Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 1 of 60
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 1 of 60
`
`5820633.1.2
`
`Melody Rodgers
`438 River Ridge Drive
`Wallace, North Carolina 28466
`(910) 321-8612
`melodyjrodgers@yahoo.com
`
`Objector in pro per
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SANJOSEDIVISION
`
`§
`§
`MELODY RODGERS’
`§
`OBJECTION TO
`§
`
`
`«AGREEMENT§ SETTLEMENT
`
`§
`ez
`2
`§
`Zo
`§
`
`gE
`
`mer. aFeBueKal
`
`RECEIVE!
`
`FEB072022
`
`QnBooWj WW
`
`IN RE: ZOOM VIDEO
`COMMUNICATIONS,INC. PRIVACY
`LITIGATION
`
`Case No. 5:20-CV-02155-LHK
`
`JUDGE: Hon. Lucy H. Koh
`CTRM: 8-4" Floor
`
`7
`
`N@’W:COMES Melody Rodgers, and files her Objection to the Settlement Agreemententered by
`enigamong Caitlin Brice, Heddi N. Cundle, Angela Doyle, Isabelle Gmerek, Kristen Hartmann,
`
`Peter Hirshberg M.F., Therese Jimenez, Lisa T. Johnston, Oak Life Church, Saint Paulus Lutheran
`
`Church, and Stacey Simins (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of
`
`the Putative Settlement Class, and Zoom Video CommunicationsInc. (hereinafter referred to as
`
`“Zoom”), and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:
`
`A. INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`In May 2021, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Zoom before this Honorable Court
`
`for data sharing; behavior tracking; user profiling; data mining through third party applications;
`
`collection of personal data; unauthorized interception and use of video sessions, chats, and
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 2 of 60
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 2 of 60
`
`5820633.1.3
`
`transcripts; misrepresentations regarding end-to-end encryption; invasion of privacy in violation
`
`ofCalifornia Common Law andthe California Constitution, Art. 1, § 1; breach of implied contract;
`
`breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; unjust enrichment/quasi-contract,
`
`violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seg.; and
`
`violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750.
`
`2.
`
`In July 2021, Zoom released a Class Action Settlement Agreement and Releasethat
`
`was executed by interim counsel for Plaintiffs and Counsel for Zoom (hereinafter referred to as
`
`the “Settlement Agreement”). Exhibit 1.
`
`3.
`
`Subsequently, the Settlement Administrator issued a Legal Notice of Class Action
`
`Settlement(hereinafter referred to as the “Notice”). Exhibit 2. The Notice provided that any party
`
`that wishes to object to the Settlement should write to this Court and inform it of why they don’t
`
`think the settlement should be approved by March 5, 2022. Melody Rodgershas filed her Objection
`
`in a timely fashionin accordance with the Notice. This Objection applies to Melody Rodgersalone.
`
`4.
`
`Melody Rodgers, pursuant
`
`to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(5), objects to proposed
`
`settlement in the above-captioned class action. The basis for the objection is that the proposed
`
`settlement is not fair, reasonable, or adequate.In particular, the settlement is not fair, reasonable
`
`or adequate to Melody Rodgers or the members ofthe class because the fund established by the
`
`settlement is so small that it diminishes the award to other class membersto a large extent.
`
`B. MELODY RODGERS’ STANDINGTO FILE THIS OBJECTION
`
`5.
`
`Melody Rodgers(hereinafter referred to as “Melody”) is a law-abiding female adult
`
`citizen of sound mind and a resident of 438 RIVER RIDGE DR. WALLACE, NC 28466.
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 3 of 60
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 3 of 60
`
`5820633.1.4
`
`6.
`Section 1.40 of the Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as all
`Persons in the United States who, between March 30, 2016 and the Settlement Date, 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 andits officers and
`
`directors; and(iii) the Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom theaction is assigned and any member
`
`of those Judges' staffs or immediate family members.” Exhibit 1.
`
`7.
`
`The Settlement Agreementis dated 07/30/2021. Between March 30, 2016 and July
`
`30, 2021, Melody registered, used, opened and downloaded the Zoom Meetings Application on
`
`her personal computer. She did not use the app through an Enterprise-Level Account, a Zoom
`
`Government Account, andis neither an officer or director of Zoom. Melodyis neither a judge to
`
`whom this action is assigned nor a member of the learned judge’s staff or immediate family
`
`member. Melody falls within the definition of a Settlement Class, and is therefore a Settlement
`
`Class Member.
`
`C. GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION
`
`8.
`
`Section 2.2(c)(1) of the Settlement Agreement provides: “All Settlement Class
`
`Membersnoteligible to submit a Paid Subscription Claim are entitled to submit a User Claim for
`
`$15 (such claimsare referred to herein as “User Claim(s)”).” Exhibit 1.
`
`9.
`Melody is entitled to submit a User Claim. However,the settlement of $15 is too
`low in regard to the damage suffered after Zoom failed to prevent unauthorized interception of
`
`Zoom sessions.
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 4 of 60
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 4 of 60
`
`5820633.1.5
`
`10...
`
`Between the dates of December 2020 and December 2021, each and every Monday
`
`afternoon, Melody and 20 others held Zoom meetings to discuss a sensitive matters.in regard to
`
`their children. During their meeting, a man who was not known to any ofthe people in the meeting
`
`and who was not supposedto join their meeting, joined the meeting and began masturbating as
`
`Melodyandthe other people were conducting their meeting.
`
`11.
`
`Zoom hasrepresentedthat their end-to-end encryption ensures that communication
`
`between all meeting participants using Zoom clients in a given meeting is encrypted using
`
`cryptographic keys known only to the devices of those participants.!
`
`12.
`
`Melody avers that during the Zoom meeting that was held amongherand 14 others,
`
`Zoom did not encrypt it using cryptographic keys as represented by Zoom.If indeed Zoom had
`
`encrypted the meeting using cryptographic keys, the unknown man whoinfiltrated the meeting
`
`and began masturbating would not have had access to the meeting.
`
`13.
`
`Asaresult of Zoom’sfailure to encrypt the meeting, the unknown man wasable to
`
`obtain personal details ofMelody as well as the otherparticipants. In its Privacy Statement”, Zoom
`
`states: “Hosts and otherparticipants in a meeting may beable to see your email, display name, and
`
`profile picture. Meeting hosts and participants can also see and (depending on the account owner’s
`
`settings) record or save meeting content, audio transcripts, messages sent to Everyoneor to them
`
`directly, and files, whiteboards, or other information shared during a meeting. Hosts may also be
`
`able to see responses to Q&A and polls generated during the meeting.”
`
`14.|Whenthe unknown maninfiltrated the meeting, he became a participant. No one
`
`knows howhe wasable to join the meeting. For the duration that he was in the meeting, he had
`
`1 h
`
`itps://explore.zoom.us/en/trust/privacy/#:~:text=Zoom%o20takes%o20your%20privacy%20extremely%20seriously.
`&text=End%2Dto%2Dend%20encryption”o20for.the%20devices%200f%20those%o20participants.
`? https://explore.zoom.us/en/privacy/
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 5 of 60
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 5 of 60
`
`5820633.1.6
`
`access to Melody’s email, display name, profile picture, as well as meeting content, audio
`
`transcripts, messages sent to Everyone, and other information that she had shared during the
`
`meeting. The issue that was being discussed during the meeting involvedthe participants’ children,
`
`among them Melody’s. The intentions ofthe unknown man cannotbe established.
`
`15.|When joining the meeting, Melody was aware that the participants who had
`
`authorized access to the meeting would see her personal information. She consented to that when
`
`she agreed to the terms of use and privacy policy of Zoom, and proceededto join and participate
`
`in the meeting. However, Melody did not consent to unauthorized people viewing her personal
`
`information. That amountsto a violation of Melody’s rightto privacy.
