Standing Up to a Tracking Pixel

Rand v. Eyemart Express, L.L.C. reverses the dismissal of a putative class action alleging unauthorized disclosure of website users’ information to Meta through a “tracking pixel” (right).

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the pixel on the eyewear retailer’s website captured their searches, product views, prescription purchases, and eye-exam scheduling. They further alleged that the pixel passed that information to Meta without their knowledge or consent.

The Fifth Circuit began with the principle that to establish Article III standing for this claim, the plaintiffs did not have to show that their harm was actionable at common law–just that it was “similar in kind to a type of harm that the common law has recognized as actionable”.

The Court then noted decisions from other Circuits, holding that disclosure of browsing or purchasing activity through tracking code to a third party causes an injury analogous to intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts. And, because those cases involved media consumption and shopping habits, the Court reasoned that the analogy is stronger for health information, which is “inherently sensitive and personal”. It

It thus held that unauthorized disclosure of the plaintiffs’ health information to Meta is “both concrete (disclosure of private information) and particularized (it is their information).” No. 25-10784, Oct. 23, 2026.