Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 134 Filed 12/02/20 Page 1 of 36
`
`
`
`
`
`COOLEY LLP
`MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127)
`(rhodesmg@cooley.com)
`TRAVIS LEBLANC (251097)
`(tleblanc@cooley.com)
`KATHLEEN R. HARTNETT (314267)
`(khartnett@cooley.com)
`BENJAMIN H. KLEINE (257225)
`(bkleine@cooley.com)
`DANIELLE C. PIERRE (300567)
`(dpierre@cooley.com)
`JOSEPH D. MORNIN (307766)
`(jmornin@cooley.com)
`EVAN G. SLOVAK (319409)
`(eslovak@cooley.com)
`KELSEY R. SPECTOR (321488)
`(kspector@cooley.com)
`101 California Street, 5th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-5800
`Telephone:
`+1 415 693 2000
`Facsimile:
`+1 415 693 2222
`Attorneys for Defendant
`ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE: ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS
`INC. PRIVACY LITIGATION,
`
`This Documents Relates To:
`All Actions
`
`Master Case No. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK
`
`DEFENDANT ZOOM VIDEO
`COMMUNICATIONS, INC.’S NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS THE
`FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS
`ACTION COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`THEREOF
`
`Date:
`
`
`Time:
`
`Courtroom:
`Judge:
`
`
`February 4, 2021
`1:30 p.m.
`8, 4th Floor
`Hon. Lucy H. Koh
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT ZOOM’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS THE FAC
`MASTER CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02155-LHK
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 134 Filed 12/02/20 Page 2 of 36
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS ................................................................. 1
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ............................................................................. 1
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................ 1
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
`II.
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Zoom’s Videoconferencing Services .......................................................... 3
`B.
`Plaintiffs’ Allegations ................................................................................. 3
`III. MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD ................................................................... 4
`IV. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 4
`A.
`Section 230 Bars All of Plaintiffs’ Claims to the Extent They Are
`Predicated on Unwanted Meeting Disruptions. .......................................... 4
`1.
`Zoom is a quintessential interactive computer service. .................. 5
`2.
`Plaintiffs impermissibly seek to hold Zoom liable as the
`publisher of content supplied by the meeting disruptors. ............... 6
`Zoom does not contribute to meeting disruptions. .......................... 8
`3.
`Plaintiffs’ Claims All Fail Because Plaintiffs Do Not Allege That
`Zoom Harmed Plaintiffs. ............................................................................. 8
`1.
`Plaintiffs fail to allege personal harm from alleged data
`sharing. ............................................................................................ 8
`Plaintiffs fail to allege personal harm caused by Zoom from
`meeting disruptions. ........................................................................ 9
`Plaintiffs fail to allege personal harm from Zoom’s alleged
`misrepresentations and omissions concerning encryption. ........... 10
`Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim for Invasion of Privacy Under the
`California Constitution or Common Law (Count 1). ................................ 10
`1.
`Plaintiffs have not alleged an actionable intrusion into any
`material over which they have a legally protected privacy
`interest. .......................................................................................... 11
`Plaintiffs fail to allege that Zoom’s purported disclosure of
`device data constituted an egregious breach of social norms. ...... 12
`The two institutional Plaintiffs may not maintain privacy
`claims. ........................................................................................... 13
`Plaintiffs’ Negligence Claims Should Be Dismissed (Count 2). .............. 13
`1.
`The economic loss rule bars Plaintiffs’ claim to the extent
`they seek recovery for financial injury.......................................... 13
`Plaintiffs fail to plead the elements of negligence. ....................... 15
`2.
`Plaintiffs Cannot State a Claim for Breach of an Implied Contract
`(Count 3). .................................................................................................. 17
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`DEFENDANT ZOOM’S MOTION
`TO DISMISS THE FAC
`MASTER CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02155-LHK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 134 Filed 12/02/20 Page 3 of 36
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`V.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Claim for Breach of the Implied Covenant Fails (Count
`4). .............................................................................................................. 18
`Plaintiffs Cannot State a Claim for Violation of the CDAFA (Count
`8). .............................................................................................................. 19
`Plaintiffs’ Fraud-Based Claims Should Be Dismissed (UCL,
`CLRA, Fraudulent Concealment; Counts 6, 7, 9)Counts 6, 7, 9). ............ 20
`1.
`Plaintiffs fail to plead with Rule 9(b) particularity. ...................... 20
`2.
