Case 5:20-cv-02155-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 23
`
`Mark J. Tamblyn (State Bar No. 179272)
`mjt@wexlerwallace.com
`WEXLER WALLACE LLP
`333 University Avenue, Suite 200
`Sacramento, California 95825
`Telephone: (916) 565-7692
`Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
`Kenneth A. Wexler
`kaw@wexlerwallace.com
`Jason K. Keener
`jkk@wexlerwallace.com
`WEXLER WALLACE LLP
`55 West Monroe, Suite 3300
`Chicago, Illinois 60603
`Telephone: (312) 346-2222
`Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
`Additional Plaintiff’s Counsel Appear
`on the Signature Page
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`ROBERT CULLEN, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`A AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`v.
`
`ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`a Delaware corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff Robert Cullen (“Plaintiff”) brings this class action complaint against Defendant
`
`Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (“Zoom” or “Defendant”), on behalf of himself, and all
`
`others similarly situated, and alleges, upon personal knowledge as to his own actions and his
`
`counsel’s investigations, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
`
`1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 23
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Zoom provides an overwhelmingly popular online video conferencing platform,
`
`which includes remote conferencing services, online meetings, chat, and mobile collaboration.
`
`Zoom’s chief product is “Zoom Meetings.” Its use by consumers and businesses has exploded in
`
`the face of the current COVID-19 virus pandemic that is impacting the world and while a
`
`majority of Americans are currently under “stay home” or “shelter in place” directives.
`
`Naturally, consumers have flocked to Zoom, and other web conferencing vendors, as a means to
`
`more safely maintain closeness with friends and loved ones and conduct business. Not
`
`surprisingly, Zoom’s stock price has skyrocketed, up over 115% in the last two months (since
`
`late January 2020).
`
`2.
`
`Zoom, however, has failed to properly safeguard the personal information of the
`
`increasing millions of users of its software application (“Zoom App”) and video conferencing
`
`platform. Upon installing or upon each opening of the Zoom App, Zoom collects the personal
`
`information of its users and discloses, without adequate notice or authorization, this personal
`
`information to third parties, including Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”), invading the privacy of
`
`millions of users.
`
`3.
`
`By this action, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the members of the Class
`
`defined below, seeks damages and equitable relief to remedy Defendant’s violations of
`
`California’s Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and Consumer Privacy
`
`Act.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims alleged in this
`
`Complaint pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2)(A) because: (a) this
`
`2
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 23
`
`is a class action in which the matter or controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000,
`
`exclusive of interest and costs; and (b) a significant portion of members of the proposed Class
`
`are citizens of a state that is different from the citizenship of Defendant.
`
`5.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Plaintiff’s claims
`
`arise out of the business activities conducted by Defendant in California.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 27 U.S.C. § 1391(b),
`
`(c), and (d) because: Defendant transacts business in this District; a substantial portion of the
`
`affected commerce described herein was carried out in this District; and because some of the
`
`members of the Class reside in this District.
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`7.
`
`Under Local Rule 3-2, this civil action should be assigned to the San Jose
`
`Division, because a substantial part of the events or omissions which give rise to the claim
`
`occurred in Santa Clara County.
`
`PARTIES
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff Robert Cullen is an individual citizen and resident of Sacramento
`
`County, California. Plaintiff Cullen has downloaded, installed, and opened the Zoom App.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Zoom Video Communications, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
`
`headquartered in San Jose, California.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`10.
`
`Zoom provides video communications products and services to companies and
`
`individuals throughout California and the United States. Zoom users can host or participate in a
`
`Zoom videoconference through several means, including the use of the Zoom App for iOS
`
`(Apple) devices, an app for Android devices, an app for MacOS, or through a web browser.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`3
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 23
`
`11.
`
`The Zoom App may be identified as “ZOOM Cloud Meetings” app on the iOS
`
`app store. Zoom states that the Zoom App allows users to “Stay connected wherever you go –
`
`start or join a meeting with flawless video, crystal clear audio, instant screen sharing, and cross-
`
`platform instant messaging – for free!”
`
`12.
