Mohr, et al. v. The Trustees of The University of Pennsylvania as Owner and Operator of The University of Pennsylvania Health System (d/b/a Penn Medicine)
Summary
Top Class Actions reports that UPHS agreed to a $9.25 million settlement of a Pennsylvania class action alleging that website tracking pixels shared patient information with third parties without consent; UPHS admitted no wrongdoing. The agreement provides cash benefits and website governance changes, with a final approval hearing scheduled for November 12, 2026.
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
Reported settlement agreement with a final approval hearing scheduled for November 12, 2026. Although the page labels the settlement closed, the excerpt does not establish final court approval.
What the Court Did Not Decide
The excerpt reports no court determination of liability or final settlement approval.
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
- tracking pixels
- analytics technologies
- advertising technologies
Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta, Google.
Statutes Invoked
No specific statutes have been identified in tracked sources for this matter.
Claims Asserted
- Alleged breaches of Pennsylvania privacy laws through sharing patient information without consent
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.
The reported outcome direction at the settlement stage reflects how tracked sources characterize the ruling; such rulings are often narrow, posture-specific, and fact-bound rather than broad statements of law.
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