Baker v. Seattle Children's Hospital
Summary
Seattle Children’s Hospital's answer asks the Washington Supreme Court to deny review of Division One's unpublished ruling in Baker v. Seattle Children’s Hospital. The filing describes a Washington Privacy Act dispute involving website use and characterizes the appellate ruling as narrow and limited to the facts; the excerpt does not establish the substantive disposition or whether Supreme Court review was granted.
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
Respondent answers a petition seeking Washington Supreme Court review of Division One's unpublished ruling and asks the Supreme Court to deny review.
Reported Holding
According to the case page, the Washington Supreme Court held en banc that the Washington Privacy Act applies only to information exchanged between two or more people and excludes searches and clicks that generate an automated website response.
What the Court Decided
According to respondent's answer, the Court of Appeals confined its unpublished ruling to the facts of this case. The excerpt does not provide the substantive disposition or a Supreme Court ruling.
What the Court Did Not Decide
According to respondent's answer, the Court of Appeals disclaimed a definitive construction of 'private communication' for all cases involving website or internet use.
Significance
Generally viewed as defense-favorable. Characterizations of significance describe how the matter has generally been discussed in tracked public sources; individual holdings are often narrow, procedural, or fact-specific, and this page does not state or imply broader holdings than the sources support.
What This Page Does and Does Not Say
This page reports what our tracked public sources say about this matter — including, where identified, the procedural posture (for example, a ruling on a motion to dismiss is not a final merits decision). It does not report legal conclusions beyond those sources, does not predict outcomes, and does not constitute legal advice.
Technologies at Issue
- Meta Pixel
- Cookies
- HTTP requests
- Website search and click tracking
- Duplicated HTTP GET requests
- First-party and third-party cookies
- _fbp cookie
- c_user cookie
- First-party cookies
- Third-party cookies
- Website search, click, and page-view tracking
- Unique identifiers linking website activity to Meta accounts
- third-party website tracking technologies
- Website clicks
- Website searches
- Automated website responses
- Website browsing
- Pixel
Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta Platforms Inc..
Statutes Invoked
- Washington Privacy Act, RCW 9.73.030(1)(a)
- Washington privacy act, RCW 9.73.030(1)(a)
- Washington Privacy Act; RCW 9.73.030; RCW 9.73.060
- Washington Privacy Act
- Washington Privacy Act; RCW 9.73.030(1)(a)
Claims Asserted
- Washington Privacy Act
- Washington Consumer Protection Act
- Washington Uniform Health Care Information Act
- Invasion of privacy
- Breach of implied contract
- Conversion
- Unjust enrichment
- Washington Privacy Act claim alleging interception or recording of private website communications without all participants' consent
- Washington privacy act
- Washington Privacy Act, RCW 9.73.030(1)(a)
- Washington Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW
- Washington Uniform Health Care Information Act, chapter 70.02 RCW
What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators
Washington Privacy Act is an all-party consent statute with a private right of action. Consent standard and private enforceability are the structural features that most shape where website tracking claims are filed and how they are valued.
For operators using similar technologies, the recurring factual questions in matters like this one are whether advertising pixels transmit page URLs or hashed form data before a consent choice. Our scanner tests these behaviors empirically.
Because this matter is pending, anything reported here is procedural — allegations and interim rulings, not final determinations.
Detection of a similar technology on a website is an informational risk indicator, not a legal conclusion, and nothing in this section is legal advice.
Related Intelligence
Sources
- Baker v. Seattle Child.'s Hosp. (Majority and Concurrence), 104,590-5 (Wash. 2026)
- Baker v. Seattle Children's Hospital, No. 104590-5 — Majority Opinion and Concurrence
- Baker v. Seattle Children's Hospital (2026)
- Baker v. Seattle Children's Hospital — Washington Supreme Court Opinion
- Petition for Review in Baker v. Seattle Children's Hospital
- Answer to Petition to Review in Baker v. Seattle Children's Hospital
- Parents lose Meta Pixel wiretap case against Seattle Children's Hospital
- Baker v. Seattle Children's Hospital
About This Page
Publisher: Inspection-Ready Institute, Inc. (DBA Crandall Consulting), an independent website compliance and risk consultancy. We are not a law firm and nothing on this page is legal advice.
How this content is produced: Facts are extracted from publicly available sources — court and government materials, recognized legal press, professional analysis, and industry reports — by our litigation intelligence engine, stored with full source provenance, and rendered from the database. Risk guidelines are computed by a deterministic formula, never by an AI model directly. See the full methodology.
Limitations: Counts labeled "Tracked" reflect matters identified in our source set and are not official court statistics. We report what courts decided and did not decide; we do not predict outcomes.
Corrections: If you believe anything on this page is inaccurate, contact us via the contact page and we will review the underlying sources promptly.
Is Your Website Creating Hidden Tracking Risk?
Scan your site for third-party tracking and potential wiretap exposure. Free, no account required.
Scan My Website