Background
Carly Baker, Janssen Ramos Savoie, and Amber Shavies brought a putative class action against Seattle Children’s Hospital, alleging that the hospital violated Washington’s privacy act by using Meta Pixel on its public website. According to the complaint, Pixel recorded visitors’ searches, clicks, and page views and transmitted that information to Meta, which could associate the activity with users or their devices and use it for targeted advertising.
The plaintiffs alleged that they used the public website to research medical conditions, providers, clinic locations, and operating hours. Although they also referred to the hospital’s MyChart patient portal, they ultimately limited the claim on review to Pixel activity associated with the publicly available website. The trial court dismissed the privacy-act claim with prejudice under CR 12(b)(6), and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Court’s Holding
The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. It held that RCW 9.73.030(1)(a) applies only to private communications “between two or more individuals.” The plaintiffs’ clicks and searches were directed to an automated website operated by Seattle Children’s Hospital, a corporation, and generated automated responses. Because each alleged communication involved only one individual, the claim did not satisfy the statute’s threshold requirement.
The court did not decide whether the searches and clicks were “private communications.” Justice González concurred in the result, reasoning that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged private communications but had not alleged communications directed to another individual. He also emphasized that communications between a patient and individuals working for a corporation could fall within the statute.
Key Takeaways
- RCW 9.73.030(1)(a) requires a communication between at least two individuals.
- A user’s clicks or search terms sent to an automated corporate website and answered with stored content do not meet that requirement.
- The court left unresolved whether the website activity was private and whether communications involving human corporate employees would be covered.
Why It Matters
The decision limits claims under this provision of Washington’s privacy act when tracking technology captures a user’s interaction with a fully automated website. Even potentially sensitive website searches are outside the provision when the pleaded communication is not between two or more individuals.
The ruling is narrower than a general approval of website tracking. It addresses only the statutory claim pursued on appeal and does not decide whether comparable conduct may violate other Washington laws or whether communications directed to human employees through digital systems receive privacy-act protection.