`
`16.|No action has been taken by Zoom in regard to the obscenity that appeared during
`
`the meeting.
`
`17.
`
`Zoom shared Melody’s personal information with Facebook. Melody and other
`
`participants are members ofan organization called “Save Our Children Truth Commission.” They
`
`discussed confidential matters pertaining to the welfare of their children. Melody did not consent
`
`to the mannerin which Zoom sharedherpersonal information with Facebook.Sheis not a user of
`
`Facebook, yet Zoom shared her personal information with Facebook.
`
`18. Asa result of Zoom sharing her personal information with Facebook, Melody
`
`becamea target of abusers of her children. Facebook shares personal information with third party
`
`applications. Melody experienced gang-stalking as a result of Zoom divulging her personal
`
`information and location without her consent.
`
`19.|Melody and other members of Save Our Children Truth Commission preferred to
`
`edit videos before posting them online. They edited videos to cut out footage containing
`
`confidential information that they did not wantreleased to the public. As a result of Zoom sharing
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 6 of 60
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 6 of 60
`
`5820633.1.7
`
`their personal information, unauthorized third parties were able to gain access to unedited footage
`
`that contained confidential information which Melody and other members did not want to share
`
`with the public.
`
`20.|Melody and members of Save Our Children Truth Commission used Zoom to
`
`discuss details of a lawsuit in which they were parties. As a result of Zoom sharing their personal
`
`information, adverse parties were able to obtain confidential information, including the legal
`
`strategy of Melody and members of Save Our Children Truth Commission.
`
`21.
`
`Melody believes that the amountof $15 is toolittle to be paid as damagesfor the
`
`injury as a result of invasion of her privacy and asks this Honorable Court to review the amount
`
`awarded to Melody upwards.
`
`D. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED,Melody Rodgersrespectfully requests
`
`this Honorable Court to award her damagesin the sum of $40,000.
`
`Dated this 28" day of January, 2022.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Mlelady YZ Redgers
`Melody Rodgers,
`438 River Ridge Drive
`Wallace, North Carolina 28466
`(910) 321-8612
`melodyjrodgers@yahoo.com
`
`Objector in pro per
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 7 of 60
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 7 of 60
`
`§820633.1.9
`
`VERIFICATION
`
`Underpenalties as provided by law, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in
`
`Melody Rodgers’ Objection to Settlement Agreement are true and correct, except as to matters
`
`therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersigned certifies as
`
`aforesaid that he or she verily believes the same to be true.
`
`Dated this 31‘ day of January, 2022.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Welody g Rodgers
`Melody Rodgers,
`438 River Ridge Drive
`Wallace, North Carolina 28466
`(910) 321-8612
`melodyjrodgers@yahoo.com
`
`Objector in pro per
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 8 of 60
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 8 of 60
`
`§820633.1.10
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`On the 31day ofJanuary 2022, I, Melody Rodgers, served a copy ofthis Opposition to Settlement
`
`and any attached pagesto the following parties and/or attorneys by first class mail:
`
`Tina Wolfson (SBN 174806)
`twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
`Theodore Maya (SBN 223242)
`tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
`Bradley K. King (SBN 274399)
`bking@ahdootwolfson.com
`Christopher E. Stiner (SBN 276033)
`cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
`Rachel Johnson (SBN 331351)
`rjohnson@ahdootwolfson.com
`AHDOOT & WOLFSON,PC
`2600 W.Olive Avenue, Suite 500
`Burbank, CA 91505
`Tel: (310) 474-9111
`Fax: (310) 474-8585
`
`Mark C. Molumphy (SBN 168009)
`mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
`Joseph W. Cotchett (SBN 36324)
`jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
`Tyson Redenbarger (SBN 294424)
`tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com
`Noorjahan Rahman (SBN 330572)
`nrahman@cpmlegal.com
`Julia Peng (SBN 318396)
`jpeng@cpmlegal.com
`COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP
`840 Malcolm Road,Suite 200
`Burlingame, CA 94010
`Telephone: 650.697.6000
`Facsimile: 650.697.0577
`
`Rachele R. Byrd
`byrd@whafh.com
`WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
`Symphony Towers
`750 B Street, Suite 1820
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Tel: (619) 239-4599
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 9 of 60
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 9 of 60
`
`5820633.1.11
`
`Fax: (619) 234-4599
`
`Albert Y. Chang
`achang@bottinilaw.com
`BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
`7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
`La Jolla, CA 92037
`Tel: (858) 914-2001
`Fax: (858) 914-2002
`
`Eric H. Gibbs
`GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
`505 14th Street, Suite 1110
`Oakland, CA 94612
`Telephone: (510) 350-9700
`Fax: (510) 350-9701
`ehg@classlaweroup.com
`
`Dated this 31* day of January, 2022.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Hhbeady Z Redgers
`Melody Rodgers,
`438 River Ridge Drive
`Wallace, North Carolina 28466
`(910) 321-8612
`melodyjrodgers@yahoo.com
`
`Objector in pro per
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 10 of 60
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 10 of 60
`
`5820633.1.12
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`

`5820633.1.13
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 11 of 60
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 11 of 60
`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 191-1 Filed 07/31/21 Page 2 of 145
`
`CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTAND RELEASE
`
`This Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release (“Settlement Agreement”) is entered
`into by and amongthe following parties: (i) Caitlin Brice, Heddi N. Cundle, Angela Doyle, Isabelle
`Gmerek, Kristen Hartmann, Peter Hirshberg, M.F., Therese Jimenez, Lisa T. Johnston, Oak Life
`Church, Saint Paulus Lutheran Church, and Stacey Simins(“Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of
`the putative Settlement Class (as defined below), and (ii) Defendant Zoom Video Communications,
`Inc. “Zoom” or “Defendant”) (Plaintiffs and Defendant shall be referred to collectively as the
`“Parties,” individually as a “Party”). This Settlement Agreementis conditioned upon and subject to
`approval of the Court as required by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Parties
`hereby stipulate and agree that, in consideration of the promises and covenants set forth in this
`Settlement Agreement, the Action (as defined below) andall Released Claims(as defined below)shall
`be finally and fully settled, compromised, and released, on the following terms and conditions:
`
`RECITALS
`
`WHEREAS,between March 30, 2020 and June 2, 2020, the following actions were filed
`A.
`against Zoom in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California alleging the same or
`similar operative facts: Cullen v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK; Taylor
`v. Zoom Video Communications,
`Inc., No. 5:20-cv-02170-LHK; Johnston v. Zoom Video
`Communications, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-02376-LHK; Gens v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No. 4:20-
`cv-03078-LHK; Kondrat v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-02520-LHK; Lawtonv.
`Zoom Video Communications,
`Inc., No.
`5:20-cv-02592-LHK;
`Jimenez
`v. Zoom Video
`Communications, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-02591-LHK; Hartmann v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No.
`5:20-cv-02620-LHK; Henry v. Zoom Video Communications,
`Inc., No. 5:20-cv-02691-LHK;
`Greenbaum v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-02861-LHK; Simins v. Zoom Video
`Communications, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-02893-LHK; Buxbaum v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No.
`5:20-cv-02939-LHK; Kirpekar v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-03042-LHK; Saint
`Paulus Lutheran Church v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-03252-LHK; Hurvitz v.
`Zoom Video Communications,
`Inc., No.
`5:20-cv-03258-LHK; Ohweiler
`v. Zoom Video
`Communications, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-03281-LHK; and Rios v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No.
`5:20-cv-03670-LHK (the “Related Actions”);
`
`WHEREAS,on May28,June 2, and June 5, 2020, the Court ordered the Related Actions
`B.