`
`Zoom boasts its appreciation for the importance of maintaining its users’ privacy,
`
`stating on its website “You trust us to connect you to the people that matter. We value that trust
`
`more than anything else. We want you to know what data we collect and how we use it to
`
`provide our service.” (https://zoom.us/privacy-and-legal). Zoom’s Privacy Policy purports to
`
`identify and disclose to its users all the information Zoom automatically collects from its users
`
`when they interact with Zoom’s products.
`
`13.
`
`However, Defendant’s statements regarding the inviolability of its users’ privacy
`
`and personal information are false because Defendant’s wholly inadequate program design and
`
`security measures have resulted, and will continue to result, in unauthorized disclosure of its
`
`users’ personal information to third parties, including Facebook.
`
`14.
`
`Zoom represents in its Privacy Policy that it “utilize[s] a combination of industry-
`
`standard security technologies, procedures, and organizational measures to help protect your
`
`Personal Data from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure.” Despite Zoom’s representations in
`
`its posted Privacy Policy that it “utilize[s] a combination of industry-standard security
`
`technologies, procedures, and organizational measures to help protect your Personal Data from
`
`unauthorized access, use, or disclosure.” Zoom however included in the Zoom App, without any
`
`adequate disclosure to users, code that made undisclosed disclosures of users’ personal
`
`information to Facebook and possibly other third parties.
`
`15.
`
`On March 26, 2020, Joseph Cox posted a report on Motherboard for the Vice
`
`Media Group documenting the behavior of the Zoom App’s unauthorized disclosure of user
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`4
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 5 of 23
`
`personal information to Facebook. (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jged4x/envestnet-
`
`yodlee-credit-card-bank-data-not-anonymous). The report states “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.” As stated in the Motherboard report, the findings by Mr. Cox were verified by
`
`Will Strafach, an iOS researcher and founder of the privacy-focused iOS app Guardian.
`
`16.
`
`The unauthorized information is sent to Facebook when a user installs, and each
`
`time a user opens, the Zoom App. This information includes, but is not limited to, the users’
`
`mobile OS (operating system) type and version, the device time zone, the device model and the
`
`device’s unique advertising identifier. The unique advertising identifier allows companies to
`
`target the user with advertisements. This information is sent to Facebook by Zoom regardless of
`
`whether the user has an account with Facebook.
`
`17.
`
`The amount of money Zoom receives from Facebook, and possibly other third
`
`parties, is unknown by Plaintiff.
`
`18.
`
`Had Zoom informed its users that it would use inadequate security measures and
`
`permit unauthorized third-party tracking of their personal information, users – like Plaintiff and
`
`Class members – would not have been willing to use the Zoom App. Instead, Plaintiff and Class
`
`members would have forgone using Zoom and/or chosen a different video conferencing product
`
`that did not send their personal information to Facebook, or any other third party.
`
`19.
`
`Zoom’s failure to implement adequate security protocols and failure to provide
`
`accurate disclosures to its users violated those users’ privacy and falls well short of Zoom’s
`
`promises.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`5
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 6 of 23
`
`20.
`
`On March 27, 2020, Zoom publicly admitted in a blog entry on its website that
`
`the Zoom App was sending at least the following personal information to Facebook upon
`
`installation and each open and close of the Zoom App: 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, iOS Version, and IP
`
`Address. Zoom further admitted that these unauthorized disclosures for which no adequate notice
`
`was provided to users began when Zoom implemented a “Login with Facebook” feature using
`
`the Facebook’s software development kit (“SDK”) for iOS.
`
`21.
`
`Also on March 27, 2020, Zoom released a new version of the Zoom App which
`
`purports to no longer send unauthorized personal information of its users to Facebook. However,
`
`even assuming this updated version works as described by Zoom, the harm to Plaintiff and the
`
`Class members has been done and continues. Zoom appears to have taken no action to block any
`
`of the prior versions of the Zoom App from operating. Thus, unless users affirmatively update
`
`their Zoom App, they likely will continue to unknowingly send unauthorized personal
`
`information to Facebook, and perhaps other third parties. Zoom could have forced all iOS users
`
`to update to the new Zoom App to continue using Zoom but appears to have chosen not to.
