Flo Health Settlement: 21.7M of 22.2M Claims Flagged Fraudulent

Flo Health Settlement: 21.7M of 22.2M Claims Flagged Fraudulent

The claims window in the $59.5 million settlement of the Flo Health period-tracker privacy case closed on October 15, 2026. Class counsel told the Northern District of California a week later that the administrator had received 22,238,137 claims against an estimated class of 9,961,995 people, and that nearly all of them failed fraud screening.

Information last verified on October 26, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Status: The claims deadline passed on October 15, 2026. Every figure in this article comes from the reply brief class counsel filed on October 22, 2026 in support of final approval, and from the administrator declaration that brief cites (Frasco v. Flo Health, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 860). The fraud determinations described there were made by the settlement administrator and its consultant through a screening process and are subject to a final audit. They are not findings of fraud by the court. No order on final approval had issued as of October 26, 2026. The hearing is set for October 29, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. before Judge James Donato.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers one federal class settlement pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and it reports what the parties and the court-appointed administrator have put in that case record. It does not address eligibility for any other settlement, and it is not a claim form or a filing channel.

What Happened

Class counsel in Frasco v. Flo Health, Inc. filed a reply brief on October 22, 2026 supporting final approval of the settlements with Flurry LLC, Google LLC and Flo Health, Inc., which together created a $59,500,000 common fund (Dkt. 860 at 1). The brief reports the state of claims administration after the October 15, 2026 claims deadline. A.B. Data, Ltd. is the settlement administrator; Covalynt is the data-science consultant running fraud and duplication analysis on the claims.

The headline numbers sit in a single paragraph on page 2 of that brief. A.B. Data received 22,238,137 claims before the deadline, against an estimated class of 9,961,995 individuals. Through their screening processes, A.B. Data and Covalynt determined that 21,697,461 of those claims are fraudulent and subject to a final audit by Covalynt. At least 461,766 claims were found valid and eligible for payment, what the brief calls a current claims rate of 4.6 percent on the estimated class size (Dkt. 860 at 2). We keep the deadlines, fund figures and current status for this matter on the record we maintain for the Flo Health settlement.

"Prior to the October 15, 2026 Claims Deadline, A.B. Data received a total of 22,238,137 claims; the Class size has been estimated to be 9,961,995 individuals." Source: Frasco v. Flo Health, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 860 at 2 (citing Littrell Notice Decl. paras. 4, 35)

Two framing points matter here and they hold throughout this article. First, the fraud determinations are the administrator's and the consultant's, reported by a party in a brief, and the brief itself says they remain subject to a final audit. The court has made no finding that any claim was fraudulent. Second, no individual claimant is identified as a bad actor anywhere in the filing; the screening operates on claim records at volume.

How the Claims Were Screened

The record describes three buckets, not two. Valid claims (at least 461,766) are eligible for payment. Claims determined fraudulent (21,697,461) are out, pending Covalynt's final audit. A third group sits in between: 78,654 claims show indicia of fraud but can be cured.

"Another 78,654 claims have shown indicia of fraud, but that may be cured if the claimant provides documentation or information sufficient to establish the claimant's identity." Source: Frasco v. Flo Health, Inc., Dkt. 860 at 2 (citing Littrell Notice Decl. para. 36)

Claimants in that group receive a deficiency notice and an opportunity to provide the requested information. Any claim currently marked as failed that moves into the cure category as Covalynt's review continues also runs through A.B. Data's deficiency process (Dkt. 860 at 2). Based on its experience, A.B. Data expects 3 percent of those claims to be cured and allowed to participate, which on the available data works out to 2,359 additional claims and lifts the claims rate to 4.65 percent.

The administrator also received 72,843 late claims after the October 15 deadline. Class counsel and A.B. Data propose accepting late claims as long as distribution of the net settlement fund is not materially delayed (Dkt. 860 at 3). That is a request, not a ruling.

What Eligible Claimants Would Receive

The brief puts the expected payment for an eligible class member between $63.00, assuming no cured claims turn out valid, and $60.00 if 3 percent of the cure group comes through. California Subclass members are in the $120.00 to $126.00 range (Dkt. 860 at 2 to 3). The doubling is built into the settlement agreements: authorized claimants who can demonstrate California Subclass membership, for example by providing a valid California address, receive twice the pro rata share paid to claimants from other states, because California's data protection laws provide statutory damages (Dkt. 842 at 7).

