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF THE NON-AMERICAN PEOPLES OF THE
`FIVE EYES COUNTRIES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – PAGE 5
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 6 of 28
`
`home. The Personal Data gathered about an individual can be used to target that
`person with a political advertisement that stresses the candidate’s agreement with the
`targeted person in respect to a particular contentious issue, while omitting any
`reference to the candidate’s views on a different contentious issue as to which the
`target vehemently disagrees. It is axiomatic that the advertising company must know
`the target’s views on various issues in order to so manipulate the target. Similarly,
`knowledge about a person’s religious beliefs, marital status, sexual orientation,
`occupation, work habits, sleep habits, and relationships with family members, can all
`be used to manipulate the targeted consumers to alter their personal spending
`behaviors.
`In order to aggregate Personal Data about a particular target, it is valuable
`22.
`for the perpetrators to track each target as they use various Internet-connected devices
`(e.g., their phone and their laptop), so the perpetrators can develop a dossier
`(hereinafter a “Dossier”) containing the collected data pertaining to a particular
`targeted consumer.
`23. Alphabet, Inc. (hereinafter “Google”), reported over $182 billion in
`revenue in 2020. Google’s SEC Form 10-K, filed 3 February 2021, recites:
`“How we make money [¶] Our advertising products deliver relevant ads
`at just the right time, to give people useful commercial information,
`regardless of the device they’re using. We also provide advertisers with
`tools that help them better attribute and measure their advertising
`campaigns. ... [¶] We aim to ensure great user experiences by serving the
`right ads at the right time and by building deep partnerships with brands
`and agencies. We also seek to improve the measurability of advertising
`so advertisers know when their campaigns are effective.”
`24. According to a news media report dated 26 April 2022, Google, and
`similar companies, which have custody of sensitive personal information have from
`
`
`COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF THE NON-AMERICAN PEOPLES OF THE
`FIVE EYES COUNTRIES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – PAGE 6
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 7 of 28
`
`time to time been tricked into releasing that information to criminal organizations of
`various kinds:
`https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tech-giants-duped-giving-data-173424811.html
`25. Meta Platforms, Inc. (hereinafter “Facebook”), reported approximately
`$86 billion in revenue in 2020. Facebook’s SEC Form 10-K, filed 28 January 2021,
`recites:
`“We generate substantially all of our revenue from selling advertising
`placements to marketers. Our ads enable marketers to reach people based
`on a variety of factors including age, gender, location, interests, and
`behaviors.”
`26. According to a news media report dated 26 April 2022, Facebook
`engineers have stated in internal communications that Facebook, “... do[es] not have
`an adequate level of control and explainability over how ... [its] systems use data ...”:
`https://www.vice.com/en/article/akvmke/facebook-doesnt-know-what-
`it-does-with-your-data-or-where-it-goes
`27.
`Zoom offers videoconferencing services. Users of these services include
`both accountholders and non-accountholders.
`28.
`Zoom’s SEC Form 10-K, filed 18 March 2021, states:
`“[Zoom] provide[s] a video-first unified communications platform that
`delivers happiness and fundamentally changes how people interact. ...
`The cornerstone of [Zoom’s] platform is Zoom Meetings, around which
`[Zoom] provide[s] a full suite of products and features designed to give
`users an easy, reliable, and innovative unified communications
`experience. Users are comprised of both hosts who organize video
`meetings and the individual attendees who participate in those video
`meetings.”
`29.
`Zoom, or its authorized agents, have created an application designed for
`
`
`COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF THE NON-AMERICAN PEOPLES OF THE
`FIVE EYES COUNTRIES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – PAGE 7
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 8 of 28
`
`Apple’s iPhones, and an application designed for Android phones, (hereinafter
`collectively the “Zoom App”).
`30. Westron and Milne both installed the Zoom App onto their phones, and
`have used it.
`31. A published media report dated 26 March 2020 states, inter alia:
`“The Zoom app notifies Facebook when the user opens the app, details
`on the user’s device such as the model, the time zone and city they are
`connecting from, which phone carrier they are using, and a unique
`advertiser identifier created by the user’s device which companies can
`use to target a user with advertisements.”1
`32. On 27 March 2020, Zoom admitted to the truth of the above-quoted
`media report dated 26 March 2020; Zoom’s inculpatory statement will be admissible
`at trial. (See, Rule 801(2)(2), Fed.R.Evid.)
`33.
`Zoom may claim that it ceased and desisted from providing such data to
`Facebook. However, Plaintiffs’ undersigned counsel has reviewed much of this
`Court’s publicly-available files in the Prior Litigation, but has been unable to locate
`any evidence that would support such a claim. In reliance upon established axioms
`of the law of evidence, Plaintiffs are therefore informed and believe, and thereupon
`aver, that the practice disclosed in the above-quoted media report dated 26 March
`2020 has continued, and continues to the present day.
