A federal court has ruled that a Nevada resident’s privacy claim against LinkedIn can move forward. Claims from California plaintiffs were dismissed but may be refiled. The case centers on alleged tracking of health data from state insurance sites.
Digital publishers and content platforms face renewed scrutiny over user data practices after a federal judge ruled that a Nevada resident’s privacy lawsuit against LinkedIn can advance. The case alleges LinkedIn collected tracking data from Nevada’s Health Link insurance marketplace, raising questions about how third-party tags interact with sensitive health information on public sector sites.
U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila, presiding in the Northern District of California, issued a mixed decision. While Nevada resident Kimberly Johnson’s privacy claim was allowed to proceed, similar claims from two California residents regarding data collection from Covered California were dismissed without prejudice. This means the California plaintiffs may revise and resubmit their complaint with more specific allegations.
The lawsuits stem from reports that LinkedIn’s Insight Tag was used on state health insurance exchanges, potentially transmitting user data as part of marketing campaigns. Johnson’s complaint specifically states she provided Health Link with details about her medication and dosage, which she alleges were then accessed by LinkedIn.
LinkedIn sought to dismiss both lawsuits, arguing that the California plaintiffs did not allege they had submitted any health information to Covered California. Judge Davila agreed, stating that while detailed information is not required at this stage, plaintiffs must at least show they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data allegedly collected. The California plaintiffs have until August 27 to amend their complaint.
In the Nevada case, LinkedIn argued that Johnson’s privacy expectations were not reasonable because the medication information she provided was in response to optional questions. The company claimed that voluntarily submitting optional data undermined her privacy claim. However, Judge Davila disagreed, finding that Johnson’s allegations, if proven, could support her claim of “intrusion upon seclusion.”
Additional claims that LinkedIn violated state and federal wiretap laws were dismissed in both cases, but the judge allowed plaintiffs the opportunity to amend and refile those allegations. LinkedIn has not yet responded to requests for comment regarding the ruling.
