In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation

Background

The parties asked the court to resolve a discovery dispute about whether Meta must answer Interrogatory No. 18 and produce documents concerning advertising revenue from “non-Healthcare Providers.” The plaintiffs sought information about profits and advertising revenue that they contend were connected to the alleged unauthorized interception or use of putative class members’ health information collected through Meta Pixel and related business tools.

Interrogatory No. 18 sought monthly profits from 2017 through the present attributable to health advertising revenue from non-Healthcare Providers. The plaintiffs also sought documents under Requests for Production 283 through 287. They said these materials would help them reasonably approximate profits causally connected to Meta’s alleged interceptions and support their unjust-enrichment theory.

Meta responded that the discovery was overbroad and disproportionate. Meta stated that it had agreed to produce revenue-related information and documents for healthcare advertisers previously identified by the plaintiffs, but objected to investigating all advertisements for health-related classifications and then determining the revenue and profits associated with them.

Court’s analysis

The court said the parties disagreed about whether plaintiffs could show a connection between putative class members’ data and particular advertising, including advertising from non-Healthcare Providers. The court recognized that this question goes to the merits of plaintiffs’ claims, but said it could not decide that merits issue while resolving the discovery dispute.

The court determined that the requested damages-related discovery appeared relevant to plaintiffs’ unjust-enrichment theory, assuming the connection described by the parties. But the court also emphasized that discovery must be both relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. The court found the plaintiffs’ explanations of the requested documents difficult to understand and noted that several requests relied on definitions or cross-referenced materials not included in the record.

Rulings

The court ordered Meta to provide a further answer to Interrogatory No. 18 based on information that is reasonably accessible. The court explained that the interrogatory appeared limited to profits from advertising to non-Healthcare Providers where data obtained from putative class members through Meta Pixel was used in the manner described in the request during the relevant class period. If Meta did not have some or all of the requested information, or if an answer was available only through expert discovery, Meta could say so in its further response.

For RFP 283, the court ordered Meta to produce documents sufficient to show revenue from the advertisements covered by the request during the class period, to the extent those documents were reasonably accessible, and if the parties agreed on what the relevant advertising classification meant. For RFP 287, the court ordered Meta to produce documents that would permit apportionment of that revenue or account for costs or other reductions if Meta contended that the revenue could not be attributed entirely to the alleged unauthorized use of putative class members’ health information.

The court did not order production under RFPs 284–286 at that time. Instead, it directed the parties to confer further about the specific data or documents sought, taking into account that plaintiffs could obtain discovery of revenue or profits associated with the alleged use for their unjust-enrichment theory only to the extent the information was reasonably accessible to Meta. The parties were ordered to submit a joint status report by May 19, 2025, and Meta was ordered to provide the further interrogatory answer and documents responsive to RFPs 283 and 287 by May 23, 2025, unless the parties stipulated to different dates.