Split With Tax Plaintiffs
Meta Pixel Healthcare Plaintiffs Ask Court to Relate Tax Cases
The plaintiffs in the consolidated healthcare litigation against the Meta Pixel tracking tool agree with Meta’s request to relate the two new Pixel tax filing website class actions to the healthcare cases, they told the U.S. District Court for Northern…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
California in San Francisco in a new filing Thursday (docket 3:22-cv-3580). Two days earlier, the tax-filing plaintiffs said they oppose Meta’s request to relate because the two bodies of litigation “are very different” (see 2301110038). The healthcare plaintiffs’ only objection is that they think it's “procedurally improper to address consolidation in a motion to relate and that consolidation should be addressed separately” after the court issues a related case order, they said. They worry “about the specifics of any consolidation and how it might impact the discovery and schedule” for the consolidated healthcare case, they said. As Meta’s motion to relate concedes, the consolidated healthcare case is “well ahead” of the tax-filing cases, and “there is no reason that discovery should be delayed here,” said the healthcare plaintiffs. “Those and other concerns with consolidation are more appropriate to address in a consolidation-specific motion.” The cases have differences, but the healthcare plaintiffs agree with Meta they should be related, they said. Both involve the same defendant, technology and agreements with Meta, including its cookies and data policies, they said. “They also allege many of the same claims,” including violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and California Invasion of Privacy Act, they said. Though the litigation doesn't “overlap completely,” it’s likely there will be “an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different judges, given that they center around the same technology,” said the healthcare plaintiffs. Relating the tax cases to the healthcare action “will promote efficiency and prevent inconsistent results,” they said. They reserve their right to address whether the tax cases should be consolidated after the court issues a related case order, they said.