`34.
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief
`aver, that, without the knowledge or permission of Westron, Milne, or Class Members,
`Zoom caused the Zoom App to transmit sensitive personal data to a third party (i.e.,
`
`Plaintiffs herein refer to the, “... unique advertiser identifier ...”, as a
`1
`Dossier. The referenced article is found at:
`https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7e599/zoom-ios-app-sends-data-to-facebook-ev
`en-if-you-dont-have-a-facebook-account
`
`COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF THE NON-AMERICAN PEOPLES OF THE
`FIVE EYES COUNTRIES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – PAGE 8
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 9 of 28
`
`Facebook); this sensitive personal data includes, but may not be limited to, the fact
`that the user is using the Zoom App (which in turn discloses when the user is engaged
`in a videoconference), detailed information about the user’s iPhone, including
`Application Bundle Identifier, Application Instance ID, Application Version, Device
`Carrier, iOS Advertiser ID, iOS Device CPU Cores, iOS Device Disk Space Available,
`iOS Device Disk Space Remaining, iOS Device Display Dimensions, iOS Device
`Model, iOS Language, iOS Timezone, and iOS Version.
`35. A user of the Zoom App would not perceive that the Zoom App was
`collecting, let alone disseminating, the above-referenced sensitive personal data.
`36.
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief
`aver, that, without the knowledge or consent of the subjects of this information,
`Facebook uses this information in conjunction with other information it has obtained
`to create and/or enhance Dossiers it maintains as to Westron, Milne, and Class
`Members.
`37. A published media report last updated 26 May 2021 states, inter alia, that
`Zoom, “... allow[s] third-party access to private personal data”:
`“This may come in the form of outright data sharing or by using local
`third-party analytics software (such as Google Analytics, which collects
`a plethora of user information)”2
`38.
`The above-quoted published media report last updated 26 May 2021 links
`to a Wikipedia article which, as of 26 May 2021, stated:
`“Google Analytics is used to track website activity such as session
`duration, pages per session, bounce rate etc. of individuals using the site,
`along with the information on the source of the traffic. It can be
`integrated with Google Ads,[] with which users can create and review
`
`https://privacyspy.org/product/zoom/
`2
`
`COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF THE NON-AMERICAN PEOPLES OF THE
`FIVE EYES COUNTRIES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – PAGE 9
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 10 of 28
`
`online campaigns by tracking landing page quality and conversions
`(goals). Goals might include sales, lead generation, viewing a specific
`page, or downloading a particular file. Google Analytics’ approach is
`to show high-level, dashboard-type data for the casual user, and more
`in-depth data further into the report set. Google Analytics analysis can
`identify poorly performing pages with techniques such as funnel
`visualization, where visitors came from (referrers), how long they stayed
`on the website and their geographical position. It also provides more
`advanced features, including custom visitor segmentation.[] Google
`Analytics e-commerce reporting can track sales activity and performance.
`The e-commerce reports shows a site’s transactions, revenue, and many
`other commerce-related metrics.
`*
`*
`*
`“... Whenever someone visits a website that uses Google Analytics,
`Google tracks that visit via the users’ IP address in order to determine
`the user’s approximate geographic location. ... Google has also released
`a browser plug-in that turns off data about a page visit being sent to
`Google, however, this browser extension is not available for mobile
`browsers.[]”3 (Emphasis added.)
`39.
`In the tradecraft of the consumer espionage industry, IP addresses are
`used not only to determine a subject’s physical location, but also to correlate the user’s
`device to other devices which use the same IP address. This, in turn, allows tracking
`of the user’s activities among several devices, and also facilitates linking the user to
`cohabitants, coworkers, and companions.
`40.
`The Prior Litigation was prosecuted by able and respected class counsel,
`
`http://web.archive.org/web/20210512194744/https://en.wikipedia.org
`3
`/wiki/Google_Analytics
`
`COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF THE NON-AMERICAN PEOPLES OF THE
`FIVE EYES COUNTRIES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – PAGE 10
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 11 of 28
`
`who had conducted, “comprehensive discovery”.4 The information provided on
`discovery in the Prior Litigation was so highly sensitive that it actually resulted in a
`dispute over the circumstances under which counsel could provide, “Highly
`Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only”, documents to even their consulting experts.5
`With the benefit of that comprehensive discovery, the able and respected class counsel
`in the Prior Litigation reported to this Court that Zoom does not merely provide IP
`addresses to Google, but that Zoom also provides users’ precise Global Positioning
`System data to Google.6 On the basis of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are informed and
`believe, and upon such information and belief aver, that, Zoom provides to Google the
`precise physical locations of Plaintiffs and Class Members.
`41.
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief
`aver, that the above-enumerated sensitive personal data were used by one or more
`commercial espionage companies (including, at a minimum, Google) to monitor the
`physical location of Plaintiffs and Class Members.
`42.
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief
`aver, that, without the knowledge or permission of Plaintiffs and Class Members,
`Zoom caused the Zoom App to transmit sensitive personal data to a third party (i.e.,
`Google); this sensitive personal data includes, but may not be limited to, the precise
`physical locations of Plaintiffs and Class Members, and when and for how long they
`used Zoom.
`43. A user of the Zoom App would not perceive that the Zoom App was
`
`4
`
`See, ex rel., Clerk’s file in Prior Litigation, at Document 191, ¶ 6, on
`ECF Pages 2-3.
`
`5
`
`See, ex rel., Clerk’s file in Prior Litigation, at Document 138-1, ¶¶
`2.7, 7.4(a), on ECF Pages 2, 11; see also, Documents 138, 148.
`
`6
`
`See, ex rel., Clerk’s file in Prior Litigation, at Document 179, ¶ 111,
`on ECF Page 31.
`
`COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF THE NON-AMERICAN PEOPLES OF THE
`FIVE EYES COUNTRIES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – PAGE 11
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 12 of 28
`
`collecting, let alone disseminating, the above-referenced sensitive personal data.
`44.
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief
`aver, that, without the knowledge or consent of the subjects of this information,
`Google uses this information in conjunction with other information it has obtained to
`create and/or enhance Dossiers it maintains as to Plaintiffs and Class Members.
`
`PROPOSED CLASS REPRESENTATIVES
`45. Westron has never been a citizen or resident of the United States.
`46. Westron began to use Zoom in early 2020.
`47. Westron was not present in the United States at any time after he first
`began to use Zoom, until he visited the United States in late May, 2022 (i.e., after
`entry of final Judgment in the Prior Litigation).
`48. Westron does not believe he was provided with the Court Approved
`Notice of Class Action Settlement which was issued in the Prior Litigation on or about
`6 December 2021; Westron assumes this is because he was not within the Class
`Definition in the Prior Litigation, and was therefore not a member of that Settlement
`Class.
`
`49. Westron has never used the Zoom videoconferencing service from any
`location within the United States.
`50. Westron has used the Zoom videoconferencing service from various
`locations within the UK, as well as from France, Spain, and the United Arab Emirates.
`51. On or about 19 April 2020, shortly after he began using Zoom, Westron
`purchased a Zoom Standard Pro Monthly subscription, at a monthly cost of GBP 14.39
`per month (i.e., GBP 11.99 + GBP 2.40 VAT [i.e., Value Added Tax]).
`52.
`Zoom’s invoice for Westron’s Zoom Standard Pro Monthly subscription
`was issued from 55 Almaden Boulevard, 6th Floor, in San Jose, California, to
`Westron’s home address at the time in the UK.
`53.
`Prior to purchasing his Zoom Standard Pro Monthly subscription,
`
`COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF THE NON-AMERICAN PEOPLES OF THE
`FIVE EYES COUNTRIES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – PAGE 12
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 13 of 28
`
`Westron became aware of, and believed, public claims by Zoom that the Zoom
`videoconferencing was secure (i.e., that persons not invited to be parties to Zoom
`videoconferences could not hear or see Zoom videoconferences or join into private
`Zoom videoconferences).
`54. At the time Westron was considering purchasing his Zoom Standard Pro
`Monthly subscription, Zoom’s website falsely stated that Zoom calls were secured
`with end-to-end encryption.
`55.
`Prior to purchasing his Zoom Standard Pro Monthly subscription,
`Westron was aware of public claims by Zoom that (a) Zoom does not sell users’ data;
`(b) Zoom takes privacy seriously and adequately protects users’ personal information;
`and (c) Zoom’s video conferences are secured with end-to-end encryption and are
`protected by passwords and other security measures.
`56.
`Zoom’s representations that Zoom’s video conferences are secured with
`end-to-end encryption were false at the time they were made; Zoom may later have
`launched end-to-end encryption, but not until millions of Zoom users had used Zoom
`for many months having been told that their Zoom calls were end-to-end encrypted
`when they were not.
`57. Westron reasonably believed Zoom’s claims, and Zoom’s claimed
`security attributes of the Zoom videoconferencing service were important to Westron.
`58. Westron reasonably believed that the public claims by Zoom that the
`Zoom videoconferencing service was secure (i.e., that persons not invited to be parties
`to Zoom videoconferences could not hear or see Zoom videoconferences or join into
`private Zoom videoconferences) were true.
