Jane Doe v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc. d/b/a Saint Francis Hospital-Memphis
Summary
The settlement website describes a class action concerning Tenet Healthcare’s use of third-party tracking pixels on its web pages, with potential benefits for qualifying individuals who visited its websites or accessed its patient portal between January 1, 2017, and September 18, 2023. Tenet Healthcare denies wrongdoing, and the Court has not decided the merits. The parties have reached a proposed settlement, with final approval still pending and a hearing scheduled for January 14, 2027.
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
A proposed class action settlement has been reached, subject to court approval. The final approval hearing is scheduled for January 14, 2027, at 10:00 a.m. CT. The opt-out and objection deadlines are November 27, 2026, and the claim deadline is March 15, 2027.
What the Court Decided
The page reports no merits decision or final settlement approval.
What the Court Did Not Decide
The Court has not decided who is right and has not yet approved the proposed settlement.
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
- Third-party tracking pixels
Statutes Invoked
No specific statutes have been identified in tracked sources for this matter.
Claims Asserted
- Alleged privacy-law claims concerning third-party tracking pixels on Tenet Healthcare web pages; specific statutes are not identified.
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. 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
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