C.M. v. BetterHelp, Inc.
3:23-cv-01033
| N.D. Cal. | Oct 15, 2024Background
- BetterHelp, Inc. is a telehealth services provider accused in a consolidated putative class action of improperly disclosing or mishandling users’ confidential information.
- Plaintiffs amended their complaint after some claims were previously dismissed and others allowed to proceed.
- The new First Amended Consolidated Complaint (FACC) dropped some claims, clarified others, and added a new Stored Communications Act claim.
- BetterHelp filed a motion to dismiss, challenging the sufficiency of the amended and new claims and plaintiffs’ entitlement to injunctive and declaratory relief.
- The court addressed whether BetterHelp falls under statutory definitions applicable to healthcare providers, the sufficiency of economic injury allegations, contract formation, and whether legal remedies and protections overlap with actions already taken by regulatory agencies or other statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of California CMIA | CMIA applies to all corporations under § 56.10(d), not just health care providers | Only applies to designated entities; BetterHelp not covered under relevant definition during period at issue | Dismissed—BetterHelp not covered by CMIA during applicable period |
| Standing under UCL & CLRA | Paid monthly for service relying on confidentiality promises; economic loss from breach | No specific data security promises breached or damages | Survives—adequately pleaded economic injury |
| Breach of Implied Contract | Confidentiality assurances formed part of contract; terms now specified | Insufficient detail in prior pleadings | Survives—claim now sufficiently pleaded |
| Stored Communications Act (SCA) | BetterHelp provides an electronic communication service to users & third-party therapists | Not a provider; SCA applies to ISPs only | Survives—statute construed broadly enough to encompass BetterHelp's alleged conduct |
| Injunctive/Declaratory Relief | Ongoing risk; obligations not fully met despite FTC injunction | No likelihood of future harm; relief would duplicate FTC settlement | Dismissed—no ongoing risk alleged, FTC order adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 162 F. Supp. 3d 953 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (alleged loss of benefit-of-the-bargain can be cognizable economic injury under UCL)
- Katz-Lacabe v. Oracle Am., Inc., 668 F. Supp. 3d 928 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (value of personal information alone insufficient for economic injury)
- Williams v. Apple, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 3d 892 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (future harm required for injunctive relief standing)