Zoom-er or later, your past catches up with you: Vid chat service hit by sueball over end-to-end encryption claim

What's that barging into Zoom's socially distanced virtual family reunion? It's a lawsuit from US nonprofit Consumer Watchdog alleging the videoconferencing giant misled the public over its purported use of end-to-end encryption. The lawsuit [PDF] was filed in the Washington DC Superior Court in a bid to get the wider public …

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a slam-dunk.

"Communications are encrypted end-to-end" is very obviously not the same as "end-to-end communications will soon be available for beta-testing". Too bad big companies can't be sued for false advertising over "We take your privacy very seriously."

[Falmari]

The general public

“Plaintiff Consumer Watchdog (“Plaintiff” or “Consumer Watchdog”) brings this Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial on behalf of the general public against Defendant Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Zoom”) for making false and deceptive representations to consumers about its data security practices in violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act”

If this gets to a class action who can join? Not “the general public” surely it must be paying customers. The reason I ask is we are continually told by companies Facebook, Google etc this is free that is free. If something is free, then how can you complain if it does not do what it was said to do.

Personally, I don’t consider things like Google search and YouTube, Facebook or Zoom to be free the cost is still there in your data, advertising revenue etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The general public

It's one thing to offer something as "free" while noting in the Terms and Conditions that the "customer" is really the product - they're selling your data. (It's scummy, but truthful.) Zoom advertised end-to-end encryption knowing full well that they didn't have it, a clear and intentional lie. Customers, even of the "free" product, who may have had their supposedly-encrypted, supposedly-private data compromised were "harmed" and therefore could sue.

(IANAL, but that's how I read it, anyway.)

[Falmari]

Re: The general public

I agree with you I was only asking (Devil's advocate) as I am intrigue to see how this will play out. In my opinion users whether paying or non paying should be allowed into the class action if a class action happens.

As I said I do not believe these things are free you are paying in someway data or advertising.

[swm]

If the service is free I don't see too much expectation of privacy (google, facebook etc.) The only problem here is the advertising of end-to-end encryption when it's not.