Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 249 Filed 04/21/22 Page 1 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`San Francisco Division
`
`IN RE: ZOOM VIDEO
`COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PRIVACY
`LITIGATION
`
`
`This Document Relates To:
`ALL ACTIONS.
`
`
`
`Case No. 20-cv-02155-LB
`
`FINAL APPROVAL ORDER
`Re: ECF Nos. 216, 217
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This is a consumer-privacy class action against Zoom Video Communications. The plaintiffs
`allege that Zoom improperly shared their data through third-party software from companies such as
`Facebook and Google, claimed to have end-to-end encryption when it did not, and failed to prevent
`“Zoombombing” (disruptions of Zoom meetings by third-party actors).1 The parties settled the case,
`and the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.2 The
`plaintiffs moved for final approval of the settlement and for attorney’s fees, expenses, and service
`
`
`1 Second Am. Compl. (SAC) – ECF No. 179 at 3–5 (¶¶ 4–9); Mot. – ECF No. 216 at 12. Record
`citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-
`generated page numbers at the top of the documents.
`2 Mot. for Prelim. Approval – ECF No. 190; Settlement Agreement, Ex. 1 to Wolfson & Molumphy
`Decl. – ECF No. 191-1 at 2–36; Order – ECF No. 204.
`
`ORDER – No. 20-cv-02155-LB 
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 249 Filed 04/21/22 Page 2 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`payments.3 The court held a fairness hearing on April 21, 2022. The court finds the settlement fair,
`adequate, and reasonable and approves the final settlement, including the fees, costs, and service
`payments.
`
`STATEMENT
`
` The Lawsuit
`In early 2020, consumers dramatically increased their use of Zoom in response to the COVID-
`19 pandemic. Between March and May 2020, fourteen class-action complaints were filed in the
`Northern District of California challenging Zoom’s alleged violations of its customers’ data
`privacy and security.4 The court consolidated the cases and appointed Tina Wolfson of Ahdoot &
`Wolfson and Mark Molumphy of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
`Rachele Byrde of Wolf Haldenstein, Albert Chang of Bottini & Bottini, and Eric Gibbs of the
`Gibbs Law Group were appointed to the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee.5
`Following the plaintiffs’ filing a consolidated amended complaint and Zoom’s motion to
`dismiss, the parties stipulated to the plaintiffs’ filing a First Amended Consolidated Class Action
`Complaint. Zoom moved to dismiss the complaint, and the court granted the motion in part,
`dismissing (with leave to amend) the claims involving (1) Zoombombing (to the extent that the
`claims challenged the harmfulness of third-party content or derived from Zoom’s status as a
`publisher/speaker of the content), (2) invasion of privacy under California law, (3) negligence, (4)
`California’s Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA), and (5) fraud under
`California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act
`(CLRA), and Cal. Civ. Code § 1710(3) (fraudulent concealment).6 On May 12, 2021, the plaintiffs
`then filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC) with six claims (eliminating the
`
`
`3 Mot. – ECF No. 216; Mot. for Attorney’s Fees – ECF No. 217.
`4 Mot. – ECF No. 216 at 12; Settlement Agreement, Ex. 1 to Wolfson & Molumphy Decl. – ECF No.
`191-1 at 2 (¶ A).
`5 Mot. – ECF No. 216 at 12; Settlement Agreement, Ex. 1 to Wolfson & Molumphy Decl. – ECF No.
`191-1 at 2 (¶¶ B–C); Orders – ECF Nos. 62, 92.
`6 Mot. – ECF No. 216 at 12–13; Consolidated Am. Compl. – ECF No. 114; Mot. to Dismiss – ECF
`No. 120; First Am. Compl. – ECF No. 126; Mot. to Dismiss – ECF No. 134; Order – ECF No. 168.
`
`ORDER – No. 20-cv-02155-LB
`
`2 
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 249 Filed 04/21/22 Page 3 of 22
`
`
`
`previously dismissed claims of negligence and a violation of the CDAFA and eliminating two
`named plaintiffs). The claims are (1) invasion of privacy, (2) breach of implied contract, (3)
`breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (4) unjust enrichment; (5) a
`violation of the UCL, and (6) a violation of the CLRA.7
`The parties engaged in extensive discovery, including written discovery (interrogatories and
`document requests). Class counsel issued subpoenas to third parties. The parties exchanged
`additional discovery as part of their settlement discussions.8 The plaintiffs learned through these
`efforts that Zoom “collected approximately $1.07 billion in Zoom Meetings subscriptions from
`Settlement Class Members,” and the plaintiffs consulted with damages experts regarding the
`adequacy of the settlement in light of that revenue.9
`The parties participated in extensive, arms-length settlement negotiations over many months,
`including four mediations and many additional discussions facilitated by the Honorable Jay C.
`Gandhi (Ret.), a former magistrate judge and a respected mediator with significant class-action
`and data-privacy experience. The parties began mediation in November 2020, exchanged
`information to prepare for the mediation (in addition to the discovery), and reached agreement on
`some key terms in April 2021, after both parties accepted a double-blind mediator’s proposal.
`Negotiations and mediation continued until the Settlement Agreement was executed on July 30,
`2021. This process was complex “due to the unique nature of the claims, the novel technology
`involved, and the monetary and injunctive relief [the] Plaintiffs were seeking.”10
`After the parties finalized their settlement agreement, the court granted the plaintiffs’
`unopposed motion for preliminary approval.11 The plaintiffs moved for final approval of the
`
`
`7 Mot. – ECF No. 216 at 14; SAC – ECF No. 179 at 57–66 (¶¶ 209–69).
`8 Mot. – ECF No. 216 at 14; Molumphy & Wolfson Decl. – ECF No. 218 at 7–13 (¶¶ 24–45).
`9 Mot. – ECF No. 216 at 23; Molumphy & Wolfson Decl. – ECF No. 218 at 11 (¶ 39).
`10 Mot. – ECF No. 216 at 14–15; Molumphy & Wolfson Decl. – ECF No. 218 at 12–14 (¶¶ 43–49);
`Gandhi Decl. – ECF No. 216-1.
`11 Order – ECF No. 204.
`
`ORDER – No. 20-cv-02155-LB
`
`3 
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 249 Filed 04/21/22 Page 4 of 22
`
`
`
`settlement, attorney’s fees and costs for Class Counsel, and Service Awards for the Class
`Representatives.12 The court held a fairness hearing on April 21, 2022.
`
` Proposed Settlement
`All defined terms in this Final Approval Order have the same meaning as in the Settlement
`Agreement.
`2.1 Settlement Class
`The parties agreed to the following class definition for settlement purposes only:
`“Settlement Class” means 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 and its officers and
`directors; and (iii) the Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom the action is assigned
`and any member of those Judges’ staffs or immediate family members.13
`The “Settlement Date” is July 30, 2021.14 An “Enterprise-Level Account” is one “that 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 App at the ‘Enterprise’ level of Zoom’s
`pricing plans.”15
`There are approximately 150 million Settlement Class Members.16 The Settlement
`Administrator received 2,242 requests for exclusion.17 Nine objections to the settlement were filed
`with the court.18
`
`
`12 Mot. – ECF No. 216; Mot. for Attorney’s Fees – ECF No. 217.
`13 Settlement Agreement, Ex. 1 to Wolfson & Molumphy Decl. – ECF No. 191-1 at 9 (¶ 1.40).
`14 Id. (¶ 1.42).
`15 Id. at 6 (¶ 1.14).
`16 Mot. – ECF No. 216 at 11; Molumphy & Wolfson Decl. – ECF No. 218 at 15 (¶ 52).
`17 Azari Second Suppl. Decl. – ECF No. 237-1 at 2 (¶ 3); Exclusion Report, Ex. 1 to id. – ECF No.
`237-1 at 6–60.
`18 Objs. – ECF Nos. 206–08, 220, 224–25, 227–28, 232.
`
`ORDER – No. 20-cv-02155-LB
`
`4 
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 249 Filed 04/21/22 Page 5 of 22
`
`
`
`2.2 Settlement Benefits
`The settlement contains monetary and injunctive relief. The monetary Settlement Amount is
`$85,000,000, and the Net Settlement Fund — the fund recovered by the Settlement Class — will
`be a lesser amount after the following deductions: (1) any Fee and Expense Award approved by
`the court (the plaintiffs moved for $21,250,000 in fees and $130,842.24 in expenses); (2) any
`Service Payments approved by the court (the plaintiffs moved for $5,000 per plaintiff); (3) Taxes
`and Tax Expenses; and (4) Settlement Administration Expenses (estimated at $2,833,000).19
`Settlement Class Members who submit a Claim Form will be entitled to individual payment.
`Individual payment amounts will depend on whether the Settlement Class Member paid for a
`Zoom Meetings subscription. Those who did can submit a Paid Subscription Claim and will
`receive the greater of $25 or 15% of the amount paid. Those who did not pay for a subscription
`can submit a User Claim and will receive $15. These amounts can be adjusted up or down
`depending on claim volume and the amount of deductions from the Settlement Amount.20 As of
`March 14, 2022, the Settlement Administrator anticipated that adjustment is likely, such that those
`who submit Paid Subscription Claims will receive the greater of $50 or 30% of the amount paid
`(an average of $95), and those who submit User Claims will receive $29.21
`Settlement Class Members will have the option to receive Settlement Payments via digital
`methods; otherwise, they will receive a check. The checks and digital payments will be good for
`90 days.22
`The Settlement Administrator has “authority to determine whether a Claim Form is valid,
`timely, and complete.” Those submitting Settlement Claims will have an opportunity to cure any
`
`
`19 Mot. – ECF No. 216 at 16; Mot. for Attorney’s Fees – ECF No. 217 at 2; Wolfson & Molumphy
`Decl. – ECF No. 191 at 7 (¶ 26); Settlement Agreement, Ex. 1 to id. – ECF No. 191-1 at 7 (¶¶ 1.15,
`1.20), 9 (¶¶ 1.36, 1.43), 11–14 (¶ 2.1), 30–31 (¶¶ 10.1–10.3).
`20 Mot. – ECF No. 216 at 16; Settlement Agreement, Ex. 1 to Wolfson & Molumphy Decl. – ECF No.
`191-1 at 14–17 (¶¶ 2.2, 2.4).
`21 Reply – ECF No. 231 at 8; Azari Suppl. Decl. – ECF No. 231-1 at 11 (¶ 25).
`22 Settlement Agreement, Ex. 1 to Wolfson & Molumphy Decl. – ECF No. 191-1 at 17 (¶ 2.5).
`
`ORDER – No. 20-cv-02155-LB
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 249 Filed 04/21/22 Page 6 of 22
`
`
`
`deficiencies identified by the Settlement Administrator.23 Furthermore, “[t]he Settlement
`Administrator shall be obliged to employ reasonable procedures to screen Settlement Claims for
`abuse or fraud.”24
`The Settlement Amount is non-reversionary.25 Uncashed checks and unactivated digital
`payments will be distributed as follows. If economically feasible, they will be distributed to
`Settlement Class Members on a pro rata basis “without regard to the type of Settlement Claim
`submitted.” Otherwise, they will go to “the Non-Profit Residual Recipients in equal amounts.”26
`The Non-Profit Residual Recipients are the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the
`Electronic Frontier Foundation, “two Section 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations whose work
`relates directly to the subject matter of the Action and benefits Settlement Class Members.”27
`The Settlement Agreement also provides for injunctive relief, including “over a dozen major
`changes to [Zoom’s] practices, designed to improve meeting security, bolster privacy disclosures,
`and safeguard consumer data.”28 The injunctive relief will remain in place for one to three years,
`depending on the provision.29 The parties “stipulate[d] that Plaintiffs and Class Counsel were a
`substantial and motivating factor for [the] injunctive relief.”30
`2.3 Release Provisions
`The Settlement Agreement releases all claims under federal or state law “that are based on one
`or more of the same factual predicates as the Action.”31 The release extends to “Unknown Claims”
`
`
`
`23 Id. at 15 (¶ 2.3).
`24 Id. at 22 (¶ 4.2).
`25 Id. at 12 (¶ 2.1(c)).
`26 Id. at 17 (¶ 2.5(e)).
`27 Id. at 7 (¶ 1.21); Mot. – ECF No. 216 at 16.
`28 Mot. – ECF No. 216 at 17; Settlement Agreement, Ex. 1 to Wolfson & Molumphy Decl. – ECF No.
`191-1 at 17–20 (¶ 3.1).
`29 Settlement Agreement, Ex. 1 to Wolfson & Molumphy Decl. – ECF No. 191-1 at 21 (¶¶ 3.2–3.3).
`30 Id. (¶ 3.5).
`31 Id. at 8 (¶¶ 1.32–1.34), 29 (¶ 8).
`
`ORDER – No. 20-cv-02155-LB
`
`6 
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 249 Filed 04/21/22 Page 7 of 22
`
`
`
`of this sort, and the Releasing Parties waive their rights under California Civil Code § 1542 and
`similar state laws.32
`2.4 Administration
`The court appointed Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions as the Settlement
`Administrator.33 The administration procedures — including the notice program and procedures
`for exclusions and objections — were set forth in the Settlement Agreement.34
`Epiq complied with these procedures. Between November 19, 2021, and January 3, 2022, notice
`was sent to 158,203,160 class members by email (including reminder emails to those who did not
`submit a claim form) and 189,003 by mail. Of the emailed notices, 14,303,749 were undeliverable,
`and of that group, Epiq mailed notice to 296,592 class members for whom a physical address was
`available. Of the mailed notices, efforts were made to ensure address accuracy and currency, and as
`of March 10, 2022, 11,543 were undeliverable.35 In total, as of March 10, 2022, notice was
`accomplished for 144,242,901 class members, or 91% of the total.36 Additional notice efforts were
`made by newspaper (to comply with the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act), social media,
`sponsored search, an informational release, and a Settlement Website.37
`Epiq and Class Counsel also complied with the court’s prior request that best practices related
`to the security of class member data be implemented.38
`As of March 10, 2022, Epiq had received 1,454,796 Claim Forms.39 Thus, the claim
`participation rate was about one percent. Starting on February 1, 2022, reminder notices were sent
`
`
`
`32 Id. at 10 (¶ 1.47).
`33 Order – ECF No. 204 at 4–5 (¶ 12).
`34 Settlement Agreement, Ex. 1 to Wolfson & Molumphy Decl. – ECF No. 191-1 at 21–27 (¶¶ 4–6).
`35 Azari Decl. – ECF No. 219 at 3 (¶¶ 7–8), 6–9 (¶¶ 17–24); Azari Suppl. Decl. – ECF No. 231-1 at 4
`(¶ 11).
`36 Azari Suppl. Decl. – ECF No. 231-1 at 4 (¶ 12).
`37 Azari Decl. – ECF No. 219 at 9–13 (¶¶ 27–42).
`38 Id. at 4–6 (¶¶ 10–16); Mot. – ECF No. 216 at 19–20.
`39 Azari Suppl. Decl. – ECF No. 231-1 at 11 (¶ 25).
`
`ORDER – No. 20-cv-02155-LB
`
`7 
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 249 Filed 04/21/22 Page 8 of 22
`
`
`
`for claim stimulation purposes; in total, 143,225,659 Reminder Email Notices and 453,574
`Reminder Postcard Notices were sent.40
`
`
`ANALYSIS
`
` Jurisdiction
`The court has diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. See 28 U.S.C.
`
`1332(d)(2).
`
`
` Certification of Settlement Class
`The court reviews the propriety of class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`23(a) and (b). When parties enter into a settlement before the court certifies a class, the court
`“must pay ‘undiluted, even heightened, attention’ to class certification requirements” because the
`court will not have the opportunity to adjust the class based on information revealed at trial. Staton
`v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 952–53 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521
`U.S. 591, 620 (1997)); Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998).
`Class certification requires the following: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all
`members individually is “impracticable”; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
`class; (3) the claims or defenses of the class representatives are typical of the claims or defenses of
`the class; and (4) the person representing the class will fairly and adequately protect the interests
`of all class members. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a); Staton, 327 F.3d at 953. Also, the common questions of
`law or fact must predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members, and the
`class action must be superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
`controversy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
`The court finds (for settlement purposes only) that the proposed settlement class meets the
`Rule 23(a) prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Also, under Rule
`
`
`40 Id. at 9 (¶¶ 21–22); Azari Decl. – ECF No. 219 at 14–15 (¶ 48).
`
`ORDER – No. 20-cv-02155-LB
`
`8 
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 249 Filed 04/21/22 Page 9 of 22
`
`
`
`23(b)(3) (and for settlement purposes only), common questions predominate over any questions
`affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods.
`First, with over 150 million members, the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
`impracticable.
`Second, there are questions of law and fact common to the class. The case is about Zoom’s data
`privacy and security, and common questions include whether Zoom made uniform
`misrepresentations and had uniformly deficient practices in those areas, thereby causing the same
`alleged injury to all class members. Thus, the claims depend on common contentions, the
`determination of which “will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims
`in one stroke.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011); Betorina v. Randstad US,
`L.P., No. 15-cv-03646-EMC, 2017 WL 1278758, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2017). Furthermore, these
`common questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.
`Third, the claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the class. The
`representative parties and all class members allege consumer-privacy violations based on similar
`facts. All representatives possessed the same interest and suffered the same injury as the rest of the
`class. See Betorina, 2017 WL 1278758, at *4.
`Fourth, the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
`Two factors are relevant to the adequacy determination: (1) whether the named plaintiffs and their
`counsel have potential conflicts with the other class members; and (2) whether counsel chosen by
`the representative party is qualified, experienced, and able to vigorously conduct the litigation. In
`re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., 926 F.3d 539, 566 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Hanlon, 150 F.3d
`at 1020). Here, the named plaintiffs have shared claims and interests with the class (and no
`conflicts of interest), and they retained qualified and competent counsel who have prosecuted the
`case vigorously. See id.; Loc. Joint Exec. Bd. of Culinary/Bartender Tr. Fund v. Las Vegas Sands,
`Inc., 244 F.3d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir. 2001); Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1021–22.
`Finally, a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
`adjudicating the controversy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
`
`ORDER – No. 20-cv-02155-LB
`
`9 
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 249 Filed 04/21/22 Page 10 of 22
`
`
`
`In sum, the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) are met. The court certifies the class under
`Rule 23(b)(3) for settlement purposes only.
`
` Approval of Settlement
`A court may approve a proposed class-action settlement only “after a hearing and only on
`finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate after considering whether”:
`
`(A) the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the
`class;
`(B) the proposal was negotiated at arm’s length;
`(C) the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking into account:
`(i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal;
`(ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to the
`class, including the method of processing class-member claims;
`(iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney’s fees, including timing of
`payment; and
`(iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and
`(D) the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). These factors “are substantially similar to those articulated” in Hanlon,
`150 F. 3d at 1027. Student A v. Berkeley Unified Sch. Dist., No. 17-cv-02510-JST, 2021 WL
`6332353, at *2 n.2 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2021).
`In Hanlon, the Ninth Circuit identified factors relevant to assessing a settlement proposal: (1)
`the strength of the plaintiff’s case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further
`litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class-action status throughout trial; (4) the amount offered in
`settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceeding; (6) the
`experience and views of counsel; (7) the presence of a government participant; and (8) the reaction
`of class members to the proposed settlement. 150 F.3d at 1026.
`When parties “negotiate a settlement agreement before the class has been certified, settlement
`approval requires a higher standard of fairness and a more probing inquiry than may normally be
`required under Rule 23(e).” Roes, 1–2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 944 F.3d 1035, 1048 (9th Cir. 2019)
`(cleaned up). “Specifically, such settlement agreements must withstand an even higher level of
`
`ORDER – No. 20-cv-02155-LB
`
`10 
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 249 Filed 04/21/22 Page 11 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`scrutiny for evidence of collusion or other conflicts of interest than is ordinarily required under
`Rule 23(e) before securing the court’s approval as fair.” Id. at 1048–49 (cleaned up).
`The court has evaluated the proposed settlement agreement for overall fairness under the
`Hanlon factors and concludes that it is free of collusion and approval is appropriate.
