By Rightful Advice 
A federal class action against Everlywell, Inc. and its affiliate Baby Someday, Inc. (doing business as Natalist) has reached final court approval, resolving claims that the companies improperly shared customer data through website tracking tools. The case, Reedy et al. v. Everlywell, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-02713, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and centers on alleged privacy violations involving tracking pixels.
This article provides a factual overview of the lawsuit, the settlement terms, eligibility, and related proceedings. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Individuals with questions about their rights should consult a qualified attorney or review official court documents.
Background of the Allegations
Everlywell is a digital health company that sells at-home lab test kits for various conditions, including food sensitivity, sexually transmitted infections, fertility, and other health markers. Natalist, acquired as part of the broader Everly Health corporate structure, offered related pregnancy and reproductive health products. Customers typically ordered tests or products online through the companies’ websites.
Plaintiffs alleged that Everlywell and Natalist installed third-party tracking tools, including the Meta Pixel (associated with Facebook/Meta) and tools from Google, on their websites. These tools, according to the complaint, transmitted confidential personally identifiable information (PII) and, in some cases, protected health information (PHI) related to purchases of test kits to third parties without adequate consent. The alleged disclosures formed the basis for claims of invasion of privacy and violations of common law and statutory protections.
Defendants denied any wrongdoing. As is standard in class action settlements, the resolution does not constitute an admission of liability. The case was brought as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, allowing representative plaintiffs to pursue claims on behalf of a larger group of similarly situated individuals.
An amended complaint named additional plaintiffs and added Natalist as a defendant. The court certified a settlement class for resolution purposes only.
Settlement Terms and Structure
The parties reached a settlement providing a non-reversionary fund of $5 million. The court granted preliminary approval in December 2024 and final approval on or about April 30, 2025, following a fairness hearing on April 29, 2025, before Judge Andrea R. Wood.
The settlement class includes individuals who purchased a product or service from everlywell.com or natalist.com between approximately April 4, 2019, and December 3, 2024 (the date of preliminary approval). The class is divided into two subclasses:
- Sensitive Test Subclass: Approximately 660,000 individuals who purchased allegedly “sensitive” test kits or products, such as those related to sexually transmitted infections. This subclass is allocated $2.64 million of the settlement fund.
- Non-Sensitive Test Subclass: Approximately 1.34 million individuals who purchased other test kits or products. This subclass is allocated $2.36 million.
Funds cover notice and administration costs, any court-approved service awards to class representatives (requested at $2,500 each), attorneys’ fees and expenses (requested at up to one-third of the net settlement fund plus litigation costs), taxes, and pro rata cash payments to eligible class members who submitted valid claims. Allocations of costs and fees between the two funds were set at approximately 52.8% for the sensitive subclass and 47.2% for the non-sensitive subclass. Residual funds, if any, would go to a court-approved cy pres recipient.
Payments are pro rata, meaning the amount each valid claimant receives depends on the number of approved claims in their subclass after deductions. Exact individual payout amounts were not fixed in advance and vary based on claim volume.
Claims Process, Deadlines, and Current Status
Class members received notice by email or postcard. To receive a payment, individuals needed to submit a claim form online or by mail, including a unique class member ID, by the March 19, 2025 deadline. The same date applied to requests for exclusion (opt-outs) and objections.
As of the May 1, 2025 update on the official settlement website (ewlabtestsettlement.com), the court had entered the final approval order. Settlement payments were scheduled to begin after the appeals period concluded. The settlement administrator is Kroll Settlement Administration LLC. Official documents, including the settlement agreement, preliminary and final approval orders, and claim forms, remain available on the court-authorized site.
Individuals who did not submit a timely claim generally will not receive a payment and, if they did not opt out, are bound by the release of claims related to the alleged pixel disclosures.
Related Proceedings Involving Everlywell
Separate litigation has addressed different issues. In Toth v. Everly Well, Inc., a putative class action filed in the District of Massachusetts, the plaintiff alleged that Everlywell’s food sensitivity tests were deceptively marketed because IgG testing does not reliably identify food sensitivities as advertised and that the company misused personal medical information. The district court compelled arbitration based on a clickwrap user agreement the plaintiff accepted when registering her test kit. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision in September 2024, finding a valid contract had been formed.
Public reporting has also referenced prior regulatory matters, including advertising-related issues involving COVID-19 testing, though those are distinct from the privacy class action described above.
Why This Matters for Consumers and the Industry
Website tracking technologies, including pixels, are widely used for analytics and advertising. When applied to health-related sites that collect information about test purchases, they raise questions under privacy frameworks such as state consumer protection laws and common-law privacy torts. Courts evaluating similar cases often examine whether disclosures were adequately disclosed in privacy policies, whether consent was obtained, and whether the information transmitted qualifies as sensitive health data.
For consumers who purchased Everlywell or Natalist products during the class period, the settlement offers a streamlined path to potential compensation without the need for individual litigation. For companies operating in digital health, the case illustrates the litigation risks associated with third-party tracking tools on sites handling health-related transactions. Standard practices include clear privacy notices, consent mechanisms, and careful review of data-sharing arrangements with advertising platforms.
Class action settlements of this type typically balance the desire for efficient resolution against the uncertainty, cost, and delay of continued litigation. Judge Wood found the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable in light of those considerations.
Practical Next Steps for Potentially Affected Individuals
Anyone who purchased products from the relevant websites during the class period and believes they may be eligible should:
- Review any notice they received for their unique identifier.
- Check the official settlement website for documents and status updates.
- Contact the settlement administrator at the number listed on the site if they have questions about a submitted claim or payment timing.
- Consult independent counsel if they have concerns about the release of claims or other legal rights.
The claims deadline has passed. Late claims are generally not accepted unless the court orders otherwise.
This settlement resolves the specific claims raised in the Reedy litigation. It does not address unrelated product performance, accuracy, or advertising claims that may be the subject of other proceedings.
Disclaimer: This article summarizes publicly available court records, settlement documents, and official notices for informational and educational purposes only. It does not provide legal advice, predict outcomes in other cases, or create an attorney-client relationship. Laws and individual circumstances vary. Readers should verify information with primary sources, including the official settlement website and court filings, and seek advice from a licensed attorney regarding their specific situation.
Sources for further reading include the court-authorized settlement website, the settlement agreement, and the final approval order entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
You may also like: State Farm Homeowner Lawsuit: Denied Claim Rights, Legal Options, and Recent Developments