Those per-person figures are higher than what plaintiffs projected in August, and the reason is the low claims rate. In the motion for final approval filed August 20, 2026, class counsel estimated an average pro rata recovery of $31.94 per class member at a 10 percent claims rate, and $12.69 at a 25 percent rate (Dkt. 842 at 7 to 8). A pro rata fund divides by the number of valid claims, so fewer surviving claims means a larger share each. Fraud screening that removes claims at this scale pushes the per-person number up, not down.

What comes out of the fund before claimants are paid is also in the record. Class counsel request attorneys' fees of $19,366,666.67, roughly 32.5 percent of the common fund, plus reimbursement of $2,091,517.74 in litigation expenses and service awards to the named plaintiffs totaling $155,000 (Dkt. 860 at 1). A.B. Data has incurred $3,556,087.39 in notice and claims-administration costs and estimates a further $325,000 to complete administration (Dkt. 860 at 3). By our arithmetic on those figures, the requests and administration costs come to about $25.5 million of the $59.5 million fund. The court has not ruled on any of them.

Notice, and What It Cost

A.B. Data began a third notice phase in September 2026 as a final push for claims. Between September 29 and October 13, 2026 it sent 3,874,492 reminder email notices (88.67 percent successfully delivered) and 1,793,686 reminder text messages (81.70 percent delivered), alongside a media campaign running on TikTok, the Google Display Network, YouTube, Facebook and Pinterest, plus newsletter banner ads, television spots, audio advertising and a print advertisement in People magazine, targeted at adult women aged 18 to 49 (Dkt. 860 at 1 to 2).

Across all three phases, the brief reports that indirect media notice reached more than 90.1 percent of the 4,861,598 class members A.B. Data expected to reach when it designed the notice plan, that direct notice was delivered to 3,419,358 people, or 83.1 percent of the 4,114,159 expected, and that the media component generated more than 165 million gross impressions (Dkt. 860 at 2 to 3). Reaching that many people is also what makes a claims program a target: a notice campaign measured in hundreds of millions of impressions advertises, to everyone, that a simple online form may pay out.

What the Law Actually Says

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), a court may approve a class settlement that would bind class members only after a hearing and only on finding the settlement fair, reasonable and adequate. Class reaction is one of the factors courts weigh, and that is the work the claims numbers are doing in this brief: class counsel argue that the volume of claims and the near absence of objections show the class supports the settlements (Dkt. 860 at 3).

For context, the brief compares the 4.6 percent rate here to rates courts approved in other privacy settlements, citing In re TikTok, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation, 617 F. Supp. 3d 904 (N.D. Ill. 2022) (89 million class members, 1.4 percent), In re Vizio, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation, No. 8:16-ml-02693 (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2019) (16 million, 4.1 percent), and In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2022) (roughly 124 million class members, 1.26 percent) (Dkt. 860 at 4). The same string cite also points to two settlements approved at rates above the Flo figure, Does 1-5 v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., No. 23-cv-02865-EMC (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2026) (roughly 13.1 million class members, 5.7 percent), and Stark v. Patreon, Inc., No. 22-cv-03131-JCS (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2025) (an estimated 1.6 million, about 6 percent) (Dkt. 860 at 4). That is counsel's own selection of comparables, and on the range it describes, running from 1.26 percent to about 6 percent, a 4.6 percent rate sits in the middle; the fraud volume sitting behind it is what is unusual.

Exactly one class member objected (Dkt. 860 at 3). Class counsel summarise her objection as raising three grounds: that the settlements provide inadequate compensation in light of the alleged disclosure of personal pregnancy or menstruation information, that they do not serve as meaningful deterrence given how much of the fund may be available for distribution, and, in the words the brief quotes from the objection itself, that she objects to any allocation of the fund in which fees, expenses or other costs "materially reduce the relief available to" the class (Dkt. 860 at 3, 8). We report those grounds as class counsel describe them; the objection itself is not available on the public docket mirror we checked. Class counsel respond that deterrence turns on what defendants pay, which is $59.5 million regardless of how the court rules on fees, and that the objection does not carry an objector's burden of showing the settlement or fee request unreasonable (Dkt. 860 at 5 to 8). Class counsel add that the scrutiny she asks for is already required under Rule 23, citing Rule 23(h) and the Ninth Circuit rule that courts have an independent obligation to ensure a fee award is reasonable (Dkt. 860 at 8).

