Frasco v. Flo Health, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California resolves cross-motions for summary judgment by Meta and Flo Health in litigation concerning the collection and disclosure of users’ health and reproductive information. The court grants Meta summary judgment on the federal Wiretap Act, CDAFA, aiding-and-abetting intrusion, and UCL claims, while allowing the CIPA claims to proceed in specified respects. The court denies most of Flo’s motion, including as to timeliness and the CMIA claim, but grants judgment on all claims asserted by plaintiff Pietrzyk and certain standalone or agreed-upon claims.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was granted to Meta because the undisputed record showed that Flo, a party to the communications, consented to Meta's data collection practices.
2. Summary judgment was denied because genuine disputes of material fact existed concerning consent, the timing and nature of Meta's alleged interception or eavesdropping, intent, and whether communications were intercepted in transit.
3. Summary judgment was granted because plaintiffs lacked admissible, non-speculative evidence establishing damage or loss after their proposed expert was excluded.
4. Summary judgment was denied because a jury could find that Flo's disclosures did not provide constructive notice, that plaintiffs did not learn of the alleged misconduct until January 2021, and that factual issues existed concerning fraudulent concealment.
5. Flo was not entitled to enforce the class waiver in its terms of use for the reasons stated in the court's certification order.
6. Summary judgment was denied because factual disputes existed concerning whether Flo's services and practices involved individually identifiable medical information and whether Flo fell within the statutory provisions governing businesses offering software or mobile applications designed to maintain medical information.
7. Summary judgment was granted to Flo on all claims asserted by Pietrzyk because he began using the Flo App after the class period and plaintiffs did not defend his claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Meta was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs' federal Wiretap Act claim based on Flo's consent to Meta's data collection practices.
2. Whether disputed facts precluded summary judgment on plaintiffs' California Invasion of Privacy Act claims against Meta.
3. Whether plaintiffs could establish damage or loss for their California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act claim after exclusion of their proposed expert.
4. Whether Meta was entitled to summary judgment on named plaintiffs' aiding-and-abetting intrusion-upon-seclusion claim and UCL claim.
5. Whether Flo was entitled to summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds, based on its class-waiver provision, or on the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act claim.
6. Whether summary judgment was proper on named plaintiffs' implied-contract, unjust-enrichment, and UCL claims and on all claims asserted by plaintiff Pietrzyk.

Disposition

other