Plaintiff Opposes Meta's Motion to Relate Action to Consolidated Hospital Case
The court should deny Meta’s administrative motion to consider whether Doe v. Hey Favor (docket 3:22-cv-03580) should be related to the consolidated Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation (see 2303270047), said plaintiff Tuesday in an opposition filing in U.S. District Court…
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.
for Northern California in San Francisco. Meta’s March 24 motion to relate was conditioned on the court granting Meta’s motion to sever claims against it in Jane Doe. After failing to relate Doe v. Hey Favor to Doe v. GoodRx Holdings, Meta “now seeks to join the Favor Action with yet another unrelated proceeding” comprising 11 cases that deal expressly with hospital patient portals, said the opposition. The Hey Favor case “is not, and has never been” related to the hospital actions, it said. Doe v. Hey Favor seeks to represent a class that used Hey Favor’s mobile and web app that provides contraception and birth control. Jane Doe alleges Favor sends answers to personal information, such as answers to birth control questions and purchase history, through tracking tools, to Meta, TikTok, ByteDance and FullStory. The hospital actions, by contrast, represent users who were hospital patients who allegedly used passive patient portals on hospital websites. Meta argued in its motion to sever claims that the allegations and claims in Hey Favor were “fully covered and subsumed within” Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation.