GoodRx Agrees to Settle Data-Sharing Lawsuit for $25 Million [UPDATE]

On January 16, 2026, California federal judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied a motion for preliminary approval of a revised $32 million settlement that looked to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming GoodRx unlawfully shared website visitors’ sensitive health information with third parties for advertising purposes.

This rejection was preceded seven months earlier by the rejection of the $25 million settlement described on this page, wherein GoodRx was the only defendant.

At a June 2025 hearing, Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin listed several issues with the proposed $25 million settlement, including the settlement class definition, the scope of the release to be taken on by class members, the size of the settlement fund and the lack of a specific claim-by-claim analysis for class members’ payouts. At this point, Judge Martinez-Olguin gave the parties the opportunity to rework the terms of the deal to put forward a more equitable settlement.

After the parties reworked the settlement and later presented it for preliminary approval again in November 2025, Judge Martinez-Olguin determined that, though the settlement fund had been increased and another settling defendant had been added, the parties had “largely failed to address the Court’s previously-identified concerns,” the order reads.

In particular, Judge Martinez-Olguin believed that the plaintiffs did not meet her primary request to determine how much class members could actually recover if the plaintiffs prevailed on all their claims and justify the discount applied to their recovery.

Instead of providing this claim-by-claim analysis, the order reads, the plaintiffs merely pointed out some potential problems that could arise in maintaining the size of the class if litigation were to continue. According to the order, this included the potential reduction of the settlement class size if GoodRx was able to force some class members into individual arbitration, the risk that recovery would be restricted if the court found that California law applies only to California residents, and the risk that the defendants could hold steadfast on their more conservative interpretation of the statute of limitations.

“Plaintiffs’ failure to provide a claim-by-claim analysis leaves the Court unable to assess the fairness and adequacy of the settlement,” the order states. “This alone is sufficient grounds to deny preliminary approval of the settlement.”

Judge Martinez-Olguin also criticized the plaintiffs’ continued failure to identify any discovery they conducted to confirm their strength of their claims, with a specific regard to the alleged use of pixels, software development kits and other tracking technologies.

Similarly, in reference to the settlement provisions outlining the released claims, Judge Martinez-Olguin took issue with the lack of support for the “broad release” required of each class member of any claims relating to GoodRx and Criteo’s purported use of pixels and tracking software.

The judge concluded that the differences between the claims in the complaint and the released claims are “insufficiently justified” and that the plaintiffs have failed to explain how the release “equates to the factual allegations underlying” the 16 causes of action against the defendants. According to the judge, the plaintiffs’ estimation that each class member’s payout, assuming a 3- to 10-percent claims rate, would only be around $10 is not consistent with such an extensive release of claims.

“In sum, Plaintiffs fail to provide the Court with a complete evaluation of the asserted claims, they fail to describe confirmatory discovery to bolster the reasonableness of their settlement, and they fail to establish that the broad release conferred by the settlement equates to the class’s proposed recovery,” Judge Martinez-Olguin wrote. “The Court cannot find the proposed settlement proposed [sic] fair, adequate, or reasonable for at least these reasons.”

Don’t miss out on class action settlement news like this. Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter.

Did you know there's usually nothing you need to do to join, sign up for, or add your name to new class action lawsuits when they're initially filed?

Read more here: How Do I Join a Class Action Lawsuit?