`
`Moreover, Zoom’s making of an ostensibly corrected Zoom App does nothing to remedy the
`
`unauthorized disclosures made by Zoom to date. Zoom has not ensured that Facebook (or anyone
`
`else, including others with whom Facebook has shared this personal information) has deleted all
`
`the personal information that it received from Zoom without adequate notice or authorization by
`
`Zoom’s users. Finally, Zoom has not taken any actions to compensate its users for its failure to
`
`properly safeguard their personal information in violation of their right of privacy and
`
`California’s consumer protection laws.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`6
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 7 of 23
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, and as a class action under the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3), seeking injunctive relief and
`
`damages pursuant to federal law and California unfair competition, consumer protection, and
`
`privacy laws on behalf of the members of the following class:
`
`All persons and businesses in the United States whose personal or
`private information was collected and/or disclosed by Zoom to a third
`party upon installation or opening of the Zoom video conferencing
`application (the “Class”).
`
`23.
`
`Specifically excluded from the Class are the Defendant; the officers, directors or
`
`employees of the Defendant; any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling interest; and
`
`any affiliate, legal representative, heir or assign of the Defendant. Also excluded from the Class
`
`are any federal, state or local governmental entities, any judicial officer presiding over this action
`
`and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, any juror assigned to this action.
`
`Business entities are excluded from the Class for purposes of Plaintiff’s claim for relief under the
`
`California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
`
`24. Members of the Class are readily identifiable from Defendant’s records.
`
`25. Members of the Class are so numerous that individual joinder of all the members
`
`is impracticable. Although the precise number and identification of Class members is unknown
`
`to Plaintiff at this time and can be ascertained only through appropriate discovery of Defendant.
`
`The Class is believed to comprise millions of individuals and businesses.
`
`26.
`
`This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class action pursuant
`
`to the provision of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1)-(4) and 23(b)(1)-(3). This action
`
`satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority
`
`requirements of those provisions. Common questions of fact and law exist as to all Class
`
`members which predominate over all questions affecting only individual Class members. These
`7
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 8 of 23
`
`common legal and factual questions, which do not vary from Class member to Class member,
`
`and which may be determined without reference to the individual circumstances of any Class
`
`member, include the following:
`
`A.
`
`Whether Defendant failed to adequately safeguard Plaintiff’s and Class
`
`members’ property, including their personal information;
`
`B.
`
`Whether Defendant’s engaged in unfair or deceptive practices by failing to
`
`properly safeguard Plaintiff’s and Class members’ personal information;
`
`C.
`
`Whether Defendant violated the applicable consumer protection statutes,
`
`including Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200, Civil Code section 1770,
`
`and Civil Code section 1798 applicable to Plaintiff and members of the
`
`Class;
`
`D.
`
`Whether Defendant acted negligently in failing to properly safeguard
`
`Plaintiff’s and Class members’ personal information;
`
`E.
`
`Whether Zoom collected and disclosed personal information of Plaintiff
`
`and the Class to third parties without first providing notice of such
`
`collection and/or disclosure;
`
`F.
`
`Whether Plaintiff and the other members of the Class are entitled to,
`
`among other things, injunctive relief, and if so, the nature and extent of
`
`such injunctive relief; and
`
`G.
`
`The appropriate class-wide measure of damages.
`
`These and other questions of law or fact, which are common to the members of the Class,
`
`predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class members.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`8
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 9 of 23
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members. Plaintiff and
`
`other Class members must prove the same facts in order to establish the same claims, described
`
`herein, which similarly apply to all Class members.
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because he is a member of the
`
`Class and his interests do not conflict with the interests of the Class members he seeks to
`
`represent. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in the prosecution of
`
`complex class action litigation, and together Plaintiff and its counsel intend to prosecute this
`
`action vigorously for the benefit of the Class. The interests of Class members will be fairly and
`
`adequately protected by Plaintiff and his counsel.
`
`29.