`consolidated into Case No. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK, which was recaptioned In Re: Zoom Video
`Communications, Inc. Privacy Litigation, and ordered the filing of a Consolidated Amended Class
`Action Complaint (Dkt. Nos. 62, 67, 79) (the “Action”);
`
`the Court appointed Tina Wolfson of Ahdoot &
`WHEREAS, on June 30, 2020,
`C.
`Wolfson, PC and Mark C. Molumphy of Cotchett, Pitre, & McCarthy LLP as interim co-lead class
`counselin the Action (Dkt. No. 92);
`
`WHEREAS,the Action arises from four central theories of alleged conduct by Zoom:
`D.
`(1) alleged unauthorized sharing of users’ information with third-parties through incorporation of
`software development kits (SDKs) in the Zoom application, (2) alleged unauthorized sharing of users’
`information with third-parties through third-party developers’ development and deployment of apps
`that integrate with Zoom’s products,(3) alleged failure to prevent unwanted meeting disruptions by
`
`CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE 5:20-cv-02155-LHK
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`5820633.1.14
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 12 of 60
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 12 of 60
`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 191-1 Filed 07/31/21 Page 3 of 145
`
`third parties, and (4) alleged misrepresentations that Zoom provided end-to-end encryption at a time
`when Plaintiffs alleged Zoom did not;
`
`WHEREAS,on July 30, 2020, Plaintiffs Caitlin Brice, Heddi N. Cundle, Isabelle
`E.
`Gmerek, Cynthia Gormezano, Kristen Hartmann, M.F. and his parent Therese Jimenez, Lisa T.
`Johnston, Oak Life Church, Saint Paulus Lutheran Church, and Stacey Siminsfiled a Consolidated
`Amended Class Action Complaint (“CAC”) and alleged claims for (1) violation of the California
`Constitution’s right to privacy, Art. 1, § 1; (2) negligence; (3) breach of implied contract; (4) breach of
`the implied covenant of goodfaith and fair dealing; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) violation of California’s
`Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; (7) violation of California’s
`Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.; (8) violation of the
`Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (“CDAFA”), Cal. Penal Code § 502; and (9)
`fraudulent concealment, Cal. Civ. Code § 1710(3) (Dkt. No. 114);
`
`WHEREAS, on September 14, 2020, Zoom filed a motion to dismiss the CAC’s
`F.
`allegations in their entirety for failure to allege harm traceable to Zoom andfailure to state a claim
`(Dkt. No. 133);
`
`WHEREAS,on October 28, 2020, Plaintiffs Caitlin Brice, Heddi N. Cundle, Isabelle
`G.
`Gmerek, Cynthia Gormezano, Kristen Hartmann, M.F. and his parent Therese Jimenez, Lisa T.
`Johnston, Oak Life Church, Saint Paulus Lutheran Church, and Stacey Siminsfiled a First Amended
`Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“FAC”), which addedthree additional namedplaintiffs Angela
`Doyle, Sharon Garcia, and Peter Hirshberg, and two additional claims for invasion of privacy under
`the California commonlaw and quasi-contract (Dkt. No. 126);
`
`WHEREAS, on December 2, 2020, Zoom filed a motion to dismiss the FAC’s
`H.
`allegations in their entirety, again, for failure to allege harm traceable to Zoom andfailure to state a
`claim (Dkt. No. 133);
`
`WHEREAS,on December 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their brief in opposition to Zoom’s
`I.
`motion to dismiss the FAC (Dkt. No. 141);
`
`WHEREAS,on March 11, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part Zoom’s
`J.
`motion to dismiss the FAC, with leave to amend consistent with the Court’s order (Dkt. No. 168);
`
`WHEREAS,on May 12, 2021, Plaintiffs Caitlin Brice, Heddi Cundle, Angela Doyle,
`K.
`Isabelle Gmerek, Kristen Hartmann, Peter Hirshberg, M.F. and his parent Therese Jimenez, Lisa T.
