Pattison v. Teladoc Health, Inc.

Background

Adeline Pattison, Dominique Durso, Jean Charter, Liane Tuomala, Michelle Grenon, Teresa Hale, Zeshaan Ahmed, and Myschelle Taylor sued Teladoc Health, Inc. on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. They alleged that Teladoc, a telehealth company, used Facebook’s Tracking Pixel and Conversions Application Programming Interface on its website. According to the amended complaint, those tools transmitted protected health information and personally identifiable information—including medical conditions, diagnoses, treatment information, prescriptions, and contact information—to Facebook and other third parties without the plaintiffs’ consent.

The plaintiffs alleged that Teladoc used the information to improve advertising and increase revenue. They claimed injuries including loss of privacy and confidentiality, targeted advertising, emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, and loss of the benefit of their bargain. Their claims arose under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and New York, Florida, and California law.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). At that stage, the court accepts well-supported factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly show an entitlement to relief.

For the Electronic Communications Privacy Act claim, the court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Teladoc intercepted their communications with the separate purpose of unlawfully disclosing their health information to third parties. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss that claim.

The court dismissed the negligence claim without prejudice because the amended complaint described intentional conduct but did not identify the allegedly negligent conduct with enough specificity. It also dismissed the implied-contract claim without prejudice because the parties allegedly intended to be bound by written policies and agreements. The constructive-bailment claim was dismissed without prejudice because the plaintiffs retained control over their information and therefore had not alleged that they gave Teladoc exclusive control over it. The unjust-enrichment claim was dismissed without prejudice after the plaintiffs withdrew it.

The court denied dismissal of the breach-of-confidence claim. It held that the allegations plausibly showed that Teladoc assumed a duty to protect the plaintiffs’ information, breached that duty by disclosing it to third parties, and caused alleged damages. The court also denied dismissal of the New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim, finding that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged materially misleading conduct and injury.

The court denied dismissal of the Florida Security of Communications Act claim because the alleged interception of medical information could qualify as interception of the substance or meaning of a communication, rather than merely tracking website activity. Because the court found the federal electronic-communications claim adequately pleaded, it also denied dismissal of the California Invasion of Privacy Act claim. The court further denied dismissal of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California Unfair Competition Law, and California Consumers Legal Remedies Act claims.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Teladoc’s motion to dismiss. It granted the motion without prejudice as to Counts 2, 3, 5, and 6, and denied it as to Counts 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. The plaintiffs were given leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by July 30, 2025. If they did not file one by that deadline, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. If they filed an amended complaint, Teladoc was directed to answer or otherwise respond by August 20, 2025.