JARRETT v. UPPERLINE HEALTH, INC. d/b/a UPPERLINE HEALTH INDIANA
1:23-cv-01261
| S.D. Ind. | Aug 8, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Rachel Jarrett filed a class action against Upperline Health, alleging unauthorized and deceptive use of tracking technology on its public-facing website resulted in the disclosure of her private health information (PHI/PII) to Facebook and other third parties.
- Plaintiff accessed Upperline’s website multiple times as a patient, using features like scheduling appointments and accessing the patient portal, and alleges her confidential interactions were transmitted to third parties without her consent.
- Upperline did not provide privacy policies or notifications regarding the use of trackers or the sharing of patient information with third parties on its website.
- Plaintiff asserted various common law and statutory claims, including negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, bailment, Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, ECPA, and CFAA violations.
- The case is before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on Upperline’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in whole or in part for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disclosure of Private Information | Upperline’s Meta Pixel shared PHI/PII with Facebook, including patient status and doctor info. | Upperline claims only general info from public website accessed, not private PHI/PII. | The court finds Plaintiff plausibly alleges transmission of PHI/PII (patient status) via tracker; issue sufficiently alleged. |
| Negligence & Damages | Duty to safeguard private info; disclosure led to targeted ads and harm. | No duty from website use; no compensable injury as ads do not constitute harm. | Motion to dismiss granted; no compensable damages sufficiently pled. |
| Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion & Disclosure) | Intentionally intruded by secretly recording usage and disclosed private facts. | No intentional or physical intrusion; no public disclosure. | Motion to dismiss granted; Indiana law requires physical space intrusion/disclosure to public. |
| Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) | Interception and disclosure of contents of electronic communications via tracking tech for unlawful purposes. | Upperline claims party exception; no criminal intent. | Motion to dismiss denied for § 2511 claim: crime-tort exception plausibly applies; other ECPA/SCA claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (standard for pleading facial plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for motions to dismiss)
- Bader v. Johnson, 732 N.E.2d 1212 (elements of Indiana negligence claim)
- Cmty. Health Network, Inc. v. McKenzie, 185 N.E.3d 368 (public disclosure of private facts in Indiana)
- Fox v. Fransican All. Inc., 204 N.E.3d 320 (physical space requirement for intrusion upon seclusion)
- Trs. of Ind. Univ. v. Spiegel, 186 N.E.3d 1151 (elements of contract under Indiana law)