Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 64 Filed 09/02/21 Page 1 of 93
`
`
`
`James M. Wagstaffe (95535)
`Frank Busch (258288)
`WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT,
`BUSCH & RADWICK LLP
`100 Pine Street, Suite 725
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: (415) 357-8900
`Fax: (415) 357-8910
`wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com
`busch@wvbrlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs Erica Frasco
`and Sarah Wellman
`
`
`Carol C. Villegas (pro hac vice)
`Michael Canty (pro hac vice)
`LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
`140 Broadway
`New York, NY 10005
`Tel: (212) 907-0700
`Fax: (212) 818-0477
`cvillegas@labaton.com
`mcanty@labaton.com
`
`Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel for
`Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
`
`
`
`
`Christian Levis (pro hac vice)
`Amanda Fiorilla (pro hac vice)
`LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
`44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
`White Plains, NY 10601
`Tel: (914) 997-0500
`Fax: (914) 997-0035
`clevis@lowey.com
`afiorilla@lowey.com
`
`Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel for
`Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
`
`Diana J. Zinser (pro hac vice)
`SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF,
`P.C.
`2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Tel: (215) 496-0300
`Fax: (215) 496-6611
`dzinser@srkattorneys.com
`
`Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel for
`Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ERICA FRASCO, individually and on behalf of
`
`all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
`
`
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-00757-JD
`
`
`
` CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-00757-JD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 64 Filed 09/02/21 Page 2 of 93
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`SARAH WELLMAN, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
`
`
`JUSTINE PIETRZYK, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`JENNIFER CHEN, individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-00757-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 64 Filed 09/02/21 Page 3 of 93
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`TESHA GAMINO, individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
`
`
`LEAH RIDGWAY and AUTUMN MEIGS,
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
`
`
`MADELINE KISS, individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC,
`FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
`FLURRY, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-00757-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 64 Filed 09/02/21 Page 4 of 93
`
`
`
`1
`
`Plaintiffs Erica Frasco, Sarah Wellman, Justine Pietrzyk, Jennifer Chen, Tesha Gamino,
`
`2
`
`Leah Ridgway, Autumn Meigs, and Madeline Kiss (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all
`
`3
`
`others similarly situated, assert the following against Defendants Flo Health, Inc. (“Flo Health”),
`
`4
`
`Google, LLC (“Google”), Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”), AppsFlyer, Inc. (“AppsFlyer”), and Flurry,
`
`5
`
`Inc. (“Flurry”)1 based upon personal knowledge, where applicable, information and belief, and the
`
`6
`
`investigation of counsel, which included, among other things, consultation with experts in the field
`
`7
`
`of data privacy.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
`
`1.
`
`Defendant Flo Health owns and developed the Flo Period & Ovulation Tracker (“Flo
`
`App” or “App”), one of the most popular health and fitness mobile applications.
`
`2.
`
`The Flo App purports to use artificial intelligence to provide advice and assistance
`
`related to women’s health, such as by serving as an ovulation calendar, period tracker, pregnancy
`
`guide, and wellness and lifestyle tracker.
`
`3.
`
`Flo Health touts that its app is the “#1 mobile product for women’s health.” The Flo
`
`App has been installed more than 180 million times and has more than 38 million monthly active
`
`users. The App has also been rated the #1 period tracker in the United States based on active
`
`audience and as the #1 most downloaded health app in the Apple App Store.2
`
`4.
`
`The Flo App presents itself as a leader in women’s health care with at least “60
`
`doctors and experts from Europe and North America” on its Medical Board.3
`
`5.
`
`In order to use the Flo App, millions of users—including Plaintiffs—provide Flo
`
`Health with personally identifying information (e.g., their names, email addresses, dates of birth,
`
`and places of residence), along with intimate details about their sexual health, menstruation cycles,
`
`
`
`1 Defendants Flo Health, Google, Facebook, Appsflyer, and Flurry are hereafter referred to
`collectively, at times, as “Defendants.” Defendants Google, Facebook, Appsflyer, and Flurry are
`hereafter referred to, collectively, at times, as the “Non-Flo Defendants.”
`
`2 The Flo App was also featured as the “App of the Day” in the Apple App Store in over 30
`countries.
`
`3 Our Medical Expertise, FLO HEALTH, INC., https://flo.health/medical-expertise.
