Blandford v. UofL Health, Inc. and University of Louisville Physicians, Inc.
Summary
Blandford brought a Kentucky state-court class action alleging that healthcare defendants used the Meta Pixel on their website and patient portal to transfer personal and health information to Facebook without authorization. After defendants removed the case, the federal district court stated that it would remand the matter and deny attorney fees; the excerpt contains no merits ruling.
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
A state-court class action was removed by defendants on federal-officer and substantial-federal-question grounds. Plaintiff moved to remand and requested attorney fees; the court heard oral argument on May 8, 2024.
Reported Holding
The court states that it will remand the matter and deny Blandford’s request for attorney fees. The excerpt ends before the court’s substantive jurisdictional analysis and final ordering language.
What the Court Decided
The court announced remand and denial of the plaintiff’s request for attorney fees.
What the Court Did Not Decide
The excerpt contains no merits determination on the underlying claims and does not supply the full reasoning for remand.
Significance
Neutral / mixed significance. 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
- Patient portal
Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Facebook.
Statutes Invoked
- 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Kentucky Consumer Protection Act; Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.732
Claims Asserted
- Negligence
- Negligence per se
- Invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion
- Breach of implied contract
- Unjust enrichment
- Breach of fiduciary duty
- Kentucky Consumer Protection Act claims
- Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.732 data-breach disclosure claims
What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators
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.
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
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