Doe v. Children's Hospital Corporation

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: August 23, 2026

Docket / citation: No. 25-cv-10343-PBS

Summary

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Boston Children’s motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that website tracking technologies (provided by Google and Facebook/Meta) intercepted communications in violation of the ECPA and multiple state-law claims. The court concluded the complaint plausibly alleges an ECPA claim under the crime‑tort exception and that the state-law claims survive dismissal; it did not resolve the merits.

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

Defendant filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the second amended complaint; after briefing and hearing, the court entered an order denying the motion.

Reported Holding

The district court denied Defendant Boston Children’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, concluding that Plaintiff stated a plausible claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) under the crime-tort exception and that the plaintiff's state-law claims also survive the motion to dismiss.

What the Court Decided

The court denied the hospital's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (Dkt. 63), finding that the complaint plausibly alleges intentional interception of electronic communications under the ECPA and that the crime‑tort exception could apply; the court also concluded the state-law claims survive dismissal.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not resolve the merits of the underlying ECPA or state-law claims, nor did it decide factual questions about the hospital's motives (e.g., whether the hospital was primarily motivated by lawful marketing/analytics or by an independent intent to commit a tort).

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

• website tracking technologies
• online patient portal tracking
• targeted advertising

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Google, Facebook (Meta).

Statutes Invoked

• 18 U.S.C. § 2511; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, § 1B

Claims Asserted

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

• Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) - interception claim
• Massachusetts statutory right to privacy (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, § 1B)
• breach of fiduciary duty
• negligence
• breach of confidence
• breach of contract
• unjust enrichment

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

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. Children's Hospital Corporation — ORDER on Motion to Dismiss (District of Massachusetts) — Justia Dockets & Filings · Tier A (Primary authority) · July 1, 2026

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.