I am able to successfully update the name of an existing content item like so:
REQUEST:
PATCH https://api-ca.zoom.us/v2/rooms/content/digital_signage/contents/fs-C36085F8BD99264048831329DAAA2422 HTTP/1.1
Authorization: Bearer <... my token ...>
{"content_name":"ZoomNet Integration Testing: updated"}
RESPONSE:
HTTP/1.1 204 No Content
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 18:46:56 GMT
x-zm-trackingid: v=2.0;clid=us06;rid=WEB_b2dcfd22588a1e7147b162f39c1fff72
However, I get a HTTP 400 response if I attempt to update any other attribute, such as the expiration date in this example:
REQUEST:
PATCH https://api-ca.zoom.us/v2/rooms/content/digital_signage/contents/fs-C36085F8BD99264048831329DAAA2422 HTTP/1.1
Authorization: Bearer <... my token ...>
{"expires":true,"expiration_date":"2026-07-29T18:47:16"}
RESPONSE:
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 18:47:17 GMT
x-zm-trackingid: v=2.0;clid=us06;rid=WEB_0bc07a096fe36dab3a91c14ea8df3ac2
{"code":6334,"message":"Invalid parameter: content_id."}
PLEASE NOTE: the content id in the two code samples above is the same, which makes the invalid parameter: content_id particularly confusing.
Zeeshan1
(Zeeshan)
July 29, 2026, 9:08pm
2
The content ID appears to be valid, since the same endpoint successfully updates content_name. I think the issue is with the request-body parameter rather than the ID.
According to the API documentation, the expected field is expiration_time, not expiration_date. I would also use a future RFC 3339 timestamp that includes the timezone, for example:
{
"expires": true,
"expiration_time": "2026-07-30T18:47:16Z"
}
In the original example, the expiration timestamp is also one second earlier than the response date, so it may already be considered expired when processed.
The Invalid parameter: content_id response therefore looks misleading and may be a backend validation error. Could you try the corrected field and a future UTC timestamp and confirm whether it still returns code 6334?
desautelsj
(Jericho, MVP)
July 29, 2026, 11:15pm
3
Thanks for pointing out the misspelling and for suggesting changing the date format. Unfortunately, neither of these changes solved the problem:
REQUEST:
PATCH https://api-ca.zoom.us/v2/rooms/content/digital_signage/contents/fs-7E94C18BAEBE694A4CE4960779CB4F11 HTTP/1.1
Authorization: Bearer <... my token ...>
{"expires":true,"expiration_time":"2026-07-30T23:07:33.8691089Z"}
RESPONSE:
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2026 23:07:34 GMT
x-zm-trackingid: v=2.0;clid=us06;rid=WEB_a2678b8aa92b3dfecef865b9b9da6b1f
{"code":6334,"message":"Invalid parameter: content_id."}
I even tried removing the date/time attribute from my request and that didn’t work either:
REQUEST:
PATCH https://api-ca.zoom.us/v2/rooms/content/digital_signage/contents/fs-7E94C18BAEBE694A4CE4960779CB4F11 HTTP/1.1
Authorization: Bearer <...my token ...>
{"expires":true}
RESPONSE:
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2026 23:10:44 GMT
x-zm-trackingid: v=2.0;clid=us06;rid=WEB_5dd2589571a6759ce42b1c398bc0066f
{"code":6334,"message":"Invalid parameter: content_id."}