Cancelmo v. Southern New Hampshire Medical Center, et al.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: October 12, 2026

Docket / citation: 24-cv-245-SE

Summary

Cancelmo brought a putative class action alleging that hospital-related defendants shared website interaction information with Google without consent, asserting claims under New Hampshire health-information and wiretap statutes. The defendants removed the action to federal court and moved to dismiss both claims; Cancelmo's individual allegations concern unauthenticated public webpages. The excerpt describes the pleading standard and begins the court's analysis but does not disclose the motion's disposition.

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

Putative class action filed in New Hampshire state court and removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act; defendants moved to dismiss both claims under Rule 12(b)(6), and plaintiff opposed.

Reported Holding

The excerpt states that, because no class has been certified, the court considers the named plaintiff's own claims rather than those of putative class members. It does not include the disposition of the motion to dismiss.

What the Court Decided

For its analysis of Count I, the court considers Cancelmo's individual allegations because no class has been certified.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The supplied excerpt does not reveal whether either claim survived dismissal or the court's ultimate interpretation of the New Hampshire Wiretap Act.

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 AdWords remarketing
• Google Ads
• Google AdWords remarketing service

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Google.

Statutes Invoked

• RSA 332-I:4, I; New Hampshire Wiretap Act, RSA 570-A, including RSA 570-A:2, I(a) and I(c)
• RSA 332-I:4, I; New Hampshire Wiretap Act, RSA 570-A

Claims Asserted

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

• Use or disclosure of protected health information for marketing without authorization
• Interception of telecommunications without all-party consent
• Disclosure of intercepted telecommunications
• Alleged unauthorized use or disclosure of protected health information for marketing under RSA 332-I:4, I
• Claim under the New Hampshire Wiretap Act, RSA 570-A

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

For operators using similar technologies, the recurring factual questions in matters like this one are 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

• Cancelmo v. Southern New Hampshire Medical Center, et al. — Order on Motion to Dismiss, 2025 DNH 122 — U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2025-09-30

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.