Lawsuits Target Zoom Over Facebook Data Transfers
Lawyers at Tycko & Zavareei assert that Zoom's sharing of user data to third parties was an "egregious breach of their trust and of social norms" and violated even Facebook's policies.
March 31, 2020 at 05:43 PM
4 minute read
Zoom Video Communications Inc. has been hit with two privacy lawsuits in California after the company's data protection procedures came under scrutiny once the platform transformed into a crucial tool for businesses during the coronavirus pandemic.
Wexler Wallace filed the first class action complaint against Zoom on Monday, followed by Tycko & Zavareei Tuesday. Both lawsuits, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, cite a Motherboard report finding the iOS version of the videoconferencing app funnels user analytics to Facebook, a feature Zoom said it has since deleted in an update.
"Had Zoom informed its users that it would use inadequate security measures and permit unauthorized third-party tracking of their personal information, users—like plaintiff and class members—would not have been willing to use the Zoom App," wrote Tycko & Zavareei's Hassan Zavareei and Katherine Aizpuru in Washington, D.C., and Annick Persinger in Oakland. "Instead, plaintiff and class members would have forgone using Zoom and/or chosen a different videoconferencing product that did not send their personal information to Facebook, or any other third party."
The lawsuits contend that Zoom shared personally identifiable information such as users' device model, time zone, location, phone carrier and an advertiser identifier profile, which provides marketers with insights to consumers' demographics and preferences.
"This issue is extremely important now, because businesses, families and individuals are increasingly connecting via Zoom," Aizpuru said. "But it would be important even if many states were not under stay at home orders. Protecting consumer privacy is only becoming more important as more of our lives move online."
The lawsuits are among the first to invoke the California Consumer Protection Act, which took effect Jan. 1, arguing that San Jose-based Zoom gathers personal data without the consent and notices mandated by the law.
The suit also alleges violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, the state's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, negligence and invasion of privacy under California's constitution.
Tycko & Zavareei assert that Zoom's sharing of user data to third-parties was an "egregious breach of their trust and of social norms" and violated even Facebook's policies.
"Facebook's Business Tools terms of use state that if a company like Zoom is using Facebook's software development kit, 'you further represent and warrant that you have provided robust and sufficiently prominent notice to users regarding the customer data collection, sharing, and usage,'" the complaint says.
Even with Zoom's update to the app, the Wexler Wallace attorneys say the harm has already been done, and that the harm continues.
"Zoom appears to have taken no action to block any of the prior versions of the Zoom App from operating," wrote Wexler Wallace's Mark Tamblyn in Sacramento and Kenneth Wexler and Jason Keener in Chicago. "Thus, unless users affirmatively update their Zoom App, they likely will continue to unknowingly send unauthorized personal information to Facebook, and perhaps other third parties. Zoom could have forced all iOS users to update to the new Zoom App to continue using Zoom but appears to have chosen not to."
Aizpuru said the other problem with Zoom's response is that changing their code to ensure that Facebook doesn't have access to user information doesn't compensate the people whose data was shared without their consent.
"There's a lot of unanswered questions that Zoom is going to have to account for," she said.
Kenneth Wexler said Wexler Wallace does not comment on pending litigation.
Zoom declined to comment but pointed to a company blog post on the Facebook feature.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'The Front Line of Regulating AI': Manatt's Brandon Reilly on CPPA's Move to Adopt New Data Broker and AI Rules
Shareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
Justices Ask If They Should Have Even Taken Nvidia’s Appeal of Investor Suit
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250