They aren't. The lawsuit is really being filed by lawyers hoping to get a windfall. They don't even need to have much of a case, at worst Zoom will pay their fees and more for the nuisance to go away.
However, they do need to pretend for the court that this more than just a lawyer led money grab and that they actually represent the interest of a plaintiff. Enters Michael Drieu. If you read the complaint [1] you'll see Michael Drieu claim damages of ... $300. He's basically enabling a shakedown out of either malice or stupidity but not greed.
So no, it is not as if the shareholders of Zoom were up in arms against the company, this is just ambulance chasing with a puppet plaintiff.
However, they do need to pretend for the court that this more than just a lawyer led money grab and that they actually represent the interest of a plaintiff. Enters Michael Drieu. If you read the complaint [1] you'll see Michael Drieu claim damages of ... $300. He's basically enabling a shakedown out of either malice or stupidity but not greed.
So no, it is not as if the shareholders of Zoom were up in arms against the company, this is just ambulance chasing with a puppet plaintiff.
https://www.scribd.com/embeds/455562311/content?start_page=1...