`Johnston, Oak Life Church, Saint Paulus Lutheran Church, and Stacey Simins filed a Second Amended
`Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“SAC”) and alleged claims for (1) California common law
`invasion of privacy and violation California Constitution’s right to privacy, Art. 1, § 1; (2) breach of
`implied contract; (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) unjust
`enrichment/quasi-contract; (5) violation of California’s UCL; and (6) violation of California’s CLRA
`(Dkt. No. 179);
`
`WHEREAS,between September 2020 and June 2021, the Parties engaged in significant
`L.
`discovery into the claims and defenses,
`including written discovery, document productions, and
`motions to compel;
`
`CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE5:20-cv-02155-LHK
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`
`
`5820633.1.15
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 13 of 60
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 13 of 60
`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 191-1 Filed 07/31/21 Page4 of 145
`
`M.|WHEREAS,starting in November 2020, the Parties and their respective counsel have
`participated in extensive settlement discussions mediated by the Hon. Jay Gandhi (Ret.) of JAMS,
`including mediation sessions on October 30, 2020, November 13, 2020, April 21, 2021, and May 19,
`2021, as well as numerous individual and joint conversations with Judge Gandhi and numerous
`conversations and email communications between counsel supervised by Judge Gandhi;
`
`WHEREAS,after extensive arms-length negotiations, the Parties reached an agreement
`N.
`in principle to settle on the terms and conditions embodied in this Settlement Agreement;
`
`WHEREAS,the Parties desire to resolve all claims that are asserted or could have been
`O.
`asserted in the Action relating to the allegations madetherein;
`
`WHEREAS,Zoom deniesthat it has engaged in any wrongdoing anddenies all claims
`P,
`asserted by Plaintiffs in the Action. This Agreement shall in no event be construed or deemedto be
`evidence of or an admission, presumption or concession on the part of Zoom ofany fault,liability, or
`wrongdoing as to any facts or claims asserted in the Action (or any infirmity in the defenses it has
`asserted or could assert in the Action), or any other actions or proceedings, and shall not be interpreted,
`construed, offered, or received in evidence or otherwise used against Zoom in any other action or
`proceeding, whethercivil, criminal or administrative;
`
`WHEREAS,Plaintiffs have conducted extensive discovery relating to the Action, have
`Q.
`analyzed the legal issues in the Action, have retained and consulted with experts, have engaged in
`motion practice in connection with the Action, and believe that the proposed settlement with Zoom,as
`set forth herein, is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the putative Settlement
`Class and that this Settlement Agreement should be approved by the Court under Rule 23(e) of the
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
`
`WHEREAS,Plaintiffs have consulted with Zoom on prospective changestoits policies,
`R.
`procedures, and practices related to the allegations in the SAC, including consultation with Zoom in
`advance of Zoom’s June 4, 2021 revisionsto its Privacy Statement;
`
`WHEREAS,Zoomis entering into this Settlement Agreement to avoid the costs and
`Ss.
`uncertainties of continuedlitigation of the Action, and Zoom believes that the Settlement Agreement
`is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and that the Settlement Agreement should be approved by the Court
`under Rule 23(e);
`
`WHEREAS,the Settlement Agreementresolves the Action in its entirety without any
`T.
`admission ofliability, and the Parties intend this Settlement Agreement to bind the Parties;
`
`WHEREAS,on May 1, 2020,a putative class action wasfiled in the Superior Court of
`U.
`California, County of Santa Clara underthe caption Arriaza v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No.
`20CV366439 (“Arriaza”), alleging liability based on the same theories of alleged conduct by Zoom as
`alleged in this Action, and bringing claims for (1) California common law invasion of privacy and
`violation of the California Constitution’s right to privacy, Art. 1, § 1; (2) negligence; (3) breach of the
`implied warranty ofmerchantability; (4) breach ofimplied contract; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) violation
`of California’s UCL; (7) violation of California’s CLRA; and (8) violation of the California Consumer
`Privacy Act, which action was subsequently stayed by the Santa Clara Superior Court;
`
`-3-
`CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTAND RELEASE5:20-cv-02155-LHK
`
`

`

`5820633.1.16
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 14 of 60
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 14 of 60
`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 191-1 Filed 07/31/21 Page 5 of 145
`
`the Related Action Greenbaum v. Zoom Video
`WHEREAS, on June 3, 2020,
`V.