The underlying claims in this case run on wiretapping and privacy statutes rather than breach-notification law, California's Invasion of Privacy Act prominently among them. Class counsel also tell the court that a bill amending that statute was signed into law on September 30, 2026 and preserved the private right of action under its wiretapping and eavesdropping provisions (Dkt. 860 at 7). That is counsel's characterization in a brief, offered as evidence of the case's deterrent effect, and we did not independently verify the bill's status for this article. For how the surrounding statutes differ state to state, see how state privacy statutes compare.

What Happens Next

Several things have to happen before any money moves, and the brief is explicit that they have not happened yet.

• The October 29, 2026 hearing. Judge Donato is set to hear the motion for final approval, together with class counsel's fee and expense application and the service-award request, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 11 on the 19th floor of the San Francisco courthouse (Dkt. 860 caption; Dkt. 842 caption).
• Covalynt's final audit. The 21,697,461 claims determined fraudulent remain subject to that audit, and claims that move from failed to curable during the review go into the deficiency process (Dkt. 860 at 2).
• Deficiency notices and cures. The 78,654 flagged claimants get a notice and a chance to document their identity. A.B. Data's working assumption is a 3 percent cure rate.
• A decision on late claims. The 72,843 late filings are accepted only if the court goes along and distribution is not materially delayed (Dkt. 860 at 3).
• A claims rate that may still move. Class counsel tell the court the 4.6 percent figure is a current rate and that it "may increase as A.B. Data and Covalynt complete claims processing" (Dkt. 860 at 5), which would push the per-person estimate down.
• Rulings on what comes out of the fund. Fees, expenses, service awards and remaining administration costs are all requests at this stage.

The brief does not state a distribution date, and we are not going to invent one or forecast the court's decision on any of this.

A Second, Larger Claims Program Is on the Same Calendar

The settlements with Flurry, Google and Flo resolve only part of the case. Meta Platforms, Inc. remains a named defendant, and the proposed judgment class counsel ask for would dismiss the action with prejudice as to Google, Flo and Flurry only (Dkt. 860 at 8 to 9).

The Meta track runs on a trial verdict rather than a settlement, and it is on the same October 29 calendar at 10:00 a.m., on plaintiffs' motion to enter claims administration and notice programs (Dkt. 854 caption). In their September 30, 2026 reply on that motion, plaintiffs state that the verdict entitles each class member to $5,000 in statutory damages, that they have reliably identified 222,115 class members from Flo's customer records with an estimated 987,970 more identified from the same records, and that analysis of Flo's user data shows approximately 1,210,085 unique California Flo app users, which they say puts potential class-wide recovery at approximately $6 billion (Dkt. 854 at 1, 3).

That is the context in which the fraud numbers landed. Plaintiffs' proposed claims program for the Meta track requires a sworn statement under penalty of perjury establishing class membership, routes every claim through A.B. Data and Covalynt, and then gives Meta an opportunity to raise fact-based concerns about the veracity of any claim; plaintiffs describe Meta's objections about potential fraud as speculative (Dkt. 854 at 1).

"Once claims are filed, A.B. Data and Covalynt will review the filing and subject the claim to rigorous anti-fraud analysis." Source: Frasco v. Flo Health, Inc., Dkt. 854 at 1

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

Strip out the dollar signs and what this record documents is an infrastructure problem. A consumer class settlement of this kind is deliberately easy to claim: the record describes a claim form requiring the minimal effort of submitting information needed to distribute funds, a form it calls streamlined and simple (Dkt. 842 at 7), because demanding documentation from nine million app users would suppress exactly the claims the settlement exists to pay. Pair that with a notice campaign built to generate hundreds of millions of impressions and the result, in this case, was 22.2 million claims filed against a class of fewer than 10 million people. On the administrator's screening, just over 97 percent of them did not survive. The class never grew; the filings did.

The cost of sorting that out is borne by the fund the class is supposed to receive. A.B. Data's $3,556,087.39 in costs to date and its $325,000 estimate to finish are not line items in a vacuum; they come from the same money. Meanwhile the per-claimant estimate moved in the direction people rarely expect. Plaintiffs modelled $31.94 per class member at a 10 percent claims rate in August; the 4.6 percent rate reported in October produced an estimate of $63.00. That inverse relationship is routinely misread, and it is why the figure a reader sees when a settlement is announced is close to meaningless. It is also a reminder of why we track status and deadlines rather than headline numbers across the open consumer settlements we follow.

