In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation

Background

The parties asked the court to resolve a discovery dispute about revenue-related data tied to Meta’s internal classifications of “health-related domains.” Plaintiffs sought documents showing the total revenue and profits Meta derived from “health advertisers” or from all domains in the health-related advertiser categories used to enroll entities in Meta’s CoreSetup privacy program. Plaintiffs argued that Requests for Production (RFPs) 22, 263, and 268 covered the requested information and that the information was relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.

Meta responded that it had already produced responsive revenue data for the covered entities at issue. Meta also argued that plaintiffs’ broader demand was untimely, overbroad, irrelevant, and disproportionate. The court heard argument on June 10, 2025.

RFP 22

RFP 22 requested documents sufficient to show Meta’s total advertising revenues and profits associated with use of the Meta Pixel on medical-provider web properties. In an earlier discovery dispute, plaintiffs had defined “Medical Provider” more narrowly as healthcare providers and entities covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) or the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA). The court had accepted that definition for purposes of resolving the earlier dispute and directed the parties to work on identifying entities within that definition.

The court ruled that plaintiffs could not now rely on a broader definition covering any person or organization providing medical or health-related services, regardless of HIPAA or CMIA coverage. The court said that plaintiffs’ earlier position and the earlier discovery order foreclosed that broader argument.

Meta stated that it had produced information that plaintiffs could use to identify covered entities and associated Pixel IDs. Meta also stated that it had produced revenue-related data for more than 1,800 entities previously identified by plaintiffs and had agreed to produce data for more than 1,000 additional entities identified later. The court said plaintiffs could promptly update their Pixel ID list based on Meta’s last-day-of-discovery production, and that Meta should produce the corresponding revenue data for the relevant healthcare providers and covered entities.

The court was not persuaded that Meta should be required to investigate thousands or hundreds of thousands of entities to identify additional Pixel IDs, because the court was not persuaded that Meta had a ready means to conduct that investigation without undue burden or that the earlier approach should be reconsidered.

RFPs 263 and 268

RFP 263 requested documents showing United States advertising revenue and profits associated with each Meta Collection Tool installed on web properties of HIPAA- or CMIA-covered entities and healthcare advertisers. RFP 268 requested documents showing United States revenue and profits from conversions involving Meta Collection Tools for those entities and advertisers.

Meta argued that these requests did not cover plaintiffs’ demand for total revenue and profits from all health advertisers or all domains in Meta’s health-related advertiser classifications. Plaintiffs did not respond to that objection as it applied to RFPs 263 and 268. The court agreed with Meta and ruled that those requests did not appear to encompass the broader revenue information plaintiffs sought.

Ruling

The court denied plaintiffs’ request for an order requiring Meta to produce total revenue and profits from all health advertisers or all domains in the health-related advertiser categories used for the CoreSetup privacy program. Plaintiffs could update their Pixel ID list based on Meta’s last-day-of-discovery production. If they did so, Meta was required to promptly produce the corresponding revenue data for additional Pixel IDs associated with healthcare providers and covered entities. If plaintiffs could not accurately identify some relevant Pixel IDs, the court expected Meta to reasonably assist with identifying them.

The parties were ordered to jointly file a status report of no more than 1,000 words by July 8, 2025.