Everlywell and Natalist—consumer health brands known for at-home lab testing and reproductive-health products—agreed to a $5 million class action settlement over claims that their websites used tracking technologies (often called “pixels” or analytics/advertising trackers) that transmitted customers’ personal information and, allegedly, details about purchased tests or results to third parties such as Facebook and Google. The dispute centers on the idea that when people shop for or access highly sensitive health-related services online, background web tools can quietly collect and share data in ways consumers don’t expect, especially if those tools are configured for targeted advertising or measurement. The lawsuit was filed because plaintiffs allege this sharing happened without proper authorization, potentially exposing private health-related information and undermining trust in direct-to-consumer testing. The settlement creates a $5,000,000 fund and splits claimants into two groups—those who bought “sensitive” tests (e.g., STI-related) and those who bought other tests—with payments varying based on how many valid claims are submitted; purchases between April 2019 and December 3, 2024 may qualify, and claims are due by March 19, 2025. Beyond compensation, cases like this are significant because they pressure health and wellness companies to audit how marketing and analytics tools handle consumer data, especially when the data could reveal medical concerns or reproductive-health decisions. More broadly, this fits into a growing wave of privacy suits and enforcement attention targeting the use of tracking pixels on health-related websites, where a seemingly routine ad-tech setup can implicate sensitive data. The industry operates in a patchwork of rules: HIPAA often doesn’t apply to many direct-to-consumer websites that aren’t “covered entities,” but state privacy and consumer-protection laws (and evolving health-data statutes in some states) may still restrict sharing or require clear disclosures and consent, particularly for sensitive information. Similar litigation across the digital health space has pushed companies to limit third-party trackers, tighten vendor contracts, minimize data collection, and redesign consent banners and privacy notices to better match how data actually flows behind the scenes