A federal judge has pushed back on a class action accusing Meta and several California food banks of violating a state privacy law through deployment of tracking technology installed on the banks’ websites.
In an April 27 opinion, U.S. District Judge Laurel Beeler granted a motion to dismiss the complaint from five people whose claims implicated the websites of four nonprofit agencies: Sacramento Food Bank and Family Services, Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, Central California Food Bank and San Francisco-Marin Food Bank. The plaintiffs alleged improper disclosure of financial and medical data to Meta through its Pixel tool, which links website usage to individual Facebook or Instagram accounts to generate targeted advertisements.
Meta is the parent company of Facebook and Instagram.
The complaint, which the plaintiffs sought to convert to a class action, asserted violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and other privacy laws against all defendants while adding claims against Meta for Federal Wiretap Act violations and unjust enrichment. They also accused all the food banks for negligence and specifically alleged the San Francisco-Marin bank violated the California Consumer Privacy Act.
In arguing for dismissal, Meta said the plaintiffs consented to supplying their information and the food banks contended the complaint didn’t plausibly allege a concrete injury, while the Los Angeles food bank said the class definition was overbroad.
In their complaint, three plaintiffs said they entered home addresses when using food bank websites to find distribution points, and alleged that after they “electronically communicated their intent to receive nutrition assistance,” and then were “repeatedly targeted with ads directed at their financial hardships.”
Beeler said those allegations didn’t sufficiently constitute a legal injury, noting the lack of citation to “any case where disclosing a plaintiff’s accessing a food-assistance website or sending targeted advertisements were considered traditionally actionable or highly offensive.” She also rejected comparisons to bans on disclosing the names of people who “applied for welfare” and said the fact home addresses were involved doesn’t bring the complaint to the level of other litigation that has involved data like birthdates or passport and driver’s license numbers.
Plaintiffs who used the Central California and San Francisco-Marin websites said they provided additional information related to the degree of financial hardship or the urgency of need. Beeler said those additional factors don’t elevate the claims beyond the shortcomings she identified in the other allegations.
Beeler further said the plaintiffs can’t seek an injunction, explaining speculation about future harm is insufficient to induce a judge to order the defendants to change how they operate, as there is no immediate threat a court order might mitigate.
Regarding Meta’s privacy guidelines, Beeler said she would incorporate the “policies by reference because the plaintiffs do not dispute the authenticity of the documents and the plaintiffs’ claims depend on them.” She also noted the plaintiffs agreed to the policies and people who continue to use Instagram and Facebook are continually agreeing to service terms. The judge further explained “Meta’s policies cover the alleged conduct” to the extent the company tells users it will collect information about how people use certain websites and that such data will be part of advertising efforts.
The plaintiffs argued no reasonable person would understand the policies to extend to collection of medical or financial information and also noted Meta’s Business Tools terms place limitations on sharing health, financial and other sensitive information. Meta countered by saying those terms apply to how developers use its products and aren’t promises to users.
“While the plaintiffs may be correct that they did not consent to the sharing of their financial and medical information, they have not plausibly pleaded that Meta received or shared sensitive information of any kind,” Beeler wrote. “Allegations that the plaintiffs ‘did not consent to the interception or disclosure of their confidential communications, including sensitive financial and medical information, to Meta’ are conclusory and do not show a lack of consent. Meta’s Business Tools Terms do not negate consent for the same reasons and because they apply to third parties and not the plaintiffs.”
Finally, Beeler agreed the proposed class definition was overbroad because it included anyone who used visited one of the food banks’ websites instead of only those who entered information that might be involved in the privacy claims.
Plaintiffs are represented in the case by attorneys with the firm of Fitzgerald Monroe Flynn, of San Diego.
Meta and the defendant food banks have been represented by attorneys from the firms of Latham & Watkins, of San Francisco, New York and Washington, D.C.; Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, of San Francisco; Lathrop GPM, of San Jose; Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass, of San Francisco; and Seyfarth Shaw, of Los Angeles and Chicago.
