OLIVER v. NOOM, INC.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: August 23, 2026

Docket / citation: 2:2022cv01857

Summary

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted Noom's renewed motion to dismiss because the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a concrete Article III injury from the asserted interception by session-replay code. The court dismissed the WESCA claim without prejudice and had previously dismissed the intrusion-upon-seclusion claim.

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

Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging WESCA and invasion-of-privacy claims. The court previously granted in part and denied in part Noom's motion to dismiss, dismissed the intrusion-upon-seclusion claim, and allowed jurisdictional discