IN RE: ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PRIVACY LITIGATION

Background

The parties asked the court to act under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning a proposed class-action settlement agreement executed on July 30, 2021. The agreement set out terms for resolving the litigation and dismissing the action with prejudice if the settlement received final approval.

The proposed Settlement Class consisted of all persons in the United States who, between March 30, 2016, and the Settlement Date, registered, used, opened, or downloaded the Zoom Meetings application. The definition excluded people who used the application only through an enterprise-level account or a Zoom for Government account, Zoom and its officers and directors, and the assigned judge or magistrate judge and certain members of their staffs and immediate families.

Preliminary Settlement Findings and Conditional Certification

The court found that the parties had shown the settlement was likely to be approvable as fair, reasonable, and adequate, subject to further consideration at the final approval hearing. Based on the submitted papers and counsel’s declaration, the court also found that the agreement appeared to result from serious, informed, and non-collusive negotiations and did not improperly favor any individual or segment of the Settlement Class.

Solely to carry out the proposed settlement, the court found that the Rule 23(a) requirements were likely satisfied: the class included millions of people, common legal or factual questions existed, the class representatives’ claims were typical, and the representatives would fairly and adequately protect the class’s interests. The court also found it likely that Rule 23(b)(3) requirements were satisfied because common questions predominated over individual questions and a class action was superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently resolving the controversy.

The court conditionally appointed 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 as class representatives for settlement purposes. It appointed Tina Wolfson of Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC and Mark C. Molumphy of Cotchett, Pitre, & McCarthy LLP as class counsel for settlement purposes, subject to final settlement approval.

Notice and Settlement Administration

The court appointed Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions, Inc. as settlement administrator. The court approved the form and content of the proposed claim form, long-form notice, publication notice, and summary notice. It found that distributing the notices substantially as described would satisfy Rule 23 and due process, provide the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and reasonably inform class members about the action, the proposed settlement and releases, anticipated fee and service-payment requests, and their rights to participate, opt out, or object.

Within five business days after approval of the preliminary-approval motion, Zoom was ordered to provide Epiq with last-known email and billing addresses for people whose records reasonably indicated they were likely to be Settlement Class Members. Epiq was required to complete notice distribution, publication notice, a digital campaign, and establishment of the settlement website within 75 days after entry of the order. The claim deadline was set at 60 days after the Notice Date.

Class members who wished to object had to provide the information and supporting grounds specified in the order, and objections had to be received by March 5, 2022. A person seeking exclusion had to submit a written request containing the required identifying information, a physical signature, the action’s name and number, and a statement requesting exclusion; the request also had to be received by March 5, 2022. Class members who did not submit a valid and timely exclusion request would be bound by the settlement upon entry of a final approval order.

Final Approval Proceedings and Disposition

The court scheduled the final approval hearing for April 7, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. At that hearing, the court would consider whether to certify the Settlement Class, approve the settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the class members’ best interests, approve class counsel’s fee and expense request and service payments, and enter a final approval order and judgment dismissing the action on the merits with prejudice against the plaintiffs and other Settlement Class Members.

The order stayed and suspended all proceedings and deadlines except those necessary to implement the order and settlement. It also enjoined people in the Settlement Class who did not validly opt out from pursuing released claims until further order. The court stated that the settlement, preliminary approval order, and related settlement-purpose class-certification rulings would be vacated under the agreement’s terms if final approval did not occur or was reversed or materially modified on appeal. The order granted preliminary approval; it did not grant final approval or enter the contemplated final judgment.