C.B. v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: August 24, 2026

Docket / citation: 1:26-cv-05201

Summary

A proposed class action filed June 19, 2026 in SDNY alleges Planned Parenthood and regional affiliates transmitted appointment-booking selections and related details to third parties (notably Google) via embedded trackers and that tracking continued into a MyChart patient portal. The complaint asserts multiple state and federal statutory claims and seeks a nationwide class and several subclasses; defendants had not responded at time of reporting.

Litigation Status

Status, direction, and weight describe how tracked public sources characterize this matter as of our last review — they are informational classifications, not legal assessments.

Procedural Posture

Complaint filed June 19, 2026 in the Southern District of New York by three plaintiffs proceeding under initials seeking a proposed nationwide class and several subclasses; defendants had not yet responded at time of reporting; no class certified and no settlement.

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

• Google Analytics
• Google Tag Manager
• persistent Google 'cid' identifier
• Meta Pixel
• session-replay tools

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Google, Meta (Facebook), TikTok, Pinterest, Microsoft Bing, Quantcast, Epic (MyChart), Sendy.

Statutes Invoked

• NY GBL § 349; Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Wiretap Act); California CMIA; Florida FSCA — all-party consent · private right of action

Claims Asserted

Claims identified in tracked public sources; pleadings may include additional or amended claims.

• NY GBL § 349 (consumer-protection claim)
• Federal Wiretap Act (ECPA)
• California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA)
• Florida statutes referenced as FSCA
• HIPAA-related disclosure/authorization allegations

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA) 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 when session recording begins relative to consent and whether input masking covers every field; whether advertising pixels transmit page URLs or hashed form data before a consent choice; what page URLs and query strings analytics tools share with third parties. 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

• Planned Parenthood Sued Over Website Trackers That Allegedly Sent Patient Booking Data to Google — OpenClassActions · Tier D (Industry data) · 2026-07-02

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.