`
`1
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-00757-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 64 Filed 09/02/21 Page 5 of 93
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`gynecological health, and physical well-being through a series of “survey questions.” These
`
`questions cover extremely personal topics and include, for example: (1) “do you experience any
`
`pain during sex?” (2) “how often do you have sex?” (3) “how often do you masturbate?” (4) “have
`
`you noticed a decrease in sexual desire?” (5) “are you sexually active during your period?” and
`
`(6) “what type of relationship do you have at present?”
`
`6.
`
`Users also provided intimate, personal health details in response to probing survey
`
`questions about health and wellness, such as: (1) “do you smoke” (2) “how often do you experience
`
`stress?” (3) “do you want to change your weight?” (4) “do you follow a particular diet?” (5) “how
`
`often do you exercise?” (6) “do you get yeast infections?” (6) “do you have any chronic diseases?”
`
`and (7) “do you have any reproductive system diseases?”
`
`7.
`
`Within the first few minutes of using the Flo App, users answer over thirty survey
`
`questions like these. As users continue to use the app, they are encouraged by Flo Health to provide
`
`more and more intimate health data, including daily information about whether they have their
`
`period, their weight, how long they slept, whether they had sex (as well as their sex drive, if sex was
`
`unprotected, or if they masturbated), their mood (ranging from “calm” to “very self-critical”) and if
`
`they have any health symptoms (such as headaches, breast tenderness, acne, or fatigue).
`
`8.
`
`With access to this highly sensitive information, Flo Health claims to predict
`
`ovulation, aid in pregnancy and childbirth, and provide lifestyle and wellness suggestions, allowing
`
`users to “take full control of [their] health.”
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiffs and Class members provided this information to Flo Health based on the
`
`company’s repeated assurances that their intimate health data would remain protected and
`
`confidential and would not be disclosed to third parties.
`
`10.
`
`This is because the improper collection and surreptitious sharing of this intimate data
`
`has significant real-world consequences. Indeed, in today’s world, data is an extremely valuable
`
`commodity. The companies that deal in this data—such as Defendants Google and Facebook—are
`
`some of the largest and most valuable companies in the world. When these companies gain access
`
`to the intimate data users shared here, they are able to capitalize on an especially sensitive class of
`
`2
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-00757-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 64 Filed 09/02/21 Page 6 of 93
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`information and use this information for their own benefit, including targeting women with ads in
`
`ways that are acutely invasive.
`
`11.
`
`Flo Health’s privacy policies and public assurances have claimed—time and time
`
`again—that Flo Health would not share users’ intimate health data with anyone. Flo Health’s
`
`website touts that “[p]rivacy in the digital age is of utmost importance. Flo provides a secure
`
`platform for millions of women globally.”4
`
`12.
`
`Similarly, Flo Health’s Privacy Policy stated, and has historically stated, in all capital
`
`letters, that it “WILL NOT TRANSMIT ANY OF YOUR PERSONAL DATA TO THIRD
`
`PARTIES, EXCEPT IF IT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE TO YOU (E.G.
`
`TECHNICAL SERVICE PROVIDERS), UNLESS WE HAVE ASKED FOR YOUR EXPLICIT
`
`CONSENT.” Flo Health assured users that these third parties, including the Non-Flo Defendants,
`
`would not receive “survey results,” i.e., the answers to Flo Health’s probing health questions,
`
`“information regarding your marked cycles, pregnancy, symptoms, notes,” or information about
`
`“which articles [users] view,” i.e., users’ intimate health data. Flo Health further assured users that
`
`third parties, including the Non-Flo Defendants, with whom it shared data “w[ould] never use such
`
`information for any other purpose except to provide services in connection with the App.”5
`
`13.
`
`Contrary to these assurances, Flo Health knowingly collected, transmitted, and
`
`disclosed Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ intimate health data to third parties, including the Non-Flo
`
`Defendants.
`
`14.
`
`Flo Health disclosed its users’ highly sensitive health information to the Non-Flo
`
`Defendants and other third parties through “software development kits” (“SDKs”) that it
`
`incorporated into the Flo App. SDKs are a collection of tools and programs that allow app
`
`developers, like Flo Health, to add functionality or features to their app that are developed by third
`
`parties.
`
`
`
`26
`
`4 About Us, FLO HEALTH, INC., https://flo.health/our-mission (last visited Sept. 1, 2021).