`Most of the Plaintiffs cannot bring claims under the CLRA
`or UCL. ......................................................................................... 22
`The four remaining Plaintiffs’ CLRA damages claims fail. ......... 23
`Plaintiffs otherwise fail to state a claim under the UCL. .............. 24
`a.
`Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the UCL’s
`“unlawful” prong. .............................................................. 24
`Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the UCL’s
`“unfair” prong. .................................................................. 24
`Plaintiffs’ Unjust Enrichment and Quasi-Contract Claims Fail
`(Count 5). .................................................................................................. 25
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 25
`
`3.
`4.
`
`b.
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`ii
`
`DEFENDANT ZOOM’S MOTION
`TO DISMISS THE FAC
`MASTER CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02155-LHK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 134 Filed 12/02/20 Page 4 of 36
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Aas v. Super. Ct.,
`24 Cal. 4th 627 (2000) ............................................................................................................ 16
`
`In re Apple & AT&T iPad Unlimited Data Plan Litig.,
`802 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................................................. 25
`
`In re Apple & ATTM Antitrust Litig.,
`No. C 07-05152, 2010 WL 3521965 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2010) ............................................... 20
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ............................................................................................................ 4, 19
`
`Baba v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`No. C 09-05946, 2010 WL 2486353 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2010) ............................................ 24
`
`Banga v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC,
`No. 14-CV-03038, 2015 WL 3799546 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2015) ......................................... 11
`
`Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.,
`570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................... 5, 6, 7
`
`Batzel v. Smith,
`333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................... 6
`
`Be In, Inc. v. Google Inc.,
`No. 12-CV-03373, 2013 WL 5568706 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2013) ............................................ 18
`
`Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................................. 4
`
`Belluomini v. Citigroup, Inc.,
`No. CV 13-01743, 2013 WL 3855589 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2013) .......................................... 12
`
`Bem v. Stryker Corp.,
`No. C 15-2485, 2015 WL 4573204 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2015) ............................................... 16
`
`Brodsky v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-00712, 2019 WL 4141936 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2019) ........................................ 19
`
`Burnell v. Marin Humane Soc’y,
`No. CV 14-5635, 2015 WL 6746818 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2015) ............................................. 16
`
`Cal. Grocers Ass’n, Inc. v. Bank of Am.,
`22 Cal. App. 4th 205 (1994).................................................................................................... 23
`
`iii
`
`DEFENDANT ZOOM’S MOTION
`TO DISMISS THE FAC
`MASTER CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02155-LHK
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 134 Filed 12/02/20 Page 5 of 36
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc.,
`339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`Page(s)
`
`Careau & Co. v. Sec. Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc.,
`222 Cal. App. 3d 1371 (1990) ................................................................................................. 19
`
`Castillo v. Seagate Tech., LLC,
`No. 16-cv-01958, 2016 WL 9280242 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2016) .......................................... 14
`
`Cattie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`504 F. Supp. 2d 939 (S.D. Cal. 2007) ..................................................................................... 23
`
`Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co.,
`20 Cal. 4th 163 (1999) ............................................................................................................ 24
`
`Davidson v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-04942, 2017 WL 976048 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2017)............................................. 21
`
`Dent v. Nat’l Football League,
`902 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................. 15
`
`Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc.,
`824 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc.,
`No. CV 12-3626, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 192144 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2016) .......................... 15
`
`Doe v. Kik Interactive, Inc.,
`No. 20-60702, 2020 WL 5156641 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2020)................................................... 8
`
`Doe v. MySpace, Inc.,
`528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`Dohrmann v. Intuit, Inc.,
`823 F. App’x 482 (9th Cir. 2020) ........................................................................................... 17
`
`Dual Diagnosis Treatment Ctr., Inc. v. Blue Cross of Cal.,
`SA CV 15-0736, 2016 WL 6892140 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2016) ............................................ 18
`
`Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Grp., Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-05359, 2017 WL 5665670 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2017), aff’d, 934
`F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................................ 15
`
`Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Grp., Inc.,
`934 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................... 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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`DEFENDANT ZOOM’S MOTION
`TO DISMISS THE FAC
`MASTER CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02155-LHK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 134 Filed 12/02/20 Page 6 of 36
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Elias v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`903 F. Supp. 2d 843 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................... 25
`
`Page(s)
`
`Ellsworth v. U.S. Bank, N.A.,
`908 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................. 17
`
`In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litig.,
`263 F. Supp. 3d 836 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .................................................................................... 11
`
`In re Facebook Privacy Litig.,
`572 F. App’x 494 (9th Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................... 22
