A joint filing by Zoom Video Communications Inc., the plaintiffs prosecuting a class action against it, and several objectors asked Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler to issue a tentative ruling as to whether she would accept the settlements reached by the three objectors who disapproved of the original $85 million class settlement.
The case concerns Zoom encryption failures that led to uninvited third-parties “zoombombing” video conferences as well as the undisclosed sale of user data.
Judge Beeler gave final approval to the settlement in April. The court’s opinion dealt with nine groups of objectors, alleging a variety of faults with the settlement in terms of procedure or amount. The court dismissed some claims as untimely and others as without jurisdictional basis.
Two sets of objectors, three individuals, appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Two argued it was too difficult for class members to update their addresses and receive checks by mail while the other said the settlement’s release of rights was too sweeping.
The settlements presented to the court in last week’s motion address the objectors’ perceived shortcomings and were outlined for Judge Beeler’s review. The parties said that with indication that she would approve them, they could dismiss the appeals pending before the Ninth Circuit.
Approval, the filing claimed, is in the interests of the class because the settlements are beneficial thereto. For example, approval will implement certain procedures designed to make it easier for claimants to update their addresses and to receive and cash checks sent by mail, the motion said.
In addition, it noted that service awards of $1,000 per objector and attorneys’ fees in the five-figure range, if granted, would not adversely impact the settlement class as these payments would be drawn solely from the prior fee and expense award.
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP and Ahdoot & Wolfson PC are co-lead counsel for the settlement class. Zoom is represented by Cooley LLP.
