MIAMI — Two separate class action lawsuits filed in federal courts in Florida accuse healthcare providers of unlawfully intercepting and sharing patients’ sensitive health information with third-party advertising companies through tracking technologies embedded on their websites, according to court filings.
In one case filed April 9 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the plaintiffs allege that Comprehensive Breast Care Center of Texas, which operates as Solis Mammography, used third-party tracking tools to capture and transmit users’ protected health information and personally identifiable information without their knowledge or consent.
In a separate lawsuit filed April 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, plaintiffs Carolynn Place and Liberty Dzamko bring similar allegations against the Orthopaedic Institute, claiming the provider embedded tracking technologies on its website that intercepted users’ electronic communications and shared them with companies including Google and AdRoll.
Both complaints center on the use of tracking tools such as pixels, cookies, and analytics software that allegedly collect detailed information about users’ interactions with healthcare websites and transmit that data to third parties for advertising and analytics purposes.
In the Solis Mammography case, plaintiffs claim the company’s website transmitted highly sensitive data, including users’ status as patients, medical conditions, diagnostic services sought, appointment scheduling activity and treatment locations.
The complaint alleges this information was shared with third parties, including Google, without authorization.
The filing further alleges that the tracking technologies operated invisibly and captured user activity in real time.
Similarly, the lawsuit against the Orthopaedic Institute alleges that tracking tools, including Google Analytics 4, DoubleClick and AdRoll captured user interactions such as physician searches, selected medical specialties, appointment requests and attempts to access patient portals or pay medical bills.
According to the complaint, this data was transmitted along with identifying cookies to third parties.
Both lawsuits allege that users were not informed their data was being collected and shared, and that no consent was obtained.
The complaints further claim the tracking technologies were not detectable to ordinary users and operated without visible disclosure.
In each case, the plaintiffs argue that the information collected constitutes protected health information under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
The Solis complaint states that even identifying an individual as a patient, when combined with healthcare-related data, qualifies as protected information subject to federal privacy protections.
The Orthopaedic Institute complaint similarly alleges that user interactions could reveal health conditions or care-seeking behavior when paired with identifying data.
Both lawsuits assert violations of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Florida Security of Communications Act, which prohibit the interception of electronic communications without consent.
The Solis case also includes claims for invasion of privacy, negligence, breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment, while the Orthopaedic Institute case includes a claim for unjust enrichment tied to the alleged commercial use of patient data.
The plaintiffs in both cases contend that the healthcare providers knowingly implemented the tracking technologies and benefited from enhanced advertising and analytics capabilities in exchange for allowing third parties access to user data.
The Solis complaint alleges the company received marketing and analytics advantages, while the Orthopaedic Institute plaintiffs claim the provider would not have enabled interception without deliberately installing the tracking code.
Both lawsuits allege harm including invasion of privacy, emotional distress, loss of control over personal data, and diminished trust in healthcare providers. The Solis complaint also cites ongoing risks associated with further dissemination of sensitive health information.
Each case seeks to proceed as a class action on behalf of individuals whose information was allegedly intercepted through the providers’ websites.
The plaintiffs are asking the courts to certify nationwide classes and Florida-specific subclasses, award damages and order injunctive relief to halt the alleged practices and address the handling of collected data. The mammography plaintiffs are represented by Matthew J. Langley of Almeida Law Group in Chicago. The orthopedic plainitffs are represented by Adam A. Schwartzbaum pf Schwartzbaum in Miami; and Don Bivens and Maxwell K. Weiss of Don Bivens in Scottsdale, Ariz.
