Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc.

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

Docket / citation: N24C-09-002 FJJ

Summary

Three anonymous patients brought a putative class action alleging that Bayhealth's website trackers collected private health information and disclosed it to Facebook, Google, and Microsoft for targeted advertising. On April 4, 2025, the Delaware Superior Court granted in part and denied in part Bayhealth's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The excerpt provides allegations and procedural background but does not identify the claims affected or the reasoning for the mixed ruling.

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

Amended opinion and order on defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended complaint, submitted March 10, 2025.

Reported Holding

The court granted in part and denied in part Bayhealth's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The excerpt does not identify which claims were dismissed or retained or provide the court's reasoning.

What the Court Decided

Bayhealth's motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The excerpt does not establish a final determination of liability, class certification, or the truth of plaintiffs' tracking and disclosure allegations.

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

• Meta Pixel
• Facebook Conversions Application Programming Interface (CAPI)
• Google Tag Manager (GTM)
• Microsoft Universal Events
• Microsoft Clarity
• Cookie identifiers
• Website page-view, click, search, and form-submission tracking

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Facebook/Meta, Google, Microsoft.

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.

• Alleged unauthorized collection and disclosure of private health information through website tracking technologies

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

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

• Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. — Amended Opinion and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss — Superior Court of Delaware · Tier A (Primary authority)

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.