`
`A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of this litigation since individual litigation of the claims of all Class members is
`
`impracticable. Even if every Class member could afford individual litigation, the court system
`
`could not. It would be unduly burdensome to the courts, in which individual litigation of
`
`hundreds of cases would proceed. Individual litigation presents a potential for inconsistent or
`
`contradictory judgments, the prospect of a race for the courthouse, and an inequitable allocation
`
`of recovery among those with equally meritorious claims. Individual litigation increases the
`
`expense and delay to all parties and the court system in resolving the legal and factual issues
`
`common to all Class members’ claims relating to Defendant’s unlawful conduct. By contrast, the
`
`class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefit of a
`
`single adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
`
`30.
`
`The various claims asserted in this action are additionally or alternatively
`
`certifiable under the provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and/or 23(b)(2)
`
`because:
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`9
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 10 of 23
`
`A.
`
`The prosecution of separate actions by numerous individual Class
`
`members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with
`
`respect to individual Class members, thus establishing incompatible
`
`standards of conduct for Defendant;
`
`B.
`
`The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members would
`
`also create the risk of adjudications with respect to them that would, as a
`
`practical matter, be dispositive of the interest of other Class members who
`
`are not a party to such adjudications and would substantially impair or
`
`impede the ability of such non-party Class members to protect their
`
`interests; and
`
`C.
`
`Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the entirety of
`
`the Class, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive
`
`relief with respect to the Class as a whole.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, et seq.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`32.
`
`The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) went into effect on
`
`January 1, 2020. This comprehensive privacy law was enacted to protect consumers’ personal
`
`information from collection and use by businesses without appropriate notice and consent.
`
`33.
`
`Through the above-detailed conduct, Defendant violated the CCPA by, among
`
`other things, collecting and using personal information without providing consumers with
`
`adequate notice consistent with the CCPA, in violation of Civil Code section 1798.100(b).
`
`10
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 11 of 23
`
`34.
`
`Defendant further violated Civil Code section 1798.150(a) of the CCPA by failing
`
`to prevent Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ nonencrypted and nonredacted personal
`
`information from unauthorized disclosure as a result of Defendant’s violation of its duty to
`
`implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of
`
`the information to protect the personal information of Plaintiff and Class members.
`
`35.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s act, Plaintiff’s and the Class
`
`members’ personal information was subjected to unauthorized disclosure as a result of
`
`Defendant’s violation of the duty; through the Zoom App where personal information was
`
`regularly collected and sent to Facebook and possibly other third parties without authorization.
`
`36.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s act, Plaintiff and the Class
`
`members were injured and lost money or property, including but not limited to the price received
`
`by Defendant for the services, the loss of the Class members’ legally protected interest in the
`
`confidentiality and privacy of their personal information, nominal damages, and additional losses
`
`as described above.
`
`37.
`
`Defendant knew or should have known that the Zoom App security practices were
`
`inadequate to safeguard the Class members’ personal information and that the risk of
`
`unauthorized disclosure to at least Facebook was highly likely. Defendant failed to implement
`
`and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the
`
`information to protect the personal information of Plaintiff and the Class members.
`
`38.
`
`Zoom is a corporation that is organized and operated for the profit or financial
`
`benefit of its owners with a reported total third-quarter revenue for fiscal year 2020 of $166.6
`
`million. Zoom collects users’ personal information as defined in Civil Code section 1798.140.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`11
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 12 of 23
`
`39.
`
`In accordance with Civil Code section 1798.150(b), Plaintiff has served
`
`Defendant with notice of these CCPA violations and a demand for relief by certified mail, return
`
`receipt requested.
`
`40.
`
`On behalf of Class members, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of an
`
`order enjoining Defendant from continuing to violate the CCPA. If Defendant fails to properly
`
`respond to Plaintiff’s notice letter or agree to timely and adequately rectify the violations detailed
`
`above, Plaintiff also will seek actual, punitive, and statutory damages in an amount not less than
`
`one hundred dollars ($100) and not greater than seven hundred and fifty ($750) per consumer per
`
`incident, whichever is greater; restitution; attorneys’ fees and costs (pursuant to Cal. Code Civ.
