Okash v. Essentia Health

Background

Michael Okash sued Essentia Health individually and on behalf of a proposed class. He alleged that, while he used Essentia’s public website, Essentia used Meta Platforms, Inc.’s Meta Pixel technology to transmit browsing information to Meta. According to the allegations, the technology tracked pages visited, searches, clicks, and other submissions. The information could be associated with a Facebook account and used for advertising.

Okash alleged that he used the website to research doctors, their specialties and credentials, insurance acceptance, and medical conditions and treatments, including sleep apnea, bladder cancer, and diabetes. He also alleged that he received targeted advertisements related to information he had researched. The court noted that Okash had dropped most allegations concerning Essentia’s MyChart patient-portal website and was relying on the public-facing website.

Essentia’s privacy policy stated that it might use Facebook Pixel to understand how users interact with the website after seeing a Facebook advertisement and clicking through to the website. The court had previously dismissed Okash’s wiretap and Minnesota Health Records Act claims without prejudice because his allegations lacked sufficient detail, while allowing his Minnesota consumer-protection and unjust-enrichment claims to continue.

Legal standard

The court reviewed the challenged claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint contains enough factual allegations to state a legally plausible claim. At this stage, the court generally accepts factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiff, but it does not accept bare legal conclusions as facts.

Wiretap claims

The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Minnesota wiretap law prohibit intentional interception of covered communications, subject to an exception for a party to the communication or an interception authorized by a party’s consent. That exception does not apply when the interception is for the purpose of committing an independent criminal or tortious act.

The court had previously ruled that Okash had not plausibly alleged an independent crime or tort separate from the alleged interception and disclosure of the information. In the Second Amended Complaint, Okash added allegations that Essentia violated other privacy statutes. The court concluded that those allegations still described violations arising from the initial interception itself, rather than an independent crime or tort committed through a separate use of the data.

The court also declined to change its earlier view based on other decisions involving Meta Pixel. It distinguished cases involving access to information from both public websites and more sensitive patient portals. Because Okash was relying on the public-facing portion of Essentia’s website, the court granted dismissal of the federal and state wiretap claims, Counts I and III, and dismissed those counts with prejudice.

Minnesota consumer-protection claims

The Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act prohibits certain misleading representations about goods or services. The Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act prohibits fraud, deceptive practices, and misleading statements in connection with the sale of merchandise, and requires the claim to benefit the public.

Essentia argued that Okash could not have been misled because he had not alleged that he read the privacy policy. The court rejected that argument at the dismissal stage, explaining that Minnesota consumer-protection claims do not require traditional common-law reliance. The court nevertheless required a causal connection between the alleged misconduct and the claimed harm, and found that Okash had alleged enough for now.

The court also rejected Essentia’s argument that the Consumer Fraud Act did not apply because Essentia provides medical services rather than data-privacy services. The court reasoned that the alleged conduct concerned Essentia’s marketing of medical services and its alleged use and sale of browsing information to support advertising. It also rejected Essentia’s argument that the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim was moot because Meta Pixel was no longer on the website. The court found that Essentia could turn the technology back on, so the alleged conduct could reasonably recur.

The court therefore denied Essentia’s motion to dismiss Counts II and V, the consumer-protection claims under the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act.

Minnesota Health Records Act claim

The Minnesota Health Records Act generally prohibits releasing a patient’s health records without signed consent. The statute defines health records broadly to include information relating to a patient’s physical or mental health, health care, or payment for health care.

The court had previously found that Okash needed to provide specific examples of how he used Essentia’s website and what information was disclosed. The Second Amended Complaint identified searches for particular doctors, their specialties and credentials, insurance acceptance, and specific medical conditions. The court concluded that these allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage to support a claim that the disclosed information could constitute health records, either individually or in combination with other information.

The court noted that the proposed class appeared broader than Essentia’s patients, even though the statute’s text appears limited to patients. It deferred any potential narrowing of the class until a later class-certification proceeding because the issue was not before the court on this motion.

Disposition

Judge John R. Tunheim ordered that Essentia’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The court denied the motion as to Counts II, IV, and V—the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minnesota Health Records Act, and Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act claims—and granted it as to Counts I and III, the wiretap claims. Counts I and III were dismissed with prejudice. The opinion states that Essentia did not move to dismiss the unjust-enrichment claim.