`Communications, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-02861-LHK wasvoluntarily dismissed from the Northern District
`of California without prejudice (Dkt. No. 17), and refiled in the Superior Court of California, County
`of Santa Clara under the caption Greenbaum v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No. 20CV366980
`(“Greenbaum”), alleging liability based on the sametheories of alleged conduct by Zoom asalleged
`in this Action, and bringing claims for(1) negligence; (2) violation of California’s Invasion of Privacy
`Act, Cal. Penal Code § 630, et seq.; (3) violation of California’s UCL; (4) violation of California’s
`False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.; (5) unjust enrichment/quasi-contract;
`(6) intrusion upon seclusion; (7) breach of implied contract; and (8) breach ofthe implied covenant of
`good faith andfair dealing, which action was subsequently stayed by the Santa Clara Superior Court;
`
`WHEREAS,the Parties believe that a Settlement Agreement can and should be
`W.
`approved to avoid the time, expense, and uncertainty of protractedlitigation; and in the eventthat a
`Settlement Agreement does not receive final and binding approval from the Court or is terminated
`according toits terms, Plaintiffs expressly reserve the rightto file for class certification andtotry their
`case to judgment, while Zoom reserves the right to challenge class certification and reserves its other
`defenses; and
`
`WHEREAS,the Parties agree to stay other non-settlement related proceedingsin this
`X.
`Action, including any further discovery or motion practice, pending final and binding approval from
`the Court pursuant to the Federal Rules.
`
`AGREEMENT
`
`NOW THEREFORE,IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED,subject to approval by the Court
`pursuant to Rule 23(e), by and amongthe Parties, as follows:
`
`DEFINITIONS. As used herein, in addition to any definitions set forth elsewhere in this
`1.
`Settlement Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below:
`
`“Action” means all actions which have been filed in, transferred to, or otherwise
`1.1
`assigned to the Court and included or consolidated in the consolidated case captioned In re: Zoom
`Video Communications, Inc. Privacy Litigation, No. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK (N.D.Cal.).
`
`“Additional Plaintiffs’ Counsel” means Wexler Wallace LLP, Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
`1.2
`Tycko & Zavareei LLP, The Technology Law Group, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Hartley LLP, Gutride
`Safier LLP, Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., Clayeo C. Arnold, A
`Professional Law Corp., Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Reinhardt Wendorf &
`Blanchfield, Arnold Law Firm, Murphy & McGonigle, RLLP, Loevy and Loevy, Miller Advocacy
`Group, Clarkson Law Firm,P.C., and Law Offices of JohnL.Fallat.
`
`“Agreement” or “Settlement Agreement” means this Class Action Settlement
`1.3
`Agreement and Release. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are set forth herein including the
`exhibits hereto, which are incorporated herein by reference.
`
`“Approved Claim(s)” means a Settlement Claim as evidenced by a Claim Form
`1.4
`submitted by a Settlement Class Memberthat (i) is timely and submitted in accordance with the
`
`-4.
`CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE5:20-cv-02155-LHK
`
`

`

`5820633.1.17
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 15 of 60
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 15 of 60
`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 191-1 Filed 07/31/21 Page 6 of 145
`
`directions on the Claim Form andthe terms of this Agreement; satisfies the conditionsofeligibility for
`a Settlement Payment as set forth in this Agreement; and has been approved by the Settlement
`Administrator; or (ii) is otherwise accepted by the Court.
`
`“Claim Form” meansthe form Settlement Class Members submit to make a Settlement
`1.5
`Claim pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement, substantially in the form
`attached hereto as Exhibit A, as approved by the Court.
