Data sharing
Stevens v. TD Bank
Date: June 27, 2025
Issue: Whether TD Bank violated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act by incorporating a hidden tracking code created by Meta in its website.
Case Summary: Judge Renee Marie Bumb of the New Jersey federal court dismissed a proposed class action against TD Bank after finding that plaintiff Jefferey Stevens did not allege sufficient facts to show that TD Bank wrongfully shared customers’ personal financial information.
Stevens sued TD Bank, alleging it embedded a hidden tracking code created by Meta Platforms Inc. on its website. The “Facebook Tracking Pixel” reportedly transmits customer interactions to Meta, which uses the data to create custom audiences for TD Bank. Stevens argued that TD Bank failed to provide “clear and conspicuous” notice about its privacy policies and practices, despite acknowledging Meta’s use of the information for security and product improvement. Stevens alleged TD Bank acted negligently, was unjustly enriched, and breached its agreement with customers by disclosing their personally identifiable financial information for marketing purposes.
Stevens sought to certify a nationwide class as well as multistate subclasses. The classes would include anyone who had a Facebook account and interacted with TD Bank’s online financial platform on its website.
TD Bank moved to dismiss, arguing Stevens lacked standing, he failed to show that TD Bank disclosed his personal financial information, and he failed to state valid claims for negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract.
The court granted TD Bank’s motion to dismiss, ruling that Stevens must identify the personal financial information the Pixel captured and shared with Meta to establish standing. According to the court, he failed to detail what data was captured, what pages he visited, or how Meta could identify him. The court pointed out unlike plaintiffs in similar cases, he failed to connect the Pixel’s use to any concrete harm. As a result, the court dismissed all claims—including negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and unfair trade practices — but allowed him to amend his complaint.
The court dismissed Stevens’ multistate unfair and deceptive trade practices claim for lack of standing. As a New York resident, the court explained he cannot bring claims under the consumer protection laws of states where he neither lives nor suffered harm. The court emphasized that even in class actions, plaintiffs must show a concrete and specific injury tied to the conduct challenged under each state’s law.
Bottom Line: Stevens must identify the personal financial information, if any, captured by Meta’s tool for the case to proceed.
Documents: Opinion
