Meta Asks Federal Judge to Reverse Verdict Finding It Violated CIPA in Health App Privacy Case
Meta asked a federal court Monday to reverse the verdict or, alternatively, hold a new trial in a case involving allegations that the company shared sensitive health information with third parties without user consent. The social media platform argued "the evidence at trial does not fit plaintiffs’ legal claim."
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
A federal jury decision Aug. 1 found Meta intentionally eavesdropped on users of the health app Flo Health and received sensitive data on users' menstrual cycles and reproductive health, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) in case 21-00757 (see 2508040041).
"At trial, plaintiffs pursued several claims against Flo for impermissible sending" of health data, "but they had just one claim against Meta under ... a criminal statute that prohibits 'intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, us[ing] an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication,'” Meta said in the court document. "That provision -- limited to intentional eavesdropping and recording -- does not apply here. Whether Flo’s decision to create and send certain data to Meta is actionable under other laws, it is not 'eavesdropping' or 'recording' -- and certainly not by Meta."
"As both sides’ experts testified and documentary evidence confirmed, the data that Flo generated and sent to Meta is a different, separate communication from what users input in the Flo App," the social media platform added.
On the other hand, Meta said a new trial is warranted because "the jury instruction on [the criminal law’s] intent standard incorrectly stated that Meta could be held liable merely for acting 'with the knowledge to a substantial certainty that [its] use of the equipment will result in the recordation of a confidential conversation,” which does not apply in this case. Additionally, "the jury was exposed to highly inflammatory material, and a juror with admitted anti-defendant bias was incorrectly seated."
Flo and Google, which are also defendants in Frasco v. Flo Health, Inc., reached settlements before the jury reached a verdict, though no details on either one have been released (see 2508010048 and 2507090063).