Plaintiff Adequately Pleads Entitlement to Qualtrics' Profits, Says Judge in Data Privacy Suit
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss a May privacy case against Microsoft and Qualtrics, said his Tuesday order (docket 2:23-cv-00718) in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle. Plaintiff “Jane…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Doe” alleged Microsoft and analytics company Qualtrics “repeatedly and systematically” violated patients’ healthcare privacy rights on the Kaiser Permanente website by intercepting and collecting data on medical conditions, prescriptions, immunizations and more (see 2305160051). Coughenour granted defendants’ requests for judicial notice with respect to certain exhibits that are public webpages. In the case of Qualtrics’ seeking judicial notice for “of the truth of its contents, not merely its existence” with respect to an assertion that the “Site Intercept function does not ‘intercept’ anything,” Coughenour said that request isn’t appropriate under Federal Rule of Evidence 201. Qualtrics contends Doe lacks standing, but Coughenour said she adequately pleads an entitlement to Qualtrics’ profits from users’ personal data. She alleges that her personal data carries financial value and cites numerous articles and studies describing the “growing market for personal data, including personal health data,” said the order. She also alleges that Qualtrics profited from the data and used it for targeted advertising, generating revenue and profit, the order said. The defendants challenged the complaint’s factual allegations with Qualtrics arguing Doe fails to plead when she used the Kaiser website and thus was exposed to alleged data collection. Microsoft argues Doe fails to allege facts plausibly showing she was personally affected by Microsoft’s alleged conduct, including the dates she used the Kaiser website and facts showing Kaiser disclosed her data in a manner that allowed Microsoft to identify her personally. But Doe alleges she has been a Kaiser member for 10 years and that while logged into her account accessing her medical information, “Defendants unlawfully intercepted and collected such data along with her personal identifiers.” That is sufficient to allege facts, said the order. Qualtrics argues that Doe’s claims must be dismissed because she consented to its collection of her data when accepting the website’s terms, but Doe’s claims don’t hinge on her being logged in, said the order. Doe alleges Qualtrics collects data “regardless of whether the user is logged in to her Kaiser Account.” Coughenour denied that motion to dismiss, but he dismissed Doe’s California Invasion of Privacy Act claims to the extent she bases them on intentional wiretapping, the order said.