The timing is worth noting without drawing a conclusion from it. Meta opposed the proposed claims program for the verdict track partly on fraud grounds; plaintiffs called those concerns speculative on September 30; three weeks later the administrator reported 21.7 million screened-out claims in the companion settlement track. Both matters are now in front of the same judge on the same morning. How that evidence cuts, and whether screening that filters 97 percent of filings reads as a system working or a system under siege, is for Judge Donato to weigh, and we are not going to guess at the answer.

The honest limits of this story: these are screening determinations in a party's brief, not judicial findings; the final audit is not finished; and the 78,654 claimants in the cure group include people whose claims may be perfectly good and who simply need to document who they are. A screening flag is a reason to ask for identification, not a verdict about a person.

How This Affects You

The only reader-facing step the record describes is narrow. A.B. Data will send a deficiency notice to the 78,654 claimants whose claims show indicia of fraud, and to any claim that moves from failed to curable as Covalynt's review continues, asking for documentation or information sufficient to establish identity. The filing does not describe any notice to claimants whose claims were determined valid or determined fraudulent. Any deficiency notice comes from the court-appointed administrator. Only the administrator can request cure documentation and only the administrator can pay a claim. We are not the administrator, we do not process claims and we never collect claim information. Anyone else who contacts you asking for a fee, a bank login, a Social Security number or an upload to "release" a settlement payment is not part of the court-approved process; the mechanics of how legitimate recoveries actually reach consumers are covered in our explainer on recovering money after a scam.

If you did not file, the window closed on October 15, 2026. Late claims exist as a proposal in the record, not an open door, and the court has not acted on it.

For anyone who does receive a payment eventually, the tax treatment of class recoveries depends on what the payment compensates, which is a question worth reading before the form arrives: see whether a class-action payment is taxable. None of this is a statement about whether any particular person is eligible for anything.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers one federal class settlement pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and reflects the case record as verified on October 26, 2026. Figures reported by a claims administrator can change, final approval has not been granted, and this story is developing. Consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction about your specific situation, and deal only with the court-appointed administrator about a claim.

---

Last updated: 2026-10-26. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-10-26.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has the Flo Health settlement been given final approval?

No. As of October 26, 2026 no order on final approval had issued. The hearing on the motion for final approval is set for October 29, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. before Judge James Donato in the Northern District of California.

Did 21.7 million Flo Health settlement claims really turn out to be fraudulent?

That is what the settlement administrator and its consultant determined through screening, as reported in the October 22, 2026 reply brief: 21,697,461 of 22,238,137 claims were determined fraudulent and subject to a final audit by Covalynt. Those are administrative determinations stated in a party's brief, not findings of fraud by the court, and the audit is not complete.

How much would an eligible class member receive?

The brief estimates $63.00 per eligible class member if no cured claims are valid and $60.00 if 3 percent of the cure group is valid, with California Subclass members in the $120.00 to $126.00 range. Those are estimates in a pending motion, and the court has not approved any distribution.

What is the deficiency notice in this settlement?

A.B. Data reported 78,654 claims that show indicia of fraud but may be cured. Those claimants receive a deficiency notice from the administrator and a chance to provide documentation or information sufficient to establish their identity. A.B. Data expects roughly 3 percent of that group, about 2,359 claims, to be cured.

The claims deadline was October 15, 2026. Can a late claim still be accepted?

A.B. Data received 72,843 claims after the deadline. Class counsel and the administrator have asked the court to allow late claims so long as distribution of the net settlement fund is not materially delayed. That is a pending request in the record, not a decision.

Why did the estimated payment go up when the claims rate came in low?

The fund is distributed pro rata, so it is divided among valid claims. Class counsel projected an average of $31.94 per class member at a 10 percent claims rate in their August 2026 motion; the 4.6 percent rate reported in October produced a higher per-person estimate. Fewer surviving claims means a larger share for each one.

Is the Flo Health case over once these settlements are approved?

No. Meta Platforms, Inc. remains a named defendant, and the proposed judgment would dismiss the action with prejudice only as to Google, Flo Health and Flurry. A separate motion to enter claims administration and notice programs for the Meta track, which rests on a trial verdict, is noticed for 10:00 a.m. on October 29, 2026.