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`5 Privacy Policy, FLO HEALTH, INC. (effective May 25, 2018), https://flo.health/privacy-policy-
`archived/may-25-2018.
`
`3
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-00757-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 64 Filed 09/02/21 Page 7 of 93
`
`
`
`15.
`
`For instance, Facebook’s SDK can be incorporated into an app to share user data
`
`between an app and Facebook. By using the Facebook SDK, developers can gain access to
`
`Facebook’s data analytics and use Facebook tools to assist with mobile ads, among other things.
`
`16.
`
`Flo Health incorporated Facebook’s SDK so that it could use Facebook’s analytics
`
`tools to identify which of its users would be prime targets for advertisements keyed off the data they
`
`entered into the App. Flo Health incorporated similar SDKs from all the Non-Flo Defendants, who
`
`are all marketing and analytics firms or advertisers.
`
`17.
`
`In exchange for using the Non-Flo Defendants’ SDKs, Flo Health transmitted
`
`intimate health data entered into the Flo App to the Non-Flo Defendants—in direct contravention
`
`of Flo Health’s assurances to users that this information would not be disclosed—including when a
`
`user indicated that they were on their period or intended to get pregnant.
`
`18.
`
`The Non-Flo Defendants, including two of the largest digital advertisers in the world,
`
`incorporated this information into their existing data analytics and research segments to compile
`
`profiles and target users for advertisements.
`
`19.
`
`The Non-Flo Defendants’ access and use of this information can and do have
`
`profound consequences that users of the Flo App would never anticipate. For instance, armed with
`
`knowledge that a Flo App user is pregnant or attempting to get pregnant, the Non-Flo Defendant
`
`can specifically target that user with ads for prenatal vitamins, breast pumps, or fertility treatments,
`
`among other things. In some instances, Flo Health may know a user is pregnant—based on the user’s
`
`data—before the user herself. Because this information was shared with the Non-Flo Defendants,
`
`users could be targeted for ads that the users may find overwhelming or disturbing, depending on
`
`whether they did or did not intend to get pregnant. As another example, if a user indicated that she
`
`experienced oily skin during her menstruation cycle, the Non-Flo Defendants could use this
`
`information to target that user (i.e., Plaintiffs and Class members) with advertisements for certain
`
`skin care products around this time period. The intimate health data entered into the Flo Health App
`
`is some of the most private information about a user and was provided under the guise that this
`
`4
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-00757-JD
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 64 Filed 09/02/21 Page 8 of 93
`
`
`
`information would stay private—not to develop profiles about users or target them for
`
`advertisements.
`
`20.
`
`The Non-Flo Defendants knew that the data collected and received from Flo Health
`
`included intimate health data—but they did nothing to stop Flo Health from sharing this information
`
`because it is vital to their business. By continuing to contract with Flo Health to receive this data—
`
`and using this data for their own purposes—the Non-Flo Defendants (as well as Flo Health)
`
`intentionally intruded upon Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ privacy.
`
`21.
`
`The truth about Flo Health’s and the Non-Flo Defendants’ conduct was discussed in
`
`a report published by the Wall Street Journal in February 2019, revealing that despite Flo Health’s
`
`promises that it would not share intimate health data, Flo Health had spent years disclosing the
`
`intimate health data that users entered into the Flo App to dozens of third parties, including the Non-
`
`Flo Defendants who were free to use this data for their own purposes, without limitation.
`
`22.
`
`In response to the revelation that Flo Health was sharing users’ intimate health data
`
`with the Non-Flo Defendants, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) launched its own
`
`investigation into Flo Health’s data privacy and disclosure practices and ultimately filed a
`
`complaint, charging Flo Health with making a variety of fraudulent misrepresentations to Flo App
`
`users in violation of their privacy rights.
`
`23.
`
`Likewise, the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYSDFS”), at the
`
`direction of New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, opened an investigation into Facebook
`
`concerning its collection of sensitive data for its own advertising and marketing purposes—
`
`including intimate health data from Flo Health users. Governor Cuomo characterized the practice
`
`as an “outrageous abuse of privacy.”6
`
`
`
`6 Report on Investigation of Facebook Inc. Data Privacy Concerns, N.Y. STATE DEP’T OF FIN.
`SERVS. (Feb. 18, 2021),
`https://www.dfs.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/02/facebook_report_20210218.pdf.
