JARRETT v. UPPERLINE HEALTH, INC. d/b/a UPPERLINE HEALTH INDIANA
1:23-cv-01261
S.D. Ind.Sep 24, 2024Background
- Jane Doe, on behalf of a putative class, sued Upperline Health, alleging improper disclosure of private health information (PHI) via third-party trackers (e.g., Meta Pixel) embedded on Upperline's public website.
- Doe claimed her online activity on Upperline’s public website—including scheduling appointments and accessing the patient portal—resulted in her private health information being transmitted to Facebook, leading to targeted advertisements and unsolicited items.
- Claims included negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of Indiana's Deceptive Consumer Sales Act.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the complaint failed to state a plausible claim because plaintiff alleged only public website interactions, not specific private disclosures.
- The court evaluated whether Doe plausibly alleged a disclosure of PHI or other legally protected private information as required for her claims.
- The court ultimately granted Upperline's motion to dismiss with leave to amend, finding Doe failed to specify what confidential information was transmitted via the public website.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Doe allege transmission of protected private info? | Upperline transmitted PHI/PII to Facebook via web trackers. | No specific confidential info alleged was disclosed. | No, insufficient allegations of PHI/private info shared. |
| Does mere use of public website create PHI disclosure? | Website use + trackers means transmission of confidential data | Public info/searches are not PHI, no private disclosure. | No, browsing/using public site is not disclosure of PHI. |
| Sufficiency of factual allegations under 12(b)(6) | Facts allow inference of unlawful disclosure to 3rd parties. | No plausible facts showing protected info transmitted. | Plaintiff's complaint was factually insufficient. |
| Availability to amend | -- | -- | Granted leave to amend by specified deadline. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (standard for claim plausibility on motion to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (facial plausibility standard; facts must allow reasonable inference of liability)
- Indep. Tr. Corp. v. Stewart Info. Servs. Corp., 665 F.3d 930 (pleadings must rise above speculative level)
- Smith v. Facebook, Inc., [citation="745 F. App'x 8"] (public website info is distinct from PHI under HIPAA)
- Smith v. Facebook, Inc., 262 F. Supp. 3d 943 (searches/browsing public healthcare sites is not PHI)