According to the Complaint, Zoom Video Communications, Inc. provides a video communications app primarily in the Americas, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Users may connect through frictionless video, voice, chat, and content sharing. The Company’s cloud-native platform enables face-to-face video experiences and connects users across various devices and locations in a single meeting.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations and compliance policies. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Zoom had inadequate data privacy and security measures; (ii) contrary to Zoom’s assertions, the Company’s video communications service was not end-to-end encrypted; (iii) as a result of the foregoing, users of Zoom’s communications services were at an increased risk of having their personal information accessed by unauthorized parties, including Facebook; (iv) usage of the Company’s video communications services was foreseeably likely to decline when the foregoing facts came to light; and (v) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

According to the law firm press release, the truth about the deficiencies in Zoom’s software encryption began to come to light as early as July 2019. However, it was not until the COVID-19 pandemic in March and April of 2020, with businesses and other organizations increasingly relying on Zoom’s video communication software to facilitate remote work activity as governments increasingly implemented shelter-in-place orders, that the truth was more fully laid bare in a series of corrective disclosures. As it became clear through a series of news reports and admissions by the Company that Zoom had significantly overstated the degree to which its video communication software was encrypted, the Company’s stock price plummeted, damaging investors.

On May 18, 2020, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases. The Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel on November 4. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated Complaint on December 23.

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated Complaint on May 20, 2021. On February 16, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff was given leave to amend the Complaint.

On July 12, 2023, the parties reached a Settlement in principle. The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement on July 17.