Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Meta Platforms for Medical Privacy Violations

Meta Platforms has been ordered by a federal judge in the United States to confront a lawsuit alleging that it infringed upon the medical privacy rights of patients who received treatment from healthcare providers utilizing its Meta Pixel tracking tool.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco said the plaintiffs can bring claims that Meta violated federal wiretapping laws and California privacy laws and breached its own contractual promises about user privacy on Facebook.

In a 26-page decision issued Thursday, the judge said the case, based on the evidence thus far, “does not refute any credible allegations that sensitive health care information is being intentionally collected and passed on to Metal.”

Orrick dismissed some of the other claims, but said the plaintiffs, all of whom used the pseudonyms John Doe or Jane Doe, could try to present them again.

According to the plaintiffs, Meta Pixel provided Meta with sensitive information about their health when they logged into patient portals that had a tracking tool installed, allowing Meta to make money through targeted advertising.

The lawsuit demands unspecified damages for all Facebook users whose health information Meta obtained.

Neither Meta nor lawyers for the Menlo Park, Calif.-based company responded to immediate requests for comment Friday. The plaintiffs’ lawyers did not immediately respond to similar requests.

When the trial began in June 2020, lawyers for one of the plaintiffs said they had found at least 664 hospitals and other healthcare providers using Meta Pixel.

In seeking the dismissal, Meta said he “does not disagree” that sending sensitive health information could be a serious problem.

But it also said there was nothing inherently harmful or illegal about its technology, and that healthcare providers would have to decide how to use the Meta Pixel.

But Orrick said it wasn’t clear whether Meta did enough to prevent the sharing of medical records, or whether he was excused because the health care providers actually agreed to it.

He also found “detailed and credible allegations” that the transmission of such information was necessary for Meta’s advertising services.

The case is In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation, US District Court, Northern District of California, No. 22-03580.