CRANDALL CONSULTING
Home › Website Tracking Cases › Charlie Lucas v. Call-On-Doc, Inc.

Charlie Lucas v. Call-On-Doc, Inc.

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

Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois
Court
Illinois
Jurisdiction
Not identified
Decision / Filing Date
Lawsuit
Matter Type

Docket / citation: 2026LA000403

Risk scores, classifications, statistics, and technical findings are informational guidelines based on observed website behavior and publicly available litigation activity, statutes, court decisions, legal commentary, and other public sources. They are not legal advice, legal opinions, or determinations of liability.

Summary

The court-authorized website describes a proposed settlement in Charlie Lucas v. Call-On-Doc, Inc., an Illinois state-court class action alleging that third-party tracking pixels on Call-On-Doc's web pages were contrary to certain California laws. Call-On-Doc denies wrongdoing, and the page states that the court has not decided the merits or granted final settlement approval. Potential class members include people who created accounts on or after November 7, 2023, or registered users who began booking medical appointments on or after November 7, 2021.

Litigation Status

Settled
Current Status
Pending
Reported Outcome Direction
Settlement
Ruling Stage
None identified
Precedential Weight

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

Class action pending with a proposed settlement awaiting final approval. The page lists a claim deadline of August 29, 2026, an opt-out and objection deadline of August 10, 2026, and a final approval hearing scheduled for August 31, 2026.

Reported Holding

The parties reached a proposed class action settlement concerning Call-On-Doc's use of third-party tracking pixels. The page states that court approval remains pending and reports no merits holding.

What the Court Decided

The court authorized the settlement website; the page does not describe a merits ruling or final settlement approval.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court has not decided whether the plaintiffs' claims or Call-On-Doc's denial of wrongdoing are correct, and still must decide whether to approve the 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

Statutes Invoked

No specific statutes have been identified in tracked sources for this matter.

Claims Asserted

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

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

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