ZoomInfo Lawsuit: Securities Fraud, Privacy Settlement, Court Rulings

ZoomInfo Technologies is fighting a securities fraud class action in federal court in Washington while having recently closed a nearly $30 million privacy class action settlement in Illinois, and the ZoomInfo lawsuit landscape also includes two other privacy cases with sharply different outcomes. The securities case, led by two Ohio pension funds, alleges the company misled investors for nearly four years about the health of its business. The privacy settlement, in Ramos v. ZoomInfo, resolved claims that ZoomInfo used people’s names and job details to advertise its subscription service without consent.

Securities Fraud Case Brought by Ohio Pension Funds

The active case is City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retirement System v. ZoomInfo Technologies Inc. et al., No. 3:24-cv-05739-TMC, filed in September 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. It alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 over statements made between November 10, 2020 and August 5, 2024.¹

In December 2024, Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright appointed the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio and the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System as lead plaintiffs. The two systems reported combined losses of $75.9 million on their ZoomInfo holdings.²

The defendants who remain in the case are ZoomInfo itself, CEO and Chairman Henry Schuck, former CFO Cameron Hyzer, and former President and COO Joseph Christopher Hays. Three large shareholders originally named as “sponsor defendants” — TA Associates Management, the Carlyle Group, and DO Holdings — have been dismissed.³

What Investors Say ZoomInfo Hid

The amended complaint identifies 28 statements plaintiffs call false or misleading. Executives told investors that ZoomInfo’s growth was “broad-based” and that expansion in existing accounts was “continuing to accelerate,” while the internal picture, according to the complaint, was much worse.¹

Four themes run through the allegations:

Pandemic-era customer growth was not sustainable. Plaintiffs say ZoomInfo pulled demand forward, creating a hidden cliff when renewals came due.⁴
Coercive retention tactics propped up numbers. The complaint alleges ZoomInfo used aggressive auto-renewal terms — requiring cancellation 60 days before the anniversary date — and threatened litigation to lock customers into additional terms, even those trying to leave. A March 2022 complaint to the Washington State Attorney General described a small business billed $27,000 after trying to cancel 30 days out; ZoomInfo told the AG that some renewals had occurred “in error.”⁵
Small and mid-sized business customers were signed up without meaningful credit checks, generating revenue from contracts carrying a high risk of non-payment.³
Reported Remaining Performance Obligations figures ignored collectability risks and failed to write down bad debt for delinquent accounts.³

The truth came out in pieces. Between November 2022 and August 2024, five corrective disclosures gradually surfaced the underlying problems. The most dramatic was on August 5, 2024, when ZoomInfo reported a $33 million charge tied to customer non-payments, rolled out a new business risk model to reduce write-offs, and cut its annual revenue guidance by $65 million. Over the class period, ZoomInfo’s stock fell from about $79 to $8, a decline of roughly 90%.²

The complaint also points to insider stock sales as evidence executives knew the public statements were misleading. It alleges Hays sold more than a million shares during the class period, including blocks sold outside pre-arranged trading plans.³

What the Court Has Decided So Far

On October 28, 2025, Judge Cartwright issued the ruling that has shaped the case going forward. She dismissed all claims against the three sponsor defendants, finding the complaint lacked sufficient allegations that they exercised day-to-day control over ZoomInfo’s operations. The core fraud claims were allowed to proceed against ZoomInfo, Schuck, Hyzer, and Hays.³

The judge found plaintiffs had raised a “strong inference” of intent to defraud, drawing on former-employee statements, core-operations evidence, the executives’ Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, and admissions ZoomInfo made after the class period ended. She held that the RPO statements were actionable as misrepresentations of present facts, not protected forward-looking opinions, because the company allegedly ignored known collectability risks and specific internal metrics.⁶ For Hays specifically, the court found “scheme liability” based on allegations he suppressed internal market surveys showing ZoomInfo was losing ground to competitors.³

The parties were told to submit a joint status report proposing a case schedule by November 12, 2025. As of mid-2026, the case remains in its early stages, with no trial date, discovery deadlines, or settlement talks publicly reported.³

The $29.6 Million Privacy Settlement

Ramos et al. v. ZoomInfo Technologies, LLC, No. 21-cv-02032, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, resulted in a $29,557,612.50 settlement fund. Judge Charles P. Kocoras granted final approval on November 13, 2024. The claims deadline was November 4, 2024, and the settlement is closed.⁷

The claims went to the heart of ZoomInfo’s business model. Anyone can search a person’s name on ZoomInfo and see a free preview page showing the person’s full name, job title, employer, work history, and partial contact information. Plaintiffs said that by displaying those details to entice visitors to buy full subscriptions, ZoomInfo was using individuals’ identities as advertisements without consent.⁸ The claims arose under right-of-publicity statutes in four states: California (Cal. Civ. Code § 3344), Illinois (765 ILCS 1075/1), Indiana (Ind. Code § 32-36-1), and Nevada (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 597.790).⁹

The class covered residents of those four states whose names appeared on a ZoomInfo preview page viewed for the first time within specific date windows, generally starting in early 2020 for California and Illinois and in 2022 for Indiana and Nevada.⁷ The fund was divided into four state pools: $14.23 million for California, $11.70 million for Illinois, $2.30 million for Indiana, and $1.33 million for Nevada. Expected per-claimant payments ran from about $807 in California to $8,273 in Nevada, depending on how many people filed from each pool. The fund is non-reversionary, so no unspent money goes back to ZoomInfo.¹⁰

Alongside the money, ZoomInfo agreed to stop using any class member’s identity to advertise its products and to remove class members’ full names from its advertising within 30 days of final approval. The company did not admit wrongdoing.¹¹

Other Privacy Cases: Martinez and Wysocki

Two other cases fill in ZoomInfo’s exposure over data practices and cut in opposite directions.

Martinez v. ZoomInfo

In Martinez v. ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc., No. 22-35305, a California resident sued under the state’s right-of-publicity statute. ZoomInfo tried to have the case dismissed for lack of standing and struck under California’s anti-SLAPP law. On September 21, 2023, the Ninth Circuit rejected both arguments. It held that Martinez had “plausibly pleaded that she suffered sufficient injury to establish standing to sue” and found her suit fell within California’s public-interest exemption to anti-SLAPP, noting that no government agency had brought a similar action against ZoomInfo.¹² The ruling confirmed that individuals whose identities are used commercially without permission can get into federal court even when personal financial harm is small.¹³

Wysocki v. ZoomInfo

ZoomInfo won the other one. Wysocki v. ZoomInfo Technologies Inc., No. 3:22-cv-05453, filed in June 2022 in the Western District of Washington, challenged ZoomInfo’s “Contact Contributor” software, which plaintiffs alleged scraped contact information from users’ email correspondence, including information about people who never signed up for or consented to ZoomInfo’s services. The complaint raised claims under the federal Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and various state consumer-fraud and privacy laws.¹⁴ Judge David G. Estudillo dismissed 13 of the 14 claims without leave to amend, and the case was terminated on April 12, 2024.¹⁵

Where ZoomInfo Stands Now

ZoomInfo still trades publicly on Nasdaq, now under the ticker GTM after rebranding around its go-to-market platform strategy.¹⁶ In May 2026, the company beat analyst expectations for first-quarter revenue and earnings but cut its full-year 2026 revenue guidance to $1.185–$1.205 billion, down from $1.247–$1.267 billion, projecting a 4% revenue decline at the midpoint. Management cited macroeconomic pressure and “transition challenges” as it shifts toward an AI-driven model.¹⁷ ZoomInfo also announced a 20% workforce reduction.¹⁸

The stock dropped more than 36% in after-hours trading following that announcement, falling to about $4 per share, and multiple analysts downgraded it.¹⁹ That continued slide, from $79 at the start of the securities class period to single digits, sits at the center of the investors’ argument that ZoomInfo’s earlier optimistic statements caused real financial harm.

1
Labaton Sucharow. City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retirement System v. ZoomInfo Technologies Inc. et al.
2
Ohio Capital Journal. Ohio Pensions Named Lead Plaintiffs in $76M Fraud Suit
3
Justia. State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio et al. v. ZoomInfo Technologies Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-05739-TMC
4
ai-CIO. Michigan Pension Fund Files Complaint Against ZoomInfo
5
The Columbian. Vancouver Tech Company ZoomInfo Proposes Settlement of Up to $29 Million in Right-to-Publicity Lawsuits
6
Levi & Korsinsky. Federal Judge Partially Dismisses Securities Fraud Claims Against ZoomInfo Technologies Inc.
7
Top Class Actions. $29.55M ZoomInfo Privacy Class Action Settlement
8
Simpluris. Ramos v. ZoomInfo Technologies – Notice of Class Action Settlement
9
ClassAction.org. Ramos v. ZoomInfo Technologies – Motion for Preliminary Approval
10
Simpluris. Ramos v. ZoomInfo Technologies – Motion for Final Approval
11
ClassAction.org. Ramos v. ZoomInfo Technologies – Settlement Agreement
12
Ninth Circuit. Martinez v. ZoomInfo Technologies Inc., No. 22-35305
13
EPIC. In Martinez v. ZoomInfo, Ninth Circuit Recognizes Privacy Plaintiff Has Standing to Sue
14
Justia. Wysocki v. ZoomInfo Technologies Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-05453-DGE
15
CourtListener. Wysocki v. ZoomInfo Technologies Inc., Docket No. 3:22-cv-05453
16
ZoomInfo Investor Relations. ZoomInfo to Report Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Financial Results
17
Investing.com. ZoomInfo Technologies Inc. Earnings
18
Simply Wall St. ZoomInfo Technologies
19
Barron’s. ZoomInfo Earnings Stock Price