SAN JOSE, Calif. (Legal Newsline) – The class action jackpot is nearly in the bank for lawyers who targeted Zoom after the company’s rise to popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Attorneys at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and Ahdoot & Wolfson on Jan. 28 filed for final approval of their $85 million settlement with the company that includes $21.25 million in lawyer fees. The settlement refunds customers at least $25 or up to 15% of the money they paid for subscriptions while the company allegedly had privacy concerns.
Despite Zoom’s argument that numerous class actions were filed “under a scattershot array of loosely related factual and legal theories, largely drawn from sensationalist news reports,” the company chose to settle.
Those lawsuits alleged Zoom was negligent in treatment of its users’ information and violated laws like the California Consumer Privacy Act.
They said Zoom shared the user's personal information, including the type of device and software the user has as well as their network carrier and location, with third parties such as Facebook. The lawsuits also claimed Zoom misrepresented its encryption protocols and failed to prevent unwanted users from crashing meetings (called “Zoombombing”).
But the plaintiffs didn’t allege they were harmed by the sharing of any data, Zoom says, nor did they allege they ever relied upon any specific Zoom representations about encryption.
Judge Lucy Koh approved the Ahdoot and Cotchett firms as lead counsel after receiving applications from nine firms. She will now likely give final approval to a deal she’s already given preliminary approval to.
The final motion for fees also seeks $5,000 each for 12 named plaintiffs for “their time and effort in pursuing this action.”
“All told, Class Counsel devoted thousands of hours and advanced significant out-of-pocket expenses to develop and prosecute the action and negotiate a favorable settlement for the settlement class,” the motion says.
Among the highlights of their work, they say, were:
-Successfully opposing Zoom’s motion to dismiss by using “much of which was new law” regarding the online collection, co-mingling and sharing of consumer information.
-Subpoenas on more than a dozen third parties and consultations with experts regarding search terms;
-Review of “tens of thousands of pages of documents produced by Zoom”; and
-“Near-constant discovery disputes” that necessitated weekly discussions and lengthy calls with Zoom’s lawyers.