Delong v. PHE, Inc.
Summary
A federal district court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion to dismiss an amended complaint alleging that the Adam Eve website used Google Analytics to collect intimate user data, finding the plaintiff sufficiently alleged Article III standing, personal jurisdiction, and a plausible claim under Pennsylvania's WESCA. The case was allowed to proceed to discovery; the court did not resolve the merits or class issues.
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff filed an original complaint in September 2024, which the court previously dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing and personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in September 2025. Defendant moved to dismiss again, and the court issued a memorandum opinion on July 16, 2026, denying dismissal and allowing the case to proceed to discovery.
Reported Holding
The district court held that the amended complaint plausibly alleged a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing by relying on the defendant's privacy-related advertising and website statements; that the amended complaint alleged a sufficient Pennsylvania nexus for personal jurisdiction; and that the complaint sufficiently pleaded a claim under Pennsylvania's WESCA. The case was allowed to proceed to discovery.
What the Court Decided
The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, finding that the plaintiff alleged Article III standing, personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania, and a plausible WESCA claim based on allegations that the Adam Eve website embedded Google Analytics code that collected user IP addresses and intimate information.
What the Court Did Not Decide
The court did not resolve the merits of the WESCA claim beyond assessing the sufficiency of the amended complaint, did not decide class certification, and did not adjudicate any damages or liability on the merits.
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
- Google Analytics
- web analytics
- IP address
- JavaScript measurement code (analytics script)
- URLs/URL-based tracking
- JavaScript measurement code
Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: PHE, Inc., Adam & Eve (website operated by PHE, Inc.), Google, PHE, Inc. (operator of Adam Eve).
Statutes Invoked
- 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5701 (Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act)
- 18 Pa. C.S. § 5701 et seq. (Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, “WESCA”)
- Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA), 18 Pa. C.S. § 5701 et seq.
Claims Asserted
- Violation of Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA) - 18 Pa. C.S. § 5701 et seq.
What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators
Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA) 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 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
- Delong v. PHE, Inc. — Memorandum (E.D. Pa., Aug. 25, 2025)
- DELONG v. PHE, INC. — Memorandum (E.D. Pa.)
- DELONG v. PHE, INC. — Memorandum Opinion (E.D. Pa.)
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