this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024
562 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

59674 readers
2967 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

they still ran foul of laws that cannot be waived by any sort of TOU/EULA agreement.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca -3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 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.”