This means the service has access to the encrypted content.

In transport encryption, however, the service (here, Zoom) generates those keys. This prevents parties that don’t use those devices from accessing the content. In end-to-end encryption, user devices generate the encryption and decryption keys. Second, the plaintiffs allege that “Zoom misstates the security capabilities and offerings of its services where Zoom failed to provide end-to-end encryption.” Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that Zoom falsely claimed its encryption protocol as end-to-end encryption when in fact, Zoom used transport encryption in those situations. The shared information allegedly allows these third parties “to identify users and track their behavior across multiple digital services.” The information also allows third parties to know when a party’s device uses Zoom. First, the plaintiffs claim Zoom improperly shared their personally identifiable information (PII) with third parties like Facebook, Google, and LinkedIn without the plaintiffs’ permission. The Zoom lawsuit, In re: Zoom Video Communications Inc Privacy Litigation, encompasses three main issues, resulting in nine claims. A few contract-based claims are allowed to proceed. The dismissed claims alleged invasion of privacy, negligence, and violations of California’s consumer and anti-hacking laws. Gform.In California’s Northern District, Judge Lucy Koh recently dismissed several claims in a class action against Zoom Video Communications Inc. Δ document.getElementById( 'ak_js_3' ).setAttribute( 'value', ( new Date() ).getTime() ) We tell you about cash you can claim every week!ĬAPTCHAEmailThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Zoom meeting class action lawsuit