Ray Mestad, MJLST Staffer
With a market capitalization of $341 billion, Meta Platforms is one of the most valuable companies in the world. Information is a prized asset for Meta, but how that information is acquired continues to be a source of conflict. Their Meta “Pixel” tool is a piece of code that allows websites to track visitor activity. However, what Meta does with the data after it is acquired may be in violation of a variety of privacy laws. Because of that, Meta is now facing almost fifty class action lawsuits due to Pixel’s use of data from video players and healthcare patient portals.
What is Pixel?
Pixel is an analytical tool that tracks visitor actions on a website. In theory, the actions that are tracked include purchases, registrations, cart additions, searches and more. This information can then be used by the website owners to better understand user behavior. Website owners can more efficiently use ad spend by tailoring ads to relevant users and finding more receptive users based on Pixel’s analysis.
In the world of search engine optimization and web analysis tools like Pixel are common, and there are other sites, like Google Analytics, that provide similar functions. However, there are two key differences between these other tools and Pixel. First, Pixel has in some cases accidentally scraped private, identifiable information from websites. Second, Pixel can connect that information to the social profiles on their flagship website, Facebook. Whether intentionally or accidentally, Pixel has been found to have grabbed personal information beyond the simple user web actions it was supposed to be limited to and connected them to Facebook profiles.
Pixel and Patient Healthcare Information
It’s estimated that, until recently, one third of the top 100 hospitals in the country used Pixel on their websites. However, that number may decrease after Meta’s recent data privacy issues. Meta faced both criticism and legal action in the summer of 2022 for its treatment of user data on healthcare websites. Pixel incorrectly retrieved private patient information, including names, conditions, email addresses and more. Meta then targeted hospital website users with ads on Facebook, using the information Pixel collected from hospital websites and patient portals by matching user information with their Facebook accounts. Novant Health, a healthcare provider, ran advertisements promoting vaccinations in 2020. They then added Pixel code to their website to evaluate the effectiveness of the campaign. Pixel proceeded to send private and identifiable user information to Meta. Another hospital (and Meta’s co-defendant in the lawsuit), the University of California San Francisco and Dignity Health (“UCSF”), was accused of illegally gathering patient information via Pixel code on their patient portal. Private medical information was then distributed to Meta. At some point, it is claimed that pharmaceutical companies then gained access to this medical information and sent out targeted ads based thereon. That is just one example – all in all, more than 1 million patients have been affected by this Pixel breach.
Pixel and Video Tracking
The problems did not stop there. Following its patient portal controversy, Meta again faced criticism for obtaining protected user data with Pixel, this time in the context of video consumption. There are currently 47 proposed class actions against Meta for violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (the “VPPA”). The VPPA was created in the 1980’s to cover videotape and audio-visual materials. No longer confined to the rental store, the VPPA has now taken on a much broader meaning after the growth of the internet.
These class actions accuse Meta of using the Pixel tool to take video user data from a variety of company websites, including the NFL, NPR, the Boston Globe, Bloomberg Law and many more. The classes allege that by collecting video viewing activity in a personally identifiable manner without consent (matching Facebook user IDs to the activity rather than anonymously), so Pixel users could target their ads at the viewers, Pixel violated the VPPA. Under the VPPA Meta is not the defendant in these lawsuits, but rather the companies that shared user information with Meta.
Causes of Action
The relatively new area of data privacy is scarcely litigated by the federal government due to the lack of statutes protecting consumer privacy on the federal level. Because of that, the number of data protection civil litigants can be expected to continue to grow.  HIPAA is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, an act created in 1996 to protect patient information from disclosure without patient consent. In the patient portal cases, HIPAA actions would have to be initiated by the US government. Claimants are therefore suing Meta under consumer protection and other privacy laws like the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the Federal Wiretap Act, and the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act instead. These state Acts allow individuals to sue, when under Federal Acts like HIPPA, the Government may move slowly, or not at all. And in the cases of video tracking, the litigants may only sue the video provider, not Meta itself. Despite that wrinkle of benefit to Meta, their involvement in more privacy disputes is not ideal for the tech giant as it may hurt the trustworthiness of Meta Platforms in the eyes of the public.
If found liable, the VPPA violations could result in damages of $2,500 per class member. Punitive damages for the healthcare data breaches could run in the millions as well and would vary state to state due to the variety of acts the claims are brought in violation of. Specifically, in the UCSF data case class members are seeking punitive damages of $5 million. One possible hang-up that may become an issue for claimants are arbitration agreements. If the terms and conditions of either hospital patient portals or video provider websites contain arbitration clauses, litigants may have difficulty overcoming them. On the one hand, these terms and conditions may be binding and force the parties to attend mandatory arbitration meetings. On the other hand, consumer rights attorneys may argue that consent needs to come from forms separate from online user agreements. If more lawsuits emerge due to the actions of Pixel, it is quite possible that companies will move away from the web analytics tools to avoid potential liability. It remains to be seen whether the convenience and utility of Meta Pixel stops being worth the risk the web analytics tools present to websites.
 Meta Nasdaq, https://www.google.com/finance/quote/META:NASDAQ (last visited Oct. 21, 2022).
 Meta Pixel, Meta for Developers, https://developers.facebook.com/docs/meta-pixel/.
 Sky Witley, Meta Pixel’s Video Tracking Spurs Wave of Data Privacy Suits, (Oct. 13, 2022, 3:55 AM), Bloomberg Law, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/meta-pixels-video-tracking-spurs-wave-of-consumer-privacy-suits.
 Meta Pixel, https://adwisely.com/glossary/meta-pixel/ (last visited Oct. 21, 2022).
 Ted Vrountas, What Is the Meta Pixel & What Does It Do?, https://instapage.com/blog/meta-pixel.
 Steve Adler, Meta Facing Further Class Action Lawsuit Over Use of Meta Pixel Code on Hospital Websites, HIPPA Journal (Aug. 1, 2022), https://www.hipaajournal.com/meta-facing-further-class-action-lawsuit-over-use-of-meta-pixel-code-on-hospital-websites/.
 Bill Toulas, Misconfigured Meta Pixel exposed healthcare data of 1.3M patients, Bleeping Computer (Aug. 22, 2022, 2:16 PM), https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/misconfigured-meta-pixel-exposed-healthcare-data-of-13m-patients/.
 Adler, supra note 6.
 Toulas, supra note 9.
 Witley, supra note 3.
 Adler, supra note 6.
 Witley, supra note 3.
 Dave Muoio, Northwestern Memorial the latest hit with a class action over Meta’s alleged patient data mining, Fierce Healthcare (Aug. 12, 2022 10:30AM), https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/health-tech/report-third-top-hospitals-websites-collecting-patient-data-facebook.
 Witley, supra note 3.