John Doe v. SSM Health Care Corporation
Summary
John Doe filed a putative class action alleging that SSM’s MyChart portal transmitted personal health information to third-party marketing services through Meta Pixel. The Eighth Circuit affirmed remand to Missouri state court after the district court rejected federal officer and CAFA removal; the excerpt provides the appellate federal officer analysis but only the beginning of its CAFA discussion.
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
SSM appealed an order remanding a removed putative class action to Missouri state court.
Reported Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed remand to Missouri state court. It held that creating a private patient portal and receiving federal incentives did not establish the federal officer removal requirement of acting under a federal officer. The excerpt announces affirmance of the order rejecting both removal grounds but ends before the appellate CAFA analysis is complete.
What the Court Decided
The court affirmed the district court’s remand order rejecting federal officer and CAFA removal.
What the Court Did Not Decide
The excerpt contains no merits determination on the alleged sharing of health information or the underlying state-law claims.
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
- MyChart patient portal
- Meta Pixel
Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta / Facebook.
Statutes Invoked
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402(1); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.095; 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)
Claims Asserted
- Missouri Wiretap Statute
- Missouri Computer Tampering Act
- Breach of contract
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.
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