`First, the settlement provides good value and is fair. Zoom “collected approximately $1.07
`billion in Zoom Meetings subscriptions from Settlement Class Members,” meaning that the
`Settlement Amount “represents approximately 8% of the maximum total revenues collected from
`Settlement Class Members” (and during this time period, Zoom was correcting errors and
`implementing solutions).41 The plaintiffs cite cases in which courts granted final approval at
`equivalent or lower recovery rates.42 Furthermore, the individual recoveries are reasonable. Paid
`subscribers can recover 15% of the amount they paid to Zoom, in line with the fact that the Zoom
`services at issue in this case are just a fraction of the services offered by Zoom. And the $15
`recoverable by non-paid subscribers “is within the ballpark of what consumers may be willing to
`receive in exchange for the type of data the SAC alleges Zoom disclosed.”43 A settlement now
`also results in money paid now, while litigation results in delay and expense. Privacy damages are
`uncertain.44
`The settlement’s injunctive relief offers significant further value. It consists of “over a dozen
`major changes to [Zoom’s] practices, designed to improve meeting security, bolster privacy
`disclosures, and safeguard consumer data.”45 And as the plaintiffs point out, “numerous privacy
`class actions have been settled for non-monetary relief.”46
`Second, the value of the settlement is significant compared to the litigation risks and
`uncertainties. The plaintiffs recognize that liability and recovery are not certain, because “[e]ven if
`
`
`41 Mot. – ECF No. 216 at 22–23; Molumphy & Wolfson Decl. – ECF No. 218 at 11 (¶ 39).
`42 Mot. – ECF No. 216 at 23 (collecting cases).
`43 Id.; Molumphy & Wolfson Decl. – ECF No. 218 at 11 (¶ 39).
`44 Mot. – ECF No. 216 at 25 (collecting cases).
`45 Id. at 17; Settlement Agreement, Ex. 1 to Wolfson & Molumphy Decl. – ECF No. 191-1 at 17–20 (¶
`3.1).
`46 Mot. – ECF No. 216 at 25 (collecting cases).
`
`ORDER – No. 20-cv-02155-LB
`
`11 
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 249 Filed 04/21/22 Page 12 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`[they] obtained class certification, successfully opposed a motion for summary judgment, and
`subsequently proved liability at trial, they still would face the significant risk of recovering
`nothing” because damages in privacy cases are highly uncertain.47 Additional risk was
`demonstrated by the court’s prior dismissal without prejudice of some of the plaintiff’s claims.48
`The settlement allows both parties to avoid contested litigation that would be costly and
`protracted.49
`Third, a class action allows class members — who otherwise would not pursue their claims
`individually because costs would exceed recoveries — to obtain relief.
`Fourth, the settlement is the product of serious, non-collusive, arm’s-length negotiations and
`was reached after extensive mediation with an experienced mediator with subject-matter expertise.
`Finally, the reaction of the class is favorable. There are relatively few opt-outs (2,242) and
`objections (nine). A court “may appropriately infer that a class action settlement is fair, adequate,
`and reasonable when few class members object to it.” Ching v. Siemens Indus., No. 11-cv-04838-
`MEJ, 2014 WL 2926210, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2014); cf. Staton, 327 F.3d at 959 (court
`should consider “reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement”).
`Of the nine objections, some objectors lack standing to object or submitted untimely
`objections, and the others put forward unavailing arguments.
`Four objections — from Ed Takken, Patricia Meyers, Sammy Rodgers and Alvery Neace, and
`Cody Powers — can be stricken.50 For one thing, the objections from Sammy Rodgers, Alvery
`Neace, and Cody Powers were untimely because they were filed after the Objection and Exclusion
`Deadline of March 5, 2022.51 Also, these objectors lack standing to object because they did not
`provide “an explanation of the basis upon which [they] claim[] to be a Settlement Class Member,”
`
`
`
`47 Id. at 25–26.
`48 Id. at 23–25.
`49 Id. at 26.
`50 Objs. – ECF Nos. 207, 224, 228, 232; Reply in Supp. of Obj. – ECF No. 240.
`51 Order – ECF No. 204 at 6 (¶¶ 18–19); Settlement Agreement, Ex. 1 to Wolfson & Molumphy Decl.
