At the time of [1 (your footnote)] the only defendant listed in the matter was Flo, not Facebook, per the cover page of [1], so it is unsurprising that that complaint does not include allegations against Facebook.

The amended complaint, [3], includes the allegations against Facebook as at that time Facebook was added as a defendant to the case.

Amongst other things the amended complaint points out that Facebook's behavior lasted for years (into 2021) after it was publicly disclosed that this was happening (2019), and then even after Flo was forced to cease the practice by the FTC, and congressional investigations were launched (2021) it refused to review and destroy the data that had previously been improperly collected.

I'd also be surprised if discovery didn't provide further proof that Facebook was aware of the sort of data they were gathering here...

[3] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.37...

▲

gruez 2 days ago | parent [-]

>At the time of [1 (your footnote)] the only defendant listed in the matter was Flo, not Facebook, per the cover page of [1], so it is unsurprising that that complaint does not include allegations against Facebook.

Are you talking about this?

>As one of the largest advertisers in the nation, Facebook knew that the data it received

>from Flo Health through the Facebook SDK contained intimate health data. Despite knowing this,

>Facebook continued to receive, analyze, and use this information for its own purposes, including

>marketing and data analytics.

Maybe something came up in discovery that documents the extent of this, but this doesn't really prove much. The plaintiffs are just assuming because there's a clause in ToS saying so, facebook must be using the data for advertising.

▲

gpm 2 days ago | parent [-]

No...

In the part of my post that you quoted I'm literally just talking about the cover page of [1] where the defendants are listed, and at the time only Flo is listed. So nothing against Facebook/Meta is being alleged in [1]. They got added to the suit sometime between that document and [3] - at a glance probably as part of consolidating some other case with this one.

Reading [1] for allegations against Facebook doesn't make any sense, because it isn't supposed to include those.

▲

gruez 2 days ago | parent [-]

>Reading [1] for allegations against Facebook doesn't make any sense, because it isn't supposed to include those.

The quote from my previous comment was taken from the amended complaint ([3]) that you posted. Skimming that document it's unclear what facebook actually did between 2019 and 2021. The complaint only claims flo sent data to facebook between 2016 and 2019, and after a quick skim the only connection I could find for 2021 is a report published in 2021 slamming the app's privacy practices, but didn't call out facebook in particular.

	▲	gpm a day ago \| parent [-]
		Ah, sorry, the paragraphs in [3] I'm looking at are 21 - For the claim that there was public reporting that Facebook was presumably aware of in 2019. 26 - For the claim that in February 2021 Facebook refused to review and destroy the data they had collected from Flo to that date, and thus presumably still had and were deriving value from the data. I can't say I read the whole thing closely though.