`
`Proc. §1021.5); and any other relief the Court deems proper as a result of Defendant’s CCPA
`
`violations.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Unlawful and Unfair Business Practices
`In violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`42.
`
`California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits any “unlawful, unfair, or
`
`fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.” Cal.
`
`Bus. & Prof. Code. § 17200.
`
`43.
`
`Defendant engaged in unlawful activity prohibited by the UCL. The actions of
`
`Defendant as alleged within this Complaint constitute unlawful and unfair business practices
`
`with the meaning of the UCL.
`
`44.
`
`Defendant has conducted the following unlawful activities:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`violations of the CLRA, Civil Code section 1770;
`
`violations of the CCPA, Civil Code section 1798.100(b); and
`12
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 13 of 23
`
`C.
`
`invasion of Plaintiffs’ and Class members rights of privacy.
`
`45. With respect to Zoom’s violation of the CLRA, Defendant’s practices constitute
`
`violations of California Civil Code section 1770 in at least the following respects:
`
`misrepresenting that the Zoom App had characteristics, benefits, or uses that it does not have
`
`(preventing unauthorized access and disclosure of users’ personal information when in fact it
`
`does not); misrepresented the Zoom App was of a particular standard, quality, or grade
`
`(preventing unauthorized access and disclosure of users’ personal information when in fact it
`
`does not); advertising the Zoom App with an intent not to sell it as advertised (advertising it as
`
`preventing unauthorized access and disclosure of users’ personal information when in fact it does
`
`not); and misrepresenting that the Zoom App was supplied in accordance with previous
`
`representations when it was not (preventing unauthorized access and disclosure of users’
`
`personal information when in fact it does not).
`
`46. With respect to Zoom’s violation of the CCPA, a “business that collects a
`
`consumer’s personal information shall, at or before the point of collection, inform consumers as
`
`to the categories of personal information to be collected and the purposes for which the
`
`categories of personal information shall be used.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b). “A business
`
`shall not collect additional categories of personal information or use personal information
`
`collected for additional purposes without providing the consumer with notice consistent with this
`
`section.” Id.
`
`47.
`
`The CCPA defines “personal information” as any “information that identifies,
`
`relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be
`
`linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household.” Cal. Civ. Code
`
`§1798.140(o)(1). Personal information includes, but is not limited to, “identifiers such
`
`as…unique personal identifier, online identifier,…, or similar identifiers”, Cal. Civ. Code
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`13
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 14 of 23
`
`§1798.140(o)(1)(A), “internet or other electronic network activity information, including but not
`
`limit to…information regarding a consumer’s interaction with an internet website, application, or
`
`advertisement”, Cal. Civ. Code §1798.140(o)(1)(F) and “geolocation data”, Cal. Civ. Code.
`
`§1798.140(o)(1)(G).
`
`48.
`
`As set forth in detail elsewhere in this Complaint, Zoom collected Plaintiff’s and
`
`the Class’s “personal information” as defined in the CCPA and failed to inform Plaintiff and the
`
`Class of the same at or before the point of collection. Accordingly, Zoom violated the CCPA.
`
`49.
`
`In addition to constituting “unlawful conduct” in violation of the above-noted
`
`laws, Zoom’s activities also constitute unfair practices in violation of the UCL because Zoom’s
`
`practices violate an established public policy, and/or the practice is immoral, unethical,
`
`oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to Plaintiff and the Class. The harm caused
`
`by Defendant’s conduct outweighs any potential benefits attributable to such conduct and there
`
`were reasonably available alternatives to further Defendant’s legitimate business interests, other
`
`than Defendant’s conduct described herein.
`
`50.
`
`By exposing, compromising, and willfully sharing Plaintiff’s and Class members’
`
`personal information without authorization, Defendant engaged in fraudulent business practice
`
`that is likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.
`
`51.
`
`A reasonable person would not have agreed to use the Zoom App had he or she
`
`known the truth about Defendant’s practices alleged herein. By withholding material information
`
`about its practices, Defendant was able to convince customers to use the Zoom App and to
`
`entrust the safe keeping of their personal information to Defendant. Accordingly, Defendant’s
`
`conduct also was “fraudulent” within the meaning of the UCL.
