{"id":3321,"date":"2026-10-12T14:41:14","date_gmt":"2026-10-12T18:41:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=3321"},"modified":"2026-10-12T14:41:14","modified_gmt":"2026-10-12T18:41:14","slug":"washington-supreme-court-rejects-privacy-class-action-and-holds-that-hospitals-use-of-meta-pixel-does-not-violate-state-privacy-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/10\/12\/washington-supreme-court-rejects-privacy-class-action-and-holds-that-hospitals-use-of-meta-pixel-does-not-violate-state-privacy-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Washington Supreme Court Rejects Privacy Class Action And Holds That Hospital’s Use Of Meta Pixel Does Not Violate State Privacy Act"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Ryan T. Garippo<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 On October 8, 2026, in Baker, et al. v. Seattle Children’s Hospital, No. 104590-5, 2026 WL 3023818 (Wash. Oct. 8, 2026), Justice Theodore J. Angelis of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington held <\/a>that a hospital\u2019s use of Meta Pixel\u2019s advertising technology ( \u201cMeta Pixel\u201d) on its public website did not violate the Washington Privacy Act (“WPA”) because the plaintiffs\u2019 website searches involved communications between a single individual and a website, and were not between \u201ctwo or more individuals\u201d as required by the WPA.\u00a0 The decision is a significant win for companies that use website advertising technologies, like Meta Pixel, but its import may be limited to claims brought under Washington state law.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Seattle Children\u2019s Hospital (\u201cSCH\u201d) operates a public website that provides general information about the hospital, including a directory of health care professionals, hours of operation for clinics, and descriptions of health conditions.  The website also uses free software, called Meta Pixel, that allows websites to review visitors\u2019 clicks, text searches, and page views.  Meta Pixel also allegedly relays content of such searches to Meta Platforms, Inc., which links that information to the Facebook or Instagram account of the website visitor for targeted advertising.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2023, Carly Baker, Amber Shavies, and Janssen Ramos Savoie (collectively, \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d) filed a putative class action against SCH.  Each of the Plaintiffs was a parent who alleged that they visited SCH\u2019s public website to search for information regarding \u201ctheir children\u2019s medical conditions and for clinic operating hours, as well as visiting the patient portal, MyChart, to communicate with doctors and view their children\u2019s electronic records and medical histories.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at *2.  SCH disputed that Meta Pixel was ever installed on the hospital\u2019s MyChart patient portal and Plaintiffs \u201csubsequently clarified that their claims targeted only the use of Pixel on SCH\u2019s publicly available website.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at *2, n.5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SCH moved to dismiss the complaint and argued, inter alia<\/em>, that Plaintiffs\u2019 searches and queries on the website were not \u201cprivate communications\u201d as defined by the WPA.  The trial court granted SCH\u2019s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  Plaintiffs appealed and the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on the ground that navigation of a website is not a \u201ccommunication\u201d as defined by the WPA.  See Baker v. Seattle Children’s Hosp.<\/em>, 35 Wash. App. 2d 1018 (2025).  Plaintiffs then petitioned the Washington Supreme Court for review and the petition was granted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a unanimous result, Justice Angelis, writing for the majority of the Washington Supreme Court, affirmed the trial court\u2019s dismissal but on a different basis than the Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead of determining whether the Plaintiffs\u2019 website activity constituted a \u201cprivate communication,\u201d the Supreme Court focused on a different part of the WPA\u2019s text.  Justice Angelis explained that it is unlawful for \u201cany individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington\u201d to intercept or record any \u201c[p]rivate communication . . . between two or more individuals.\u201d  RCW 9.73.030(1)(a).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Angelis reasoned that, because only communications \u201cbetween two or more individuals\u201d are unlawful, SCH would need to be an \u201cindividual\u201d for Plaintiffs\u2019 theory to work.  Id. <\/em> But SCH is not an individual.  The WPA draws a distinction between \u201cindividuals\u201d on the one hand and entities such as \u201cpartnership[s], corporation[s], association[s], or the state of Washington,\u201d on the other.  Id. <\/em> Thus, because SCH is a corporation and \u201conly one individual was involved in each communication, the [P]laintiffs do not have a claim under the WPA.\u201d  Baker<\/em>, 2026 WL 3023818, at *3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Angelis, however, took care to point out that it was immaterial that the WPA is \u201cone of the most restrictive electronic surveillance laws ever promulgated\u201d and that certain federal and California laws may prohibit such conduct.  Id.<\/em> at *4 (quotations omitted).  He explained that those federal and state cases are \u201cnot instructive given the significant differences between the state and federal statutory schemes\u201d and declined to consider such precedent.  Id.<\/em> (quotations omitted).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notably, Justice Gonz\u00e1lez and Justice Whitener wrote separately to concur in the result but express the view that \u201cprivate communications transmitted between an individual and individuals working for a corporation are protected by\u201d WPA.  Id.<\/em> (Gonz\u00e1lez, J., concurring).  Instead, Justice Gonz\u00e1lez would have held that these communications were not between \u201ctwo or more individuals\u201d because the \u201cparents\u2019 private communications were directed at a server that returned stored content and not at another individual.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at *5 (Gonz\u00e1lez, J., concurring).  Thus, to Justice Gonz\u00e1lez, the material distinction was not a communication with a corporation<\/em> but the nature of the underlying technology<\/em> itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But nonetheless, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the trial court\u2019s dismissal with prejudice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Baker<\/em> decision is a meaningful development for Washington companies that deploy advertising technologies, such as Meta Pixel, on their public-facing websites.  Although the unique language of the WPA likely makes this decision distinguishable from claims brought under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act or California Invasion of Privacy Act, this holding should knock out nearly all claims under the WPA as a matter of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Gonz\u00e1lez\u2019s concurrence, however, serves as a cautionary note.  Even though the majority opinion would seem to imply that you could never apply the WPA to communications with a corporation under any circumstances, there is at least a possibility that under different facts (e<\/em>.g<\/em>., such as communications directed to an individual staff member) the Washington Supreme Court would reach a different result.  Nonetheless, Baker<\/em> is undoubtedly a tremendous win for Washington companies and corporate counsel should continue to monitor this blog to stay apprised of developments in class actions involving Meta Pixel litigation and digital privacy law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Ryan T. Garippo Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 On October 8, 2026, in Baker, et al. v. Seattle Children’s Hospital, No. 104590-5, 2026 WL 3023818 (Wash. Oct. 8, 2026), Justice Theodore J. Angelis of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that a hospital\u2019s use of … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Washington Supreme Court Rejects Privacy Class Action And Holds That Hospital’s Use Of Meta Pixel Does Not Violate State Privacy Act”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[59],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,9,127],"class_list":["post-3321","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-privacy-class-actions"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Maatman Jr.","first_name":"Gerald L.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/geraldmaatman.html","description":"Read Gerald's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Riley","first_name":"Jennifer A.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/jenniferriley.html","description":"Read Jennifer's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":127,"user_id":692,"is_guest":0,"slug":"rgarippo","display_name":"Ryan Garippo","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/09\/garipporyan-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Garippo","first_name":"Ryan","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/ryangarippo.html","description":"Read Ryan's Bio<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3321","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3321"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3321\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3324,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3321\/revisions\/3324"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3321"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3321"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3321"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=3321"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}