`– ECF No. 191-1 at 26 (¶ 6.1(b)).
`
`ORDER – No. 20-cv-02155-LB
`
`12 
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 249 Filed 04/21/22 Page 13 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`as required by the Settlement Agreement and the court’s preliminary-approval order.52 In re Apple
`Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 5:06-cv-05208-JF (HRL), 2011 WL 1877988, at *3 n.4 (N.D. Cal. May 17,
`2011) (objector lacks standing to object where “he did not provide evidence to show that he is a
`class member as required by this Court’s order”); Glasser v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 645 F.3d
`1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011) (objector must be an aggrieved class member to have standing to
`object).
`Furthermore, any claim that it is impossible to provide documentation of Zoom use lacks
`merit; the Settlement Administrator “has received more than 27,497 claims from unregistered
`Zoom user Claimants” and has “accepted a wide array of documentation submitted with such
`Claims.”53 The Claim Form itself provides an example of such documentation: “a copy of an
`invitation to join a Zoom meeting that shows the date and ID number of the meeting.”54 And the
`Settlement Agreement requires the Settlement Administrator “to employ reasonable procedures to
`screen Settlement Claims for abuse or fraud.”55 The claims screening process was reasonable. See
`In re Hyundai and Kia, 926 F.3d at 568 (district court did not abuse its discretion “in finding that
`some sort of claims process is necessary in order to verify” claims) (cleaned up).
`Three objections — from Peter Matthies, Joseph Lofthouse, and Better World Properties —
`asserted that Zoom has done nothing wrong and the settlement is mainly about Class Counsel
`getting paid.56 But Zoom has voluntarily settled this case, even without admitting wrongdoing or
`liability.57 Also, the settlement is the product of non-collusive negotiations. These objectors did
`not put forward legally sufficient bases to reject the settlement. In any case, they lack standing to
`object because they are not aggrieved by the settlement. Glasser, 645 F.3d at 1088 (class member
`“lacks standing” to challenge settlement unless proposed change would “actually benefit” her).
`
`
`52 Settlement Agreement, Ex. 1 to Wolfson & Molumphy Decl. – ECF No. 191-1 at 26 (¶ 6.1(c));
`Order – ECF No. 204 at 6 (¶¶ 18–19).
`53 Azari Suppl. Decl. – ECF No. 231-1 at 6 (¶ 19(b)).
`54 Claim Form, Ex. A to Settlement Agreement – ECF No. 191-1 at 38.
`55 Settlement Agreement, Ex. 1 to Wolfson & Molumphy Decl. – ECF No. 191-1 at 22 (¶ 4.2).
`56 Objs. – ECF Nos. 206, 208, 225.
`57 Settlement Agreement, Ex. 1 to Wolfson & Molumphy Decl. – ECF No. 191-1 at 4 (¶ P).
`
`ORDER – No. 20-cv-02155-LB
`
`13 
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 249 Filed 04/21/22 Page 14 of 22
`
`
`
`The final objections were from Melody Rodgers and Judith Cohen. Ms. Cohen, a mental-
`health counselor, argued for a subclass for those who used Zoom “as part of a business that was
`legally or contractually required to maintain client confidentiality as part of the services the
`business provided.”58 Ms. Rodgers, a member of an organization called the “Save Our Children
`Truth Commission,” argued that the individual payment amounts are inadequate for people like
`her who held sensitive Zoom meetings and were victimized by Zoombombing.59
`Ms. Cohen and Ms. Rodgers do not have claims that differ from other class members. The
`recovery is for Zoom users not receiving the benefit of their bargain with Zoom, not for distress
`caused by Zoombombing or special harm arising from a duty to maintain client confidentiality.
`The settlement compensates Zoom users for the consideration (either subscription payments or
`access to their personal data) that they would not have otherwise given to Zoom.60 Indeed, the
`court dismissed the plaintiffs’ negligence cause of action, as it pertained to emotional distress
`caused by Zoombombing.61 As explained above, the recoveries here are adequate to justify
`approval. And even if “the settlement could have been better,” it can still be “fair, reasonable [and]
`adequate,” because “[s]ettlement is the offspring of compromise.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1027.
`Finally, some of