`
`5
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-00757-JD
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 64 Filed 09/02/21 Page 9 of 93
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`24. Members of Congress expressed outrage as well, with Senator Ed Markey of
`
`Massachusetts calling the behavior a “new low in privacy malpractice.”7
`
`25.
`
`On January 13, 2021, Flo Health entered into a settlement with the FTC that
`
`prohibited Flo Health from further misrepresenting the purposes for which or entities to whom it
`
`discloses users’ intimate health data, as well as obtain an independent review of its Privacy Policy,
`
`obtain user consent before sharing their data, and notify third parties that previously received users’
`
`intimate health data to destroy that information.8
`
`26.
`
`NYSDFS released a report on February 18, 2021, detailing the significant privacy
`
`concerns associated with Facebook’s data collection practices, including the collection of intimate
`
`health data from Flo Health users. The report noted that while Facebook maintained a policy that
`
`instructed developers not to transmit sensitive health data, Facebook received, stored, and analyzed
`
`this data anyway, including intimate health data from Flo App users. Facebook was unwilling to
`
`review the data it previously collected and analyzed and so the NYSDFS called on federal regulators
`
`to compel Facebook to undergo such a process.
`
`27.
`
`If Plaintiffs and Class members had known that Flo Health would share their intimate
`
`health data with Non-Flo Defendants, they would not have used the Flo App.
`
`28.
`
`Defendants’ actions constitute an extreme invasion of Plaintiffs’ and Class members’
`
`right to privacy and violate federal and state statutory and common law.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`29.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C
`
`§ 1332(d), because the amount in controversy for the Class exceeds $5,000,000 exclusive of interest
`
`and costs, there are more than 100 putative class members defined below, and minimal diversity
`
`
`
`7 Sam Schechner, Popular Apps Cease Sharing Data With Facebook, WALL ST. J. (Feb. 24, 2019).
`
`8 Developer of Popular Women’s Fertility-Tracking App Settles FTC Allegations that It Mislead
`Consumers About
`the Disclosure of
`their Health Data, FTC
`(Jan. 13, 2021),
`https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/01/developer-popular-womens-fertility-
`tracking-app-settles-ftc.
`
`6
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-00757-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 64 Filed 09/02/21 Page 10 of 93
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`exists because a significant portion of putative class members are citizens of a state different from
`
`the citizenship of at least one Defendant.
`
`30.
`
`This Court also has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1331 since this suit is brought under the laws of the United States, i.e., the Stored
`
`Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701, et seq. and the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510,
`
`et seq., and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the remaining state common
`
`law and statutory claims as these state law claims are part of the same case or controversy as the
`
`federal statutory claim over which the Court has original jurisdiction.
`
`31.
`
`This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Flo Health because it consented to
`
`jurisdiction in this District in its Terms of Use, which states:
`
`Any dispute arising from this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State
`of California without regard to its conflict of law provisions. SOLE AND
`EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION FOR ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING
`ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE IN
`AN APPROPRIATE STATE OR FEDERAL COURT LOCATED IN SAN
`FRANCISCO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA . . . .9
`
`32.
`
`This Court has general personal jurisdiction over the Non-Flo Defendants because
`
`they each maintain their principal place of business in California. Additionally, the Non-Flo
`
`Defendants are subject to specific personal jurisdiction in this State because a substantial part of the
`
`events and conduct giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this State.
`
`33.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), (c), and (d) because
`
`Flo Health transacts business in this District and a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the
`
`claims occurred in this District.
`
`34.
`
`Intra-district Assignment: A substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise
`
`to the violations of law alleged herein occurred in the County of San Francisco, and as such, this
`
`action may properly be assigned to the San Francisco or Oakland divisions of this Court pursuant to
`
`Civil Local Rule 3-2(c).
`
`
`
`9 Terms of Use, FLO HEALTH, INC. (effective Feb. 5, 2020) (emphasis in original),
`https://flo.health/terms-of-service.
`
`7
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-00757-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 64 Filed 09/02/21 Page 11 of 93
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`a.
`
`Erica Frasco
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff Erica Frasco is a natural person and citizen of New Jersey and a resident
`
`of Passaic County.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff Frasco downloaded the Flo App from the Apple app store in or around 2017
`
`and has been an active user ever since.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff Frasco provided Flo Health with her intimate health data, including
`
`information and/or symptoms about her health and wellness, menstruation cycle, and sexual activity.
