In re CityMD Data Privacy Litigation

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

Docket / citation: Civil Action No. 24-6972 (JXN) (CLW) · Filed: 2024-06-12

Summary

New York residents brought a consolidated class action alleging that Summit Health Management, LLC, doing business as CityMD, disclosed patient information to third-party advertisers through website tracking technologies. The District of New Jersey denied the defendant's motion to transfer venue to the Eastern District of New York; the excerpt does not resolve the merits of the privacy or ECPA claims.

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

Opinion resolving Summit Health Management, LLC's motion to transfer venue to the Eastern District of New York, following consolidation and filing of a consolidated class action complaint.

Reported Holding

The court denied Summit Health's motion to transfer venue to the Eastern District of New York and stated that venue was proper in the District of New Jersey.

What the Court Decided

The court denied the defendant's venue-transfer motion.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The excerpt contains no merits ruling on the tracking-related claims; it presents the complaint's factual allegations as accepted as true for this motion.

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

• Meta Pixel
• Google Analytics
• Google DoubleClick
• LinkedIn Insight Tag
• Conversions API

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta Platforms, Inc., Alphabet Inc., LinkedIn Corporation.

Statutes Invoked

• Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1); New York General Business Law § 349; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The excerpt identifies the transfer provision as '18 U.S.C. 1404(a)'.

Claims Asserted

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

• Electronic Communications Privacy Act
• Breach of implied contract
• Negligence
• Breach of confidence
• Constructive bailment
• New York General Business Law § 349
• Invasion of privacy
• Unjust enrichment

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; 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

• In re CityMD Data Privacy Litigation — Opinion on Motion to Transfer Venue — U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (via Justia) · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2025-09-02

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.