Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 225 Filed 03/01/22 Page1of 2
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 225 Filed 03/01/22 Page 1 of 2
`oa
`
`|w
`
`ee Better World Properties, LLC
`
`ae 0 Ree)
`February 18, 2022
`
`partments dane better”
`
`Class Action Clerk
`San FranciscoCourthouse,Courtroom B—15'"Floor
`United States District Court for the Northern District of California
`450 Golden Gate Avenue
`San Francisco, CA 94102
`
`FILED
`MAR
`1 2029
`noneOistaicrgeSTRICTCoyUAT
`K,U.8D
`
`F CALIFORNIA
`
`in Re: Zoom Video Communications, Inc. Privacy Litigation, Case No, 3:20-cv-02155-LB
`
`
`
`Your Honor,
`
`My company, Better World Properties LLC of Houston, Texas (claimant No. H497767696) has been a client of Zoom
`since March of 2020. During this time, we have paid for three Zoom Meetings Pro licenses and we consider ourselves
`a Settlement Class Member.
`
`On behalf ofall Class Members, we object to the settlement currently proposed in this case.
`
`While we are aware of anecdotal stories related to perceived security lapses and assumed mishandling of data by
`Zoom, our relevant and considerable experience suggests to us that these concerns are exaggerated and unlikely to
`have caused harm that Zoom should befinancially responsible for. As a regular Zoom user, we learned early on that
`this was not a platform on which to conductsensitive business, that user-controlled settings were the primary
`determinantof accessibility, and that common-sense measures were the best way to increase security. We too have
`plenty of stories about strange things that have happened through Zoom,but at no time did we ever experience any
`financial loss that could remotely be attributable to Zoom.
`
`We have noother attorneys representing or advising us in this matter, nor do we have any special relationship with
`the defendant. Our experience as business owners remindsus that suits of this nature are generallyill-advised, cause
`insurance and othercosts to rise unnecessarily, and will ultimately serve only to enrich the plaintiff's attorneys. The
`pittance of a refund customerslike us stand to receive is entirely unwarranted and unjustified compared to the harm
`such settlements cause to American business. In the absence of criminal conduct orwillful acts of deceit designed
`to increase profits white knowingly harming the public, we do not believe the settlement contemplatedis justified.
`
`Webelieve any settlement should be limited to a refund of monies actually paid by those few who are.actively
`complaining.
`
`While we do not intend to appear at the Final Approval Hearing, we pray that our objection is considered and entered
`into the record.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`L M
`
`ichael Knight
`Owner & Executive Vice President
`
`350 Glenborough Dr, Suite 200 — Houston, TX 77067
`BetterWorldLLC.com — (713) 559-6975
`
`

`

`ROE
`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 225 Filed 03/01/22 Page 2 of 2
`= CV-
`02155-LB Document 225 Filed 03/01/22. Pag
`‘20
`
`
`
`apartmentsdonebetter”
`
`MAR12022
`
`RECEIVED
`
`
`NORTHDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA
`RICU.S.DISTRICTCOURT
`
`
`
`
`U.S.DistrictCourtfortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`
`SanFranciscoCourthouse,CourtroomB—15"Floor
`
`
`450GoldenGateAvenue
`
`
`
`ClassActionClerk
`
`
`
`SanFrancisco,CA94102
`
`
`
`‘2-BAesisLfaandyDgApa]tpstEbafftygn}kgfUffGPEpeghyd]
`
`Poipleljiliie's
`
`world
`
`HoustonTX77076—
`
`
`
`=™BetterWorldPropertiesLLC~350GlenboroughDrSte200
`
`
`
`WORTHHOUSTONTX773
`
`24FEB2022PIS
`
`r
`
`
`
`