Judge William B. Shubb, of the Eastern District of California, dismissed a putative class action alleging website tracking claims of a medical insurance company’s website for lack of injury.
Background. Magliocca alleged that UnitedHealthcare’s website used Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Meta Pixel, and Adobe Analytics. The trackers allegedly installed cookies and collected information about users’ activity on the UHC website, including navigation and session data, which allegedly supported targeted advertising. She asserted claims under CIPA, ECPA, CDAFA, and the California Constitution. UHC removed the case and moved to dismiss, principally arguing that the complaint did not allege a concrete injury.
The Court’s Analysis. The court examined standing independently before reaching the statutory elements. Applying Popa v. Microsoft and its discussion of common-law privacy analogues, the court held that routine activity on a single website – such as clicks, page visits, and scrolls – was not an intrusion comparable to a highly offensive privacy tort. An IP address transmitted as a condition of accessing a website did not, by itself, establish a cognizable privacy interest. The court noted that the complaint fell short of alleging the kind of pervasive cross-site tracking that could create a mosaic of personally revealing information, a circumstance more likely to support a finding of concrete harm. Because the asserted injury was insufficient under Article III, the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and granted leave to amend.
Significance. The decision reinforces a bright line between ordinary analytics and tracking that reveals sensitive content or creates broad profiles. Website operators may have a stronger standing defense where the alleged collection is limited to basic analytics data and the complaint does not tie the technology to individualized, invasive information.
Magliocca v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc., No. 2:25-CV-3388 WBS SCR, 2026 WL 878694 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2026).
