Three Massachusetts Decisions Underscore Evolution of Data Privac

Source Domain: natlawreview.com

In a trio of recent website tracking decisions, the District of Massachusetts resolved motions to dismiss privacy claims related to third-party tracking technologies on healthcare websites: Progin v. UMass Memorial Health Care, Caine v. Sturdy Memorial Hospital, and Doe v. Baystate Health System. The court granted motions to dismiss in Progin and Caine but allowed claims to proceed in Baystate. These decisions underscore the ongoing evolution of wiretapping and data privacy litigation in the First Circuit.

Nearly Identical Federal Wiretapping Claims Asserted in Three Separate Cases

Each case arose from the alleged deployment of website tracking technologies that captured and transmitted user interactions with healthcare websites to third parties such as Meta and Google. Plaintiffs claimed that these technologies intercepted communications, including searches for medical conditions, provider selection, appointment scheduling, and patient portal activity, and disclosed that information without user consent.

All three cases centered on the applicability of the crime-tort exception of the federal wiretapping statute, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). That exception overcomes the defense that one party to the communication (the defendant) consented to interception but only when the “communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act.” In 2025, in Goulart v. Cape Cod Healthcare, Inc., Judge Stearns held the crime-tort exception does not apply when website browsing data is collected for commercial purposes. That decision is currently on appeal before the First Circuit.

In Progin, Caine, and Baystate, the plaintiffs alleged that the communications in question were intercepted to commit tortious acts, namely to violate HIPAA (Progin), collect information without authorization and intrude on patient privacy (Caine) and deceive patients (Baystate). The Progin and Caine plaintiffs focused on website tracking tools…

Source