Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteA federal jury found Meta liable under California’s privacy law for obtaining sensitive menstrual and ovulation information sent through the Flo period-tracking app. It was a civil verdict—not a criminal conviction—and it concerned a California class of users who entered menstruation or pregnancy information between November 1, 2016, and February 28, 2019.
Was Meta found guilty in the Flo Health case?
Not in the criminal-law sense. In Frasco v. Flo Health, Inc., a federal jury found Meta Platforms, Inc. liable under section 632 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). The verdict was on the remaining claim against Meta in a civil class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The jury’s finding concerned Meta’s obtaining highly personal ovulation and menstrual-period information communicated by Flo users. Judge James Donato later denied Meta’s requests to overturn the verdict, disturb class certification, or grant a new trial. In his amended order filed September 17, 2025, he wrote: “Nothing in the evidence adduced at trial or the record as a whole justifies disturbing the California class or the jury’s unanimous verdict.” Read the amended post-trial order.
What data was involved?
Flo asked users to provide sensitive sexual and reproductive health information, including menstrual-cycle timing, birth-control preferences, and details about sexual activity. The court’s summary of the trial record says Flo represented that sensitive health information would remain confidential. Custom event fields in the app captured menstruation and pregnancy information, and software development kits (SDKs) supplied by Meta and Google transmitted those events.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →#1 Best Overall
Google and Flurry settled before trial, and Flo settled during trial. Meta remained as the defendant for the jury’s verdict. The verdict against Meta addressed the California subclass and the CIPA section 632 claim that proceeded against it.
Who was included in the California subclass?
The subclass relevant to the Meta verdict covered people who used the Flo app, entered menstruation and/or pregnancy information, and were residing in California during the covered period:
- Start: November 1, 2016
- End: February 28, 2019
Both dates are inclusive. The court had also certified a nationwide class for claims involving Flo, Google, and Meta, but that nationwide class was not the class at issue in the post-trial order about Meta; Flo had settled.
How much could eligible users receive?
Meta’s quarterly Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2026, says plaintiffs seek $5,000 in statutory damages per class member and asserted that the California subclass could include approximately 1.25 million members. Those figures describe the plaintiffs’ requested amount and asserted potential class size, as reported by Meta—not a damages award or a confirmed count. Meta said potential damages remained uncertain. See Meta’s SEC filing.
The sources available establish that Judge Donato denied Meta’s post-trial motions in September 2025 and that Meta described potential damages as uncertain in its June 2026 filing. They do not establish whether a later damages judgment, settlement, or appellate ruling occurred by September 28, 2026. No final payout amount or claim-filing instructions are established here.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How is the Meta verdict different from Flo’s FTC case?
The FTC matter and the jury verdict are separate proceedings with different defendants, legal mechanisms, and outcomes:
| Issue | FTC matter involving Flo | Private case involving Meta |
|---|---|---|
| Forum and defendant | Federal Trade Commission action involving Flo Health | Federal civil jury trial against Meta in the Northern District of California |
| Legal mechanism | FTC allegations about sharing health information after privacy promises; Flo settled | Jury found Meta liable under CIPA section 632 |
| Outcome established | The FTC finalized its order in June 2021 | Jury verdict followed by denial of Meta’s post-trial motions in September 2025; later damages and appellate status are not established by the cited records |
The FTC said its allegations concerned Flo sharing information from millions of users with outside analytics providers, including Facebook and Google. That earlier regulatory matter provides context, but it is not the jury’s verdict against Meta. FTC case page; FTC June 2021 release.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- No more exposed information in unprotected notary journals. This product shields clients' confidential information from prying eyes. It allows the Notary Public to keep the journal open during the transaction, as NO prior client information is viewable.
- Shields clients' AND Notary Publics' confidential information
- GLBA and HIPAA require non-disclosure policies and procedures. Notary Privacy Guard is a compliance tool for the professional Notary Public.
- Decreases Notary Public's liability from exposing client information
- Journal column headers are printed on the Notary Privacy Guard, no having to peek underneath to complete the journal entry. Becomes part of the journal and also acts as a place marker.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
