throbber
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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket