Fifth Circuit Revives Eyemart Meta Pixel Class Action Over Shared Health Data.

Health Data Is Health Data, Even When It’s a Click: What the Fifth Circuit’s Eyemart Ruling Means

By Eduard Korsinsky, Founding Partner, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 

The Fifth Circuit just said what we’ve been saying all along: health data is health data, even when it’s a click. 

On October 23, 2026, the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of Rand v. Eyemart Express (No. 25-10784). Judge Higginson, writing for a panel that included Judges Haynes and Ho, sent the case back to the Northern District of Texas. Every claim is alive again. 

The Facts

Eyemart put Meta’s Pixel on its website. People browsed prescription eyewear, entered their prescriptions, and booked eye exams. All of it went to Meta, with no notice and no consent. It was simply data flowing to an advertiser.

You can read the full opinion here: [link to opinion]. Below are a few points I believe are worth emphasizing. 

Browsing Counts

You don’t need to type in a diagnosis. Searching for prescription glasses on a vision care site “relates to” your health under HIPAA’s definition of individually identifiable health information. 

Eyemart’s own counsel conceded at oral argument that the data Meta received was individually identifiable. That was the whole point of installing the Pixel. 

An Example, Not a Confession

The district court fixated on one screenshot in our complaint, labeled “by way of example.” It read that screenshot in the light most favorable to the defendant and used it to throw out pages of detailed allegations. 

The Fifth Circuit called that what it is: a violation of the Rule 12(b)(6) standard. Courts read complaints in their entirety. Defendants love to pile onto a single exhibit and pretend the rest of the pleading doesn’t exist. This time, they were called out on that play. 

Standing Is Settled

The court joined the Second, Third, Sixth, and D.C. Circuits in holding that the unauthorized disclosure of private browsing data is a concrete injury. 

It also went further. Health information is more sensitive than the viewing and shopping data at issue in those cases, so the common law analogs apply with “even more force.” 

Discovery Is Where This Gets Tested

Plaintiffs can’t be expected to know the full mechanics of a defendant’s tracking technology before discovery. We are looking forward to what discovery reveals as we prepare this case for trial. 

How We Build These Cases

Credit goes to the L&K team for their excellent lawyering. The reason the panel had pages of factual allegations to point to is that we did the work up front: forensic detail on how the Pixel fires, what it captures, and where it goes. That is how L&K builds these cases and takes them to trial. 

A Message to Companies Still Tracking Pixels

The courts are catching up, and so are we.