CRANDALL CONSULTING
Home › Website Tracking Cases › Montana Strong, et al. v. LifeStance Health Group Incorporated

Montana Strong, et al. v. LifeStance Health Group Incorporated

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: October 13, 2026

United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Court
Federal
Jurisdiction
2025-10-06
Decision Date
Lawsuit
Matter Type

Docket / citation: CV-23-00682-PHX-KML

Risk scores, classifications, statistics, and technical findings are informational guidelines based on observed website behavior and publicly available litigation activity, statutes, court decisions, legal commentary, and other public sources. They are not legal advice, legal opinions, or determinations of liability.

Summary

The court-authorized notice describes a proposed settlement in a federal class action concerning LifeStance's alleged use of website pixels to collect and disclose patients' personally identifiable information to third parties. Court approval remains pending, with the final approval hearing scheduled for October 16, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. MT.

Litigation Status

Litigation pending
Current Status
Pending
Reported Outcome Direction
Settlement
Ruling Stage
Limited (stage- or fact-specific)
Precedential Weight

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

Proposed class action settlement awaiting court approval, with a final approval hearing scheduled for October 16, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. MT.

Reported Holding

The court denied preliminary settlement approval without prejudice because concerns about the proposed attorneys’ fees provisions prevented approval on the present record.

What the Court Decided

The motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement was denied without prejudice to renewal.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court has not yet decided whether to approve the proposed settlement; the excerpt reports no merits determination.

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 parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Facebook.

Statutes Invoked

No specific statutes have been identified in tracked sources for this matter.

Claims Asserted

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

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