`59. Westron reasonably relied upon the public claims by Zoom that the Zoom
`videoconferencing service was secure (i.e., that persons not invited to be parties to
`Zoom videoconferences could not hear or see Zoom videoconferences or join into
`private Zoom videoconferences).
`
`
`COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF THE NON-AMERICAN PEOPLES OF THE
`FIVE EYES COUNTRIES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – PAGE 13
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 14 of 28
`
`60. Westron used the Zoom Waiting Room, Mute on Entry, and No ability
`for [non-host] users to share their screens features.
`61. Westron used Zoom to confer privately with an attorney in the UK who
`was then representing him on an unrelated matter; Westron verified on the Zoom App
`(by clicking on the green shield), which resulted in an assurance that encryption was
`enabled.
`62. Westron was not aware, and did not understand, that Zoom would collect
`and share his personal information with third parties who would use that personal
`information to assemble data about Mr. Westron for purposes of targeted advertising
`and to attempt to influence Mr. Westron’s behaviors.
`63. Westron did not give Zoom permission to access, take or use his
`personally identifiable information.
`64. Westron relied upon Zoom’s promises that (a) Zoom does not sell users’
`data; (b) Zoom takes privacy seriously and adequately protects users’ personal
`information; and (c) Zoom’s video conferences are secured with end-to-end encryption
`and are protected by passwords and other security measures.
`65.
`If Westron had known that the video conferencing service was not secure,
`or if Westron had known that Zoom had failed to secure Westron’s personally
`identifiable information, he would not have purchased a Zoom Pro account (or he
`would have paid less for it).
`66. Westron has accessed the Zoom videoconferencing service from, at a
`minimum, the following phones and computers:
`a.
`From the time he initially used Zoom until September, 2020, Westron
`accessed Zoom from his iPhone 6;
`From the time he initially used Zoom until July, 2021, Westron also
`accessed Zoom from his iPhone X;
`From and after August, 2020, Westron also accessed Zoom from a phone
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`
`COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF THE NON-AMERICAN PEOPLES OF THE
`FIVE EYES COUNTRIES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – PAGE 14
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 15 of 28
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`called, “Oppo A9”, which uses an Android operating system;
`From and after July, 2021, Westron has also accessed Zoom from his
`iPhone 12;
`From the time he initially used Zoom until September, 2020, Westron
`also accessed Zoom from his Dell Lattitude 7400, which uses the
`Windows operating system;
`From the time he initially used Zoom until September, 2020, Westron
`also accessed Zoom from his Microsoft Surface Pro 6, which uses the
`Windows operating system;
`From and after September, 2020, Westron has accessed Zoom from two
`different Microsoft Surface Pro 7 devices, which use the Windows
`operating system;
`From and after April, 2021, Westron has also accessed Zoom from his
`Dell Lattitude 7410, which uses the Windows operating system.
`Through the end of 2021, Westron accepted updated software from Zoom
`67.
`at or near the time it was issued, and also accepted updated Apple, Android, and
`Windows operating system software on his various devices as those were issued; for
`example, Westron’s records indicate that Zoom’s “June 5, 2020 version 5.0.5
`(26225.0603)” was downloaded into his iPhone X on 13 June 2020.
`68. As of January, 2022, the version of Zoom software on Westron’s iPhone
`12 is Version 5.9.1.
`69. As of January, 2022, the version of Zoom software on Westron’s Oppo
`A9 is Version 5.9.1.3642.
`70. As of January, 2022, the version of Zoom software on Westron’s Surface
`Pro 7 is Version 5.9.1.
`71. As of January, 2022, the version of Zoom software on Westron’s Dell
`Latitude 7410 is Version 5.6.1.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`
`COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF THE NON-AMERICAN PEOPLES OF THE
`FIVE EYES COUNTRIES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL – PAGE 15
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-03147-YGR Document 1 Filed 05/30/22 Page 16 of 28
`
`72. Milne has never been a citizen or resident of the United States.
`73. Milne began to use Zoom in 2018.
`74. Milne has not been present in the United States at any time after April of
`
`2019.
`
`75. Milne does not believe he was provided with the Court Approved Notice
`of Class Action Settlement which was issued in the Prior Litigation on or about 6
`December 2021; Milne assumes this is because he was not within the Class Definition
`in the Prior Litigation, and was therefore not a member of that Settlement Class.
`76. Milne has no recollection of ever having used
`the Zoom
`videoconferencing service from any location within the United States.
`77. Milne has used the Zoom videoconferencing service from various
`locations within Australia and New Zealand.
`78. On or about 9 April 2020, Milne purcha