`
`52.
`
`Because of Defendant’s violations of the UCL, Plaintiff and the Class have
`
`suffered injury-in-fact and have lost money or property. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`14
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 15 of 23
`
`restitution, disgorgement, an injunction, declaratory, and other equitable relief for such unlawful
`
`practices to prevent future harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`54.
`
`California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) has adopted a
`
`comprehensive statutory scheme prohibiting various deceptive practices in connection with the
`
`conduct of a business providing goods, property, or services to consumers primarily for personal,
`
`family, or household purposes. The self-declared purposes of the CLRA are to protect consumers
`
`against unfair and deceptive business practices and to provide efficient and economical
`
`procedures to secure such protection.
`
`55.
`
`Defendant is a “person” as defined by Civil Code section 1761(c), because it is a
`
`corporation, as set forth above.
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff and Class members are “consumers” within the meaning of Civil Code
`
`section 1761(d).
`
`57.
`
`The Zoom App used by Plaintiff and the Class constitute “goods” and “services”
`
`within the meaning of Civil Code section 1761(a).
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class’s download, installation and/or use of Defendant’s Zoom
`
`App constitute “transactions,” as defined by Civil Code section 1761(e).
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff and Class members downloaded the Zoom App from Defendant for
`
`personal, family, and household purposes, as defined by Civil Code section 1761(d).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`15
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 16 of 23
`
`60.
`
`Venue is proper under Civil Code section 1780(d) because a substantial portion of
`
`the conduct at issue occurred in this District and Defendant resides in this District. A declaration
`
`pursuant to Civil Code section 1780(d) is attached to this Complaint.
`
`61.
`
`As described herein, Defendant’s practices constitute violations of California
`
`Civil Code Section 1770 in at least the following respects:
`
`A.
`
`In violation of section 1770(a)(5), Zoom misrepresented that the Zoom
`
`App had characteristics, benefits, or sues that it does not have. Zoom
`
`represented it was preventing unauthorized access and disclosure of users’
`
`personal information when in fact it does not;
`
`B.
`
`In violation of section 1770(a)(7), Zoom misrepresented the Zoom App
`
`was of a particular standard, quality, or grade. Zoom represented it was
`
`preventing unauthorized access and disclosure of users’ personal
`
`information when in fact it does not;
`
`C.
`
`In violation of section 1770(a)(9), Zoom advertised the Zoom App with an
`
`intent not to sell it as advertised. Zoom advertised its app as secure from
`
`unauthorized disclosure users’ personal information, when in fact it is not;
`
`and
`
`D.
`
`In violation of section 1770(a)(16), Zoom misrepresented that the Zoom
`
`App was supplied in accordance with previous representations when it was
`
`not. Zoom represented it was preventing unauthorized access and
`
`disclosure of users’ personal information when in fact it does not.
`
`62.
`
`Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Zoom App were material to
`
`Plaintiff and Class members because a reasonable person would have considered them important
`
`in deciding whether to download, install, open and/or use the Zoom App.
`
`16
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
`
`0
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/30/20 Page 17 of 23
`
`63.
`
`Plaintiff and Class members relied upon Defendant’s material misrepresentations
`
`and would have acted to protect their personal information had they known the truth.
`
`64.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s material misrepresentations,
`
`Plaintiff and Class members have been irreparably harmed.
`
`65.
`
`In accordance with Civil Code section 1782(a), Plaintiff’s counsel has served
`
`Defendant with notice of these CLRA violations by certified mail, return receipt requested.
`
`66.
`
`On behalf of Class members, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of an
`
`order enjoining Defendant from making such material misrepresentations and to engage in
`
`corrective advertising to alert consumers of its prior misrepresentations. If Defendant fails to
`
`respond to Plaintiff’s notice letter, or fails to rectify the violations detailed above and to give
`
`adequate notice to all affected consumers within 30 days of the date of written notice, Plaintiff
`
`also will seek actual, punitive, and statutory damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs, and
`
`any other relief the Court deems proper as a result of Defendant’s CLRA violations.
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`