`
`In re Facebook Privacy Litig.,
`791 F. Supp. 2d 705 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................................................... 23
`
`Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.Com, LLC,
`521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) ........................................................................... 5, 6, 8
`
`Fed. Agency of News LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`432 F. Supp. 3d 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................................................... 5
`
`Fields v. Wise Media, LLC,
`No. C 12-05160, 2013 WL 3812001 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2013) ............................................. 15
`
`Fish v. Aviation,
`No. 18-cv-06671, 2019 WL 690286 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2019) ............................................. 23
`
`Fraley v. Facebook, Inc.,
`830 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................................................... 25
`
`Frezza v. Google Inc.,
`No. 12-CV-00237, 2012 WL 5877587 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2012) ........................................ 23
`
`Gitson v. Trader Joe’s Co.,
`No. 13-cv-01333, 2014 WL 1048640 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2014)........................................... 21
`
`Goddard v. Google, Inc.,
`640 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .................................................................................... 8
`
`Gonzales v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`305 F. Supp. 3d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .................................................................................. 19
`
`In re Google Android Consumer Privacy Litig.,
`No. 11-MD-02264, 2013 WL 1283236 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013) ........................................ 14
`
`In re Google Assistant Privacy Litig.,
`457 F. Supp. 3d 797 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .............................................................................. 11, 18
`DEFENDANT ZOOM’S MOTION
`TO DISMISS THE FAC
`MASTER CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02155-LHK
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 134 Filed 12/02/20 Page 7 of 36
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Green v. Am. Online,
`318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`Page(s)
`
`Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc.,
`168 Cal. App. 4th 1194 (2008)................................................................................................ 14
`
`Hartmann v. Zoom Video Commc'ns, Inc.,
`No. 5:20-cv-02620-LHK (filed April 15, 2020) ..................................................................... 24
`
`Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc.,
`47 Cal. 4th 272 (2009) ............................................................................................................ 12
`
`Herrick v. Grindr, LLC,
`306 F. Supp. 3d 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), aff’d 765 F. App’x 586 (2d Cir. 2019) ........................ 7
`
`Herskowitz v. Apple Inc.,
`940 F. Supp. 2d 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .................................................................................. 25
`
`Hill v. NCAA,
`7 Cal. 4th 1 (1994) ............................................................................................................ 12, 13
`
`Hill v. Roll Int’l Corp.,
`195 Cal. App. 4th 1295 (2011)................................................................................................ 25
`
`Hodges v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 13-CV-01128, 2013 WL 4393545 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2013) ........................................ 24
`
`Holly v. Alta Newport Hosp., Inc.,
`No. 2:19-cv-07496, 2020 WL 1853308 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2020) ........................................ 17
`
`Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n,
`432 U.S. 333 (1977) ................................................................................................................ 17
`
`InfoStream Grp., Inc. v. Paypal, Inc.,
`No. C 12-748, 2012 WL 3731517 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2012) ................................................ 21
`
`Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson,
`110 Cal. App. 3d 868 (1980) ................................................................................................... 13
`
`In re iPhone App. Litig.,
`No. 11-MD-02250, 2011 WL 4403963 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011) ........................... 16, 20, 23
`
`In re iPhone Application Litig.,
`844 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................. 13
`
`J’Aire Corp. v. Gregory,
`24 Cal. 3d 799 (1979) ............................................................................................................. 14
`DEFENDANT ZOOM’S MOTION
`TO DISMISS THE FAC
`MASTER CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02155-LHK
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 134 Filed 12/02/20 Page 8 of 36
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC,
`817 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2016) ....................................................................................................... 7
`
`Page(s)
`
`Kalitta Air, L.L.C. v. Cent. Tex. Airborne Sys., Inc.,
`315 F. App’x 603 (9th Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................... 14
`
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 20
`
`Klayman v. Zuckerberg,
`753 F.3d 1354 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. 15
`
`Laster v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`407 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (S.D. Cal. 2005), aff’d, 252 F. App’x 777 (9th Cir. 2007) .................. 23
`
`Low v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`900 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ........................................................................... passim
`
`Marcus v. Apple Inc.,
`No. C 14-03824, 2015 WL 151489 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2015) ................................................. 25
`
`Mega RV Corp. v. HWH Corp.,
`225 Cal. App. 4th 1318 (2014)................................................................................................ 15
`
`Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc.,
`172 Cal. App. 4th 1125 (2009)................................................................................................ 13
`
`Neubronner v. Milken,
`6 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 1993) ....................................................................................................... 21
`
`Phillips v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-04879, 2016 WL 1579693 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2016) ......................................... 21
`
`Pirozzi v. Apple Inc.,
`913 F. Supp. 2d 840 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .................................................................................... 22
