Deidun v. Humana, Inc.

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

Docket / citation: 3:26-CV-00054-GNS · Filed: 2026-01-23

Summary

On October 8, 2026, the court denied Humana’s motion to dismiss all claims concerning alleged health-information tracking on its website and internal portals. The decision evaluates pleading sufficiency rather than establishing the allegations as facts. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/kentucky/kywdce/3%3A2026cv00054/142683/49))

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

Denial of Humana’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion addressing the amended class complaint. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/kentucky/kywdce/3%3A2026cv00054/142683/49))

Reported Holding

All four claims survived dismissal. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/kentucky/kywdce/3%3A2026cv00054/142683/49))

What the Court Decided

Plaintiffs plausibly alleged contemporaneous interception and a HIPAA-based crime-tort exception, plus sufficient Kentucky-law claims. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/kentucky/kywdce/3%3A2026cv00054/142683/49))

What the Court Did Not Decide

The pleading-stage ruling did not establish liability, damages, or class certification.

Significance

Generally viewed as plaintiff-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

• tracking pixels
• session replay code
• session replay / keystroke capture
• tracking technologies (general)
• Tracking pixels
• Session replay code
• Third-party cookies
• Adobe Experience Cloud
• Persistent identifiers

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Coveo Solutions, Inc., Tealium Inc., Adobe Inc., ForeSee (now part of Verint Systems Inc.), Quantum Metric, Inc., Coveo, Tealium, Adobe, ForeSee, Quantum Metric.

Statutes Invoked

• 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. — one-party consent · private right of action
• Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2513, 2515–2520; HIPAA, 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6

Claims Asserted

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

• Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.)
• Breach of fiduciary duty (Kentucky common law)
• Intrusion upon seclusion (Kentucky common law)
• Unjust enrichment (Kentucky common law)
• Federal Wiretap Act
• Kentucky breach of fiduciary duty
• Kentucky intrusion upon seclusion
• Kentucky unjust enrichment
• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Intrusion upon seclusion
• Unjust enrichment

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

Federal Wiretap Act (ECPA Title I) is a one-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. 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

• Deidun v. Humana, Inc — Lawsuit Complaint (Document #1 Filed 01/23/2026) — DocketNexus · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-01-23
• Deidun et al. v. Humana, Inc. — Document 49 — Justia — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-10-08
• Deidun et al. v. Humana, Inc., No. 3:2026cv00054 — Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, via Justia · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-10-08
• Deidun et al. v. Humana, Inc.: Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (via Justia) · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-10-08

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.