M.G. v. Therapymatch, Inc.

Background

This data-privacy lawsuit concerns information M.G. entered through an online platform for searching for and connecting with mental-health providers. Therapymatch, Inc., doing business as Headway, moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss M.G.’s third amended complaint. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion argues that the complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court decided the motion without oral argument and vacated the scheduled hearing.

Confidentiality of Medical Information Act claim

M.G. alleged that Headway violated California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), including California Civil Code sections 56.10, 56.06, and 56.101. The CMIA restricts certain disclosures of medical information and provides remedies for violations. The court had previously dismissed M.G.’s CMIA claim because the earlier complaint did not allege substantive information about his medical condition, history, or treatment.

The court found that the third amended complaint cured that problem. M.G. alleged that he provided information about his symptoms, mental-health issues, desired treatment and therapy, and preferred therapist qualities. He also alleged that he reported stress, trauma, past abuse, depression, anxiety, and lack of sleep; identified work stress and marital issues as reasons for seeking services; and supplied identifying information including his name, address, phone number, age, marital status, ethnicity, religion, occupation, employer, income range, and insurance information.

The court also found that M.G. sufficiently alleged that his information was improperly viewed or accessed. The complaint alleged that Google accessed the information and used it for purposes including improving advertising and analytics services, measuring advertising effectiveness, and personalizing content and advertisements. Accepting the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion, the court held that M.G. plausibly alleged a CMIA violation. The court therefore denied Headway’s motion to dismiss the CMIA claim.

California Consumer Privacy Act claim

Headway also moved to dismiss M.G.’s claim under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The court had already denied an earlier motion to dismiss that claim. It held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g)(2) barred Headway from making another motion raising an objection that was available earlier. Although some courts consider such arguments on the merits when judicial economy supports doing so, the court found that Headway had not shown why that approach was warranted here. The court therefore denied Headway’s motion to dismiss the CCPA claim.

Disposition

The court denied Headway’s motion to dismiss. It denied Headway’s request for judicial notice as moot because that request corresponded to the motion to dismiss the CCPA claim. The court set an initial case-management conference for July 10, 2025, and ordered the parties to file a case-management statement by noon on July 2, 2025.