A British Columbia Supreme Court judge says a class-action lawsuit can move forward over alleged privacy breaches against a company that made an app to track users' menstrual and fertility cycles.

VANCOUVER - A British Columbia Supreme Court judge says a class-action lawsuit can move forward over alleged privacy breaches against a company that made an app to track users’ menstrual and fertility cycles. The ruling published online Friday says the action against Flo Health Inc. alleges the company shared users’ highly personal health information with third-parties, including Facebook, Google and other companies.

  • RodeoEnglish
    15·
    9 months ago

    So what are they doing that illegal that other apps aren’t doing??

    I really don’t know how to be any more clear with this question.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      9 months ago

      So what are they doing that illegal that other apps aren’t doing??

      I really don’t know how to be any more clear with this question.

      From the article…

      The lawsuit alleges that Flo Health misused users’ personal information “for its own financial gain,” claiming breach of privacy, breach of confidence and “intrusion upon seclusion.”

      • RodeoEnglish
        15·
        9 months ago

        Removed by mod

          • RodeoEnglish
            14·
            9 months ago

            So what are they doing that illegal that other apps aren’t doing?

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
              21·
              9 months ago

              So what are they doing that illegal that other apps aren’t doing?

              You’re making an assumption that’s not correct, and asking the wrong question.

              Multiple apps can have the same legal problem, but the government/lawsuit only goes after one app at a time, the low-hanging fruit first.

              As far as what’s being done illegally, to cause the lawsuit…

              The lawsuit alleges that Flo Health misused users’ personal information “for its own financial gain,” claiming breach of privacy, breach of confidence and “intrusion upon seclusion.”