Judge Marilyn Huff, of the Southern District of California, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and gave plaintiff an opportunity to amend.
Background: Plaintiff alleged that Smile Brands disclosed health and identifying information to Google after he scheduled a dental appointment through the Bright Now website. He claimed the disclosure led to targeted advertising and asserted claims under ECPA, CIPA sections 631 and 632, and the California Constitution. The complaint intentionally omitted the specific dental services and did not identify the information allegedly transmitted to Google.
Analysis: The court dismissed the complaint for lack of Article III standing. Under Popa v. Microsoft Corp., plaintiff needed to identify the information collected and disclosed so the court could determine whether the alleged injury resembled a traditionally actionable privacy harm. General labels such as “protected health information” and “personally identifiable information” were legal conclusions rather than sufficient factual allegations. Because the complaint did not specify what plaintiff entered, what Smile Brands captured, or what Google received, the court could not assess whether the alleged disclosure involved sufficiently private information.
Significance: The decision reinforces that website-tracking plaintiffs must identify the specific information allegedly collected and disclosed to establish a concrete privacy injury. Conclusory allegations do not suffice. Characterizing unspecified data as health information or personally identifiable information will not establish standing without facts showing what the information was and how it related to the plaintiff.
Herzman v. Smile Brands Inc., No. 25-CV-03400-H-BLM, 2026 WL 1110698 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2026).
