Judge Signals Approval of $56 Million Settlement in Flo App Data Case
Key Facts
A federal judge on Thursday, October 29, indicated he would grant final approval to a $56 million settlement with Google, Flo and Flurry in a case involving data from users of the Flo reproductive health app. Courthouse News reported that the judge indicated he would issue the approval order the following week. This track is proceeding alongside a separate case against Meta; the settlement in question does not determine Meta’s liability or how much it may pay. In the Meta case, the current dispute centers on identifying eligible class members and verifying that they belong to the class. The judge explained his urgency, saying, "The class is waiting."
The separate settlement divides the amount between Google, which will pay $48 million, and Flo Health, which will pay $8 million. Eligibility includes app users in the United States who entered information about menstruation or pregnancy between November 1, 2016, and February 28, 2019. The settlement administrator said the expected individual compensation ranges from $12.69 to $31.94, depending on the number of claims filed. These are estimated amounts tied to that settlement and do not represent the compensation cap sought in the Meta case. The judge is scheduled to issue the final approval order for the agreement the week after the October 29 hearing.
The plaintiffs’ request against Meta, meanwhile, is based on statutory damages of up to $5,000 for each violation of California’s privacy law, not a set amount for each user. The plaintiffs said they identified 1.2 million unique Flo app users in California and have contact information for about 222,000 of them. They requested a separate notice program to find additional potential class members. Meta, in turn, is seeking the data the plaintiffs used to identify people who may be included, so it can verify their membership. The class’s scope and actual damages therefore remain subject to proceedings and verification, and multiplying the damages cap by a potential number of individuals is not a final judgment or an amount awarded.
The judge ordered the plaintiffs’ representatives, Meta and Covalynt to meet during Thanksgiving week to resolve disputes over the class, and not to leave the jury room until they reach a resolution. He also required each party to exchange the data requested by the other party ten days before the meeting. The order follows the judge’s criticism of the parties’ delay in addressing issues holding up resolution of the dispute. Eligibility verification depends on data each side is seeking from the other, while the plaintiffs are seeking to expand notice to reach additional people. The meeting order puts the exchange of information and verification of class membership at the center of the next procedural step.
The case against Meta stems from the use of the Flo app. A jury found that the company violated California’s privacy law when it knowingly recorded sensitive health information about app users. The jury’s decision came after a two-week trial, according to Courthouse News. During the trial, Flo reached a settlement without admitting liability, while the jury’s verdict applied to Meta alone. The judicial finding confirms that the case has moved beyond allegations, but does not determine the total damages owed or the number of class members who will meet the eligibility requirements. Approval of the Google and Flo settlement remains a separate track from completing the class identification process in the case against Meta.
The case website defined the eligible national class as Flo users in the United States who entered menstruation or pregnancy data between November 1, 2016, and February 28, 2019, unless they opted out of the class. It added that on May 19, 2025, the court certified a national class for some of the plaintiffs’ claims. In its disclosure for the quarter ended September 30, 2026, Meta said the plaintiffs are seeking $5,000 for each class member and estimated the class at up to about 1.25 million people. The company said the total potential damages were uncertain at that time. This estimate in the company’s disclosure differs from the plaintiffs’ statement that they identified 1.2 million unique users in California: the former concerns the class size as presented by the plaintiffs to the company, while the latter concerns California users whom the plaintiffs say they identified.