ARTICLE
5 November 2024

Federal Court Upholds Mass. 93A Claim For Medical Data Disclosure Omissions

GT
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Contributor

Greenberg Traurig, LLP has more than 2750 attorneys in 48 locations in the United States, Europe and the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia. The firm is a 2024 BTI “Leading Edge Law Firm” for delivering on client expectations for the future and is consistently among the top firms on the Am Law Global 100 and NLJ 500. Greenberg Traurig is Mansfield Rule Certified Plus by The Diversity Lab. The firm is recognized for powering its U.S. offices with 100% renewable energy as certified by the Center for Resource Solutions Green-e® Energy program and is a member of the U.S. EPA’s Green Power Partnership Program. The firm is known for its philanthropic giving, innovation, diversity, and pro bono. Web: www.gtlaw.com.
On Oct. 25, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California considered a motion to dismiss a putative nationwide class action for failure to state a claim under Massachusetts General Laws c. 93A.
United States California Massachusetts Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences

On Oct. 25, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California considered a motion to dismiss a putative nationwide class action for failure to state a claim under Massachusetts General Laws c. 93A.

In A.J. v. LMND Med. Grp., Inc., plaintiffs alleged that defendant surreptitiously collected and disclosed confidential medical information associated with plaintiffs' individual identifying information to third parties via trackers embedded in defendant's website.

Plaintiffs asserted this disclosure violated c. 93A based on a theory of affirmative misrepresentation and omission by defendant. The court dismissed the c. 93A claim based on an affirmative misrepresentation for failure to include facts in the Third Amended Complaint from which it could be inferred that plaintiffs saw any specific misrepresentation in defendant's privacy policies. Those allegations were required to establish that an alleged misrepresentation by defendant caused their injuries.

However, the court declined to dismiss the c. 93A claim based on a theory of omission. Under that theory, plaintiffs alleged that defendant failed to disclose its purported collection and disclosure of their private information. Plaintiffs further alleged that had they been notified of such collection and disclosure, they would not have disclosed their information to defendants. The court found these allegations sufficient to plausibly plead that defendant failed to disclose facts that would likely have influenced a reasonable consumer's use of the website. Plaintiffs' allegation that the targeted advertisements caused them mental distress also adequately alleged an injury caused by the omission. The implication that advertisers were aware of plaintiffs' medical conditions and associated fear that their friends, family, or colleagues might see the advertisements and learn of sensitive and confidential health issues raised an inference of injury preventing dismissal of the c. 93A claim.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More