`
`1.6
`
`“Claimant” means a Settlement Class Member who submits a Settlement Claim.
`
`“Claim Deadline” meansthe date by which(a) all Claim Forms mustbe postmarked or
`1.7
`submitted electronically to be considered timely. The Claim Deadline shall be set by the Court in the
`Preliminary Approval Order. The Parties will propose a Claims Deadline that is sixty (60) calendar
`days following the Notice Date.
`
`“Class Counsel” means Tina Wolfson, Mark C. Molumphy,andtheir respective firms,
`1.8
`Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC and Cotchett, Pitre, & McCarthy LLP.
`
`“Class Representatives” and “Plaintiffs” mean Plaintiffs Caitlin Brice, Heddi N.
`1.9
`Cundle, Angela Doyle, Isabelle Gmerek, Kristen Hartmann, Peter Hirshberg, M.F., Therese Jimenez,
`Lisa T. Johnston, Oak Life Church, Saint Paulus Lutheran Church, and Stacey Simins.
`
`1.10
`
`“Court” meansthe United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
`
`1.11
`corporation.
`
`“Defendant” or “Zoom” means Zoom Video Communications, Inc., a Delaware
`
`1.12
`
`“Defendant’s Counsel” or “Zoom’s Counsel” means Cooley LLP.
`
`“Effective Date” means one business day after the latest of the following events has
`1.13
`occurred:(1) the date upon which the time expiresforfiling or noticing any appeal of the Court’s Final
`Approval Order approving the Settlement Agreement;(ii) if there is an appeal or appeals, the date of
`completion, in a mannerthat finally affirms and leaves in place the Final Approval Order without any
`material modification, ofall proceedings arising out ofthe appeal or appeals (including, but not limited
`to, the expiration of all deadlines for motions for reconsideration or petitions for review and/or
`certiorari, all proceedings ordered on remand,andall proceedingsarising out of any subsequent appeal
`or appeals following decisions on remand);or(iii) the date of final dismissal of any appealor thefinal
`dismissal of any proceedingoncertiorari. Ifthe Final Approval Orderis set aside, materially modified,
`or overturned by the Court or on appeal, and is not fully reinstated on further appeal, then the Effective
`Date has not occurred for purposesofthis section.
`
`“Enterprise-Level Account” meansa registered Zoom Meetings Application (“App”)
`1.14
`accountthat as of the Settlement Date belonged to, was controlled by, or was provisioned by a Person
`paying to use (or otherwise licensed by Zoom to use) the Zoom Meetings Appat the “Enterprise” level
`of Zoom’s pricing plans, as opposed to other account types, including “Basic”, “Pro”, or “Business”
`levels (see https://zoom.us/pricing).
`
`-5-
`CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTAND RELEASE5:20-cv-02155-LHK
`
`

`

`
`
`§820633.1.18
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 16 of 60
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 220 Filed 02/07/22 Page 16 of 60
`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 191-1 Filed 07/31/21 Page 7 of 145
`
`“Fee and Expense Award” means the amountofattorneys’ fees and expenses awarded
`1.15
`to Class Counsel by the Court to be paid out of the Settlement Fund.
`
`“Final Approval Hearing” means the hearing(s) before the Court where the Parties
`1.16
`will request that the Final Approval Order be entered by the Court finally approving the Settlement as
`fair, reasonable and adequate, and approving the Fee and Expense Award and the Service Payments to
`the Class Representatives.
`
`“Final Approval Order” meansthe order to be entered by the Court after the Final
`1.17
`Approval Hearing, which approves the Settlement Agreement. The Final Approval Order must be
`substantially similar to the form attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`“Judgment” means the judgmentto be entered by the Court. The Judgment must be
`1.18
`substantially similar to the form of Exhibit H.
`
`“Long Form Notice” meansthe legal notice ofthe proposed Settlement terms described
`1.19
`in Section 5.2 of this Agreement, to be provided