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff Frasco believed that her intimate health data would stay private and that Flo
`
`Health would not disclose this information to third parties, including the Non-Flo Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff Frasco did not consent or provide permission for Flo Health to share or disclose this
`
`information.
`
`39.
`
`In direct contravention to its Privacy Policy and public assurances, Flo Health
`
`disclosed Plaintiff Frasco’s intimate health data without her knowledge or consent to third parties,
`
`including the Non-Flo Defendants.
`
`40.
`
`By the nature of Flo Health’s concealment, Plaintiff Frasco was not provided notice
`
`and did not have the opportunity to provide consent to Flo Health’s disclosure of her data to the
`
`Non-Flo Defendants and the use of her intimate health data by Flo Health and the Non-Flo
`
`Defendants for their own benefit. Namely, the Non-Flo Defendants used users’ intimate health data,
`
`including Plaintiff Frasco’s, for their own purposes and in some cases to generate revenue by selling
`
`targeted advertising to customers based on profiles on Flo Health users that were developed based
`
`on their sensitive health data.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff Frasco would not have used the Flo App if she had known that Flo Health
`
`would share her intimate health data with third parties, including the Non-Flo Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-00757-JD
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 64 Filed 09/02/21 Page 12 of 93
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Sarah Wellman
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff Sarah Wellman is a natural person and citizen of California and a resident
`
`of Sonoma County.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff Wellman downloaded the Flo App from the Apple app store in or around
`
`2018 and was an active user until March 2020.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff Wellman provided Flo Health with her intimate health data, including
`
`information and/or symptoms about her health and wellness, menstruation cycle, and sexual activity.
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff Wellman believed that her intimate health data would stay private and that
`
`Flo Health would not disclose this information to third parties, including the Non-Flo Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff Wellman did not consent or provide permission for Flo Health to share or disclose this
`
`information.
`
`46.
`
`In direct contravention to its Privacy Policy and public assurances, Flo Health
`
`disclosed Plaintiff Wellman’s intimate health data without her knowledge or consent to third parties,
`
`including the Non-Flo Defendants.
`
`47.
`
`By the nature of Flo Health’s concealment, Plaintiff Wellman was not provided
`
`notice and did not have the opportunity to provide consent to Flo Health’s disclosure of her data to
`
`the Non-Flo Defendants and the use of her intimate health data by Flo Health and the Non-Flo
`
`Defendants for their own benefit. Namely, the Non-Flo Defendants used users’ intimate health data,
`
`including Plaintiff Wellman’s, for their own purposes and in some cases to generate revenue by
`
`selling targeted advertising to customers based on profiles on Flo Health users that were developed
`
`based on their sensitive health data.
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff Wellman would not have used the Flo App if she had known that Flo Health
`
`would share her intimate health data with third parties, including the Non-Flo Defendants.
`
`c.
`
`Justine Pietrzyk
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff Justine Pietrzyk (“Plaintiff Pietrzyk”) is a natural person and citizen of
`
`Pennsylvania and resident of Philadelphia County.
`
`9
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-00757-JD
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 64 Filed 09/02/21 Page 13 of 93
`
`
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff Pietrzyk downloaded the Flo App from the Apple app store in or around
`
`January 2020 and was an active user until about February 2021.
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff Pietrzyk provided Flo Health with her intimate health data, including
`
`information and/or symptoms about her health and wellness, menstruation cycle, and sexual activity.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff Pietrzyk believed that her intimate health data would stay private and that
`
`Flo Health would not disclose this information to third parties, including the Non-Flo Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff Pietrzyk did not consent or provide permission for Flo Health to share or disclose this
`
`information.
`
`53.
`
`In direct contravention to its privacy policy and public assurances, Flo Health
`
`disclosed Plaintiff Pietrzyk’s intimate health data without her knowledge or consent to third parties,
`
`including the Non-Flo Defendants.
`
`54.