`
`R Power Biofuels, LLC v. Chemex LLC,
`No. 16-cv-00716, 2016 WL 6663002 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2016) .......................................... 13
`
`Roling v. E*Trade Sec., LLC,
`756 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .................................................................................. 18
`
`Rutherford Holdings, LLC v. Plaza Del Rey,
`223 Cal. App. 4th 221 (2014).................................................................................................. 25
`
`Sanchez v. Lending Tree LLC,
`No. 10CV1593, 2010 WL 3983390 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2010) ............................................... 15
`DEFENDANT ZOOM’S MOTION
`TO DISMISS THE FAC
`MASTER CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02155-LHK
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 134 Filed 12/02/20 Page 9 of 36
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Super. Ct.,
`243 Cal. App. 4th 741 (2015).................................................................................................. 13
`
`Page(s)
`
`Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of Cal., Inc.,
`125 Cal. App. 4th 949 (2005).................................................................................................. 22
`
`Schwarzkopf v. Int’l Bus. Machines, Inc.,
`No. C 08-2715, 2010 WL 1929625 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2010) .............................................. 17
`
`Sikhs for Justice “SFJ,” Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`144 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................................... 8
`
`Sion v. SunRun, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-05834, 2017 WL 952953 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2017)............................................. 16
`
`Smith v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.,
`93 Cal. App. 4th 700 (2001).................................................................................................... 24
`
`Smith v. Super. Ct.,
`10 Cal. App. 4th 1033 (1992).................................................................................................. 20
`
`Snapkeys, Ltd. v. Google LLC,
`442 F. Supp. 3d 1196 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................................................. 19
`
`In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`903 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Cal. 2012) ..................................................................................... 16
`
`In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`996 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Cal. 2014) ......................................................................... 14, 15, 16
`
`Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.,
`1995 WL 323710 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995) ...................................................................... 6
`
`Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Victor,
`43 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................................................... 19
`
`Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.,
`17 Cal.3d 425 (1976) .............................................................................................................. 15
`
`Terpin v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`399 F. Supp. 3d 1035 (C.D. Cal. 2019)................................................................................... 16
`
`Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. Prestige Ent. W., Inc.,
`315 F. Supp. 3d 1147 (C.D. Cal. 2018)................................................................................... 19
`
`Ting v. AT&T,
`319 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................. 23
`DEFENDANT ZOOM’S MOTION
`TO DISMISS THE FAC
`MASTER CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02155-LHK
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 134 Filed 12/02/20 Page 10 of 36
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`
`Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA,
`317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................. 20
`
`Page(s)
`
`Von Grabe v. Sprint PCS,
`312 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (S.D. Cal. 2003) ................................................................................... 23
`
`In re Yahoo Mail Litig.,
`7 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ...................................................................................... 12
`
`Yunker v. Pandora Media, Inc.,
`No. 11-CV-03113, 2013 WL 1282980 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013) ......................................... 14
`
`Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc.,
`129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`Statutes
`
`47 U.S.C. § 230 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 ................................................................................................... 23
`
`Cal. Civ. Code
`§ 1761(d) ................................................................................................................................. 22
`§ 1782(a) ................................................................................................................................. 23
`§ 3294 ...................................................................................................................................... 20
`
`Cal. Pen. Code § 502 ............................................................................................................... 19, 20
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`9(b) .......................................................................................................................................... 21
`12(b)(6) ................................................................................................................................. 1, 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`DEFENDANT ZOOM’S MOTION
`TO DISMISS THE FAC
`MASTER CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02155-LHK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 134 Filed 12/02/20 Page 11 of 36
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 4, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as
`this motion may be heard before the Honorable Judge Lucy H. Koh in Courtroom 8 of the United
`States District Court for the Northern District of California, 280 South First Street, San Jose,
`California, 4th Floor, Defendant Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (“Zoom”) will and hereby
`does move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the First
`Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiffs (ECF No. 126). Zoom
`moves to dismiss on the basis that the FAC fails to state claims on which relief may be granted.
`This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of
`Points and Authorities, the Request for Judicial Notice filed herewith, all pleadings and papers on
`file in this matter, and other matters as may be presented to the Court.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`Whether the FAC states a claim upon which relief may be granted.
