San Francisco, California — A jury has ruled that Meta Platforms Inc. violated California’s user privacy laws in a class-action lawsuit regarding the period tracking app, Flo. Users accused the company of collecting sensitive menstrual health data without their consent and utilizing it for advertising purposes.
The plaintiffs, representing millions of Flo users, alleged that both Flo and Meta improperly gathered confidential information, including menstrual dates and fertility objectives, through the app. This practice was said to contravene the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
The lawsuit was initially filed in 2021 and named multiple defendants, including Meta, Google, and analytics companies such as AppFlyers and Flurry. However, Google reached a settlement in July, while Flo resolved its involvement just this month.
Lead trial attorneys Michael P. Canty and Carol C. Villegas emphasized the significance of the verdict. They stated that it sends a strong message regarding the safeguarding of digital health information and the responsibility of major technology firms. They asserted that companies like Meta should be held accountable for profiting from users’ sensitive data, highlighting the fundamental right to privacy in health-related matters.
Meta has publicly disagreed with the jury’s decision, arguing that the company does not engage in eavesdropping on users of the Flo application. A company spokesperson stated, “We vigorously disagree with this outcome and are exploring all legal options,” insisting that the allegations made by the plaintiffs are unfounded. The spokesperson further underscored Meta’s commitment to user privacy and noted that its policies prohibit developers from sharing health or sensitive information.
In a notable financial development, Flo raised $200 million in Series C funding last year, achieving a valuation exceeding $1 billion. The influx of capital reflects growing investor confidence in the app, which is designed to assist users with tracking their reproductive health.
As privacy concerns continue to rise in a data-driven world, the outcome of this case may have broader implications for how tech companies handle sensitive user information moving forward. The reality is that the scrutiny of digital privacy practices will likely increase as consumers become more aware of their rights regarding personal data.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the information presented may be inaccurate. Content can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by contacting contact@publiclawlibrary.org.