`
`By the nature of Flo Health’s concealment, Plaintiff Pietrzyk was not provided notice
`
`and did not have the opportunity to provide consent to Flo Health’s disclosure of her data to the
`
`Non-Flo Defendants and the use of her intimate health data by Flo Health and the Non-Flo
`
`Defendants for their own benefit. Namely, the Non-Flo Defendants used users’ intimate health data,
`
`including Plaintiff Pietrzyk’s, for their own purposes and in some cases to generate revenue by
`
`selling targeted advertising to customers based on profiles on Flo Health users that were developed
`
`based on their sensitive health data.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff Pietrzyk would not have used the Flo App if she had known that Flo Health
`
`would share her intimate health data with third parties, including the Non-Flo Defendants.
`
`d.
`
`Jennifer Chen
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff Jennifer Chen is a natural person and citizen of California and a resident
`
`of Placer County.
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff Chen downloaded the Flo App from the Apple app store in or around 2017
`
`and has been an active user ever since.
`
`10
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-00757-JD
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 64 Filed 09/02/21 Page 14 of 93
`
`
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiff Chen provided Flo Health with her intimate health data, including
`
`information and/or symptoms about her health and wellness, menstruation cycle, and ovulation for
`
`natural family planning.
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff Chen believed that her intimate health data would stay private and that Flo
`
`Health would not disclose this information to third parties, including the Non-Flo Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff Chen did not consent or provide permission for Flo Health to share or disclose this
`
`information.
`
`60.
`
`In direct contravention to its Privacy Policy and public assurances, Flo Health
`
`disclosed Plaintiff Chen’s intimate health data without her knowledge or consent to third parties,
`
`including the Non-Flo Defendants.
`
`61.
`
`By the nature of Flo Health’s concealment, Plaintiff Chen was not provided notice
`
`and did not have the opportunity to provide consent to Flo Health’s disclosure of her data to the
`
`Non-Flo Defendants and the use of her intimate health data by Flo Health and the Non-Flo
`
`Defendants for their own benefit. Namely, the Non-Flo Defendants used users’ intimate health data,
`
`including Plaintiff Chen’s, for their own purposes and in some cases to generate revenue by selling
`
`targeted advertising to customers based on profiles on Flo Health users that were developed based
`
`on their sensitive health data.
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiff Chen would not have used the Flo App if she had known that Flo Health
`
`would share her intimate health data with third parties, including the Non-Flo Defendants.
`
`e.
`
`Tesha Gamino
`
`63.
`
`Plaintiff Tesha Gamino is a natural person and citizen of California and a resident
`
`of Riverside County.
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiff Gamino downloaded the Flo App from the Apple app store in or around
`
`2016 and has been an active user ever since.
`
`65.
`
`Plaintiff Gamino provided Flo Health with her intimate health data, including
`
`information and/or symptoms about her health and wellness, menstruation cycle, and sexual activity.
`
`11
`CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`CASE NO. 3:21-cv-00757-JD
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00757-JD Document 64 Filed 09/02/21 Page 15 of 93
`
`
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiff Gamino believed that her intimate health data would stay private and that
`
`Flo Health would not disclose this information to third parties, including the Non-Flo Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff Gamino did not consent or provide permission for Flo Health to share or disclose this
`
`information.
`
`67.
`
`In direct contravention to its Privacy Policy and public assurances, Flo Health
`
`disclosed Plaintiff Gamino’s intimate health data without her knowledge or consent to third parties,
`
`including the Non-Flo Defendants.
`
`68.
`
`By the nature of Flo Health’s concealment, Plaintiff Gamino was not provided notice
`
`and did not have the opportunity to provide consent to Flo Health’s disclosure of her data to the
`
`Non-Flo Defendants and the use of her intimate health data by Flo Health and the Non-Flo
`
`Defendants for their own benefit. Namely, the Non-Flo Defendants used users’ intimate health data,
`
`including Plaintiff Gamino’s, for their own purposes and in some cases to generate revenue by
`
`selling targeted advertising to customers based on profiles on Flo Health users that were developed
`
`based on their sensitive health data.
`
`69.
`
`Plaintiff Gamino would not have used the Flo App if she had known that Flo Health
`
`would share her intimate health data with third parties, including the Non-Flo Defendants.
`
`f.
`
`Leah C. Ridgway
`
`70.
`
`Plaintiff Leah C. Ridgway is a natural person and citizen of Ohio and a resident of
`
`Franklin County.
`
`71.
`
`Plaintiff Ridgway downloaded the Flo App from the Apple app store in or around
`
`March 2018 and has been an active user ever since.
`
`72.
`
`Plaintiff Ridgway provided Flo Health with her intimate health data,