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.

  • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Why is it a breach of privacy for this app, but other apps doing the same selling of personal data is not?

    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.”

    IANAL, but my understanding, after having read the whole article, is that regardless of the fact that there may or may not have been an agreement between the app creator and its users, that they still ran foul of laws that cannot be waived by any sort of TOU/EULA agreement.

    • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      I read the article too, and those things you quoted sound to me like things every app does.

      Hence my question: what is different here?

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        regardless of the fact that there may or may not have been an agreement between the app creator and its users, that they still ran foul of laws that cannot be waived by any sort of TOU/EULA agreement.

        It’s not a matter of something being different or not. It’s no matter what, it’s illegal. Law trumps any TOU/EULA.

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          10 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.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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.”

                • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  9 months ago

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

                  • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    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.”