To date, three objections have been filed to a $85 million settlement reached by Zoom Inc. over concerns about the validity of the video conferencing software’s touted security and privacy as well as the way the company allegedly shared user data with third-parties including Facebook.
The latest, filed on Tuesday by paying Zoom client Better World Properties LLC, argues that “any settlement should be limited to a refund of monies actually paid by those few who are actively complaining.” By contrast, an objection filed in February said that given the serious invasion of privacy the woman experienced as a result of Zoom’s failed security protocols, the amount she was eligible to receive was far too little.
In October, the court granted preliminary approval to the settlement, which specifies that of the cash amount, users who paid to use Zoom can receive 15% of the money they paid or a $25, whichever is greater, while non-paying users may receive $15.
Last month, the plaintiffs moved for final approval. Before the court gives the final nod, however, Judge Laurel Beeler will consider proffered objections. This week’s objector raised concerns about the settlement enriching plaintiffs’ counsel and unfairly punishing a business who provides it a valuable service.
“The pittance of a refund customers like 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 or willful acts of deceit designed to increase profits white knowingly harming the public, we do not believe the settlement contemplated is justified,” the objector said.
In relation to the “pittance” described by Better World Properties, an individual also represented pro per, wrote to the court to express her dissatisfaction with the proposed individual return for a very different reason. The North Carolina resident’s February 7 objection said that $15 was too little to compensate her for the alleged damages stemming from the invasion of privacy she sustained, and instead she asked the court for $40,000.
The objector described how an uninvited man joined a private Zoom call between her and 14 others and began masturbating during the meeting which concerned “confidential matters pertaining to the welfare of their children.” As a result of the intrusion, the objector claimed that the man was able to obtain her personal information.
Further, the objector said that because Zoom shared her personal information with Facebook, “she became a target of abusers of her children.” The objection specified that the woman experienced “gang-stalking,” as a consequence of Zoom disclosing her personal information and location without consent.
The deadline to file an objection is March 19 and the final approval hearing is scheduled for April 7.
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP and Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC are interim co-lead counsel for the settlement class. Zoom is represented by Cooley LLP.