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`In an effort to capitalize on Zoom’s explosive growth during the COVID-19 pandemic,
`Plaintiffs seek to hold Zoom liable on behalf of a nationwide class under a scattershot array of
`loosely related factual and legal theories, largely drawn from sensationalist news reports. The FAC
`is Plaintiffs’ third attempt to state claims upon which relief may be granted, but they still fail to do
`so.1 Instead, the FAC largely recycles the same flawed claims as Plaintiffs’ original consolidated
`complaint (“CAC”) (ECF No. 114) with a few minor additional factual allegations. None fixes the
`basic problems with their approach, including their failure to allege any personal harm caused by
`Zoom. This inadequate amendment in the face of Zoom’s initial motion to dismiss confirms that
`Plaintiffs do not have violations of California law to pursue. The FAC should be dismissed in full.
`Prior to becoming a ubiquitous tool for video chats and meetings during the pandemic,
`Zoom’s platform—founded in 2011 with the mission of making video and remote communications
`frictionless—was primarily designed for business customers and institutions, which are typically
`
`
`1 Prior to the FAC and CAC, most Plaintiffs also filed individual, pre-consolidation complaints.
`
`DEFENDANT ZOOM’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS THE FAC
`MASTER CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02155-LHK
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 134 Filed 12/02/20 Page 12 of 36
`
`
`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
`
`armed with dedicated IT departments. Virtually overnight, the pandemic dramatically expanded
`the number of Zoom users and added categories of consumers well beyond its established business
`customer base—including individuals, families, schools, churches, government agencies, and
`others seeking to connect and remain operational during the pandemic’s stay-in-place paradigm.
`Facing skyrocketing growth in use, Zoom has worked tirelessly since the pandemic’s onset
`to keep its services operational and secure, while developing and deploying extensive privacy and
`security enhancements to address new challenges caused by the massive uptick in non-corporate
`usage. Zoom tackled these challenges quickly, directly, and—critically—in an open and
`transparent manner. Zoom did not follow the traditional playbook. Rather, Zoom and its CEO held
`weekly townhalls (“Ask Eric Anything” webinars) in which the company candidly discussed its
`efforts to enhance privacy and security. Further, unlike the “data-brokerage strategy” Plaintiffs
`claim other internet companies have (see, e.g., FAC ¶ 117), Zoom’s business model is based on
`generating revenue by selling subscriptions, not user data.
`Against this background, Plaintiffs—apparently new users of Zoom during the pandemic—
`seek to hold Zoom liable for an assortment of alleged issues on behalf of an unsustainable
`nationwide class. Plaintiffs’ claims center on three main categories of conduct: (1) Zoom’s alleged
`unauthorized data sharing with third parties—namely Facebook, Google, and LinkedIn—through
`widely available functionalities designed to integrate those platforms with numerous applications
`like Zoom; (2) Zoom’s alleged failure to prevent unwanted meeting disruptions by third parties—
`i.e., “Zoombombings;” and (3) Zoom’s alleged misrepresentations about its encryption protocols.
`The FAC is Plaintiffs’ third attempt to state their claims. Yet again, they strike out. No
`Plaintiff alleges that Zoom jeopardized any of their own personal data through alleged sharing with
`a third party. And Plaintiffs cannot hold Zoom responsible for meeting disruptions by independent,
`wrongfully acting third parties, including because the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C.
`§ 230 (“Section 230” or “CDA”) immunizes Zoom for such third-party content. Finally, no
`Plaintiff alleges that they ever received, reviewed, or relied upon any specific Zoom representations
`concerning encryption. In short, Plaintiffs fail to allege facts sufficient to show cognizable harm
`to any Plaintiff and otherwise fail sufficiently to plead the elements of the nine causes of action at
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`DEFENDANT ZOOM’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS THE FAC
`MASTER CASE NO. 5:20-CV-02155-LHK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 134 Filed 12/02/20 Page 13 of 36
`
`
`issue. The FAC should be dismissed in full, with prejudice.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND2
`Zoom’s Videoconferencing Services
`A.
`Zoom offers “[s]implified video conferencing and messaging across any device.” (FAC
`¶ 65.) Although one need not register with Zoom to join a Zoom meeting, Zoom offers various
`tiers of membership for registered users, including Basic, Pro, Business, and Enterprise, with the
`subscription costs ranging in price based on tier from free to $19.99 per month per license. (Id.
`¶ 66.)3 Zoom’s “published privacy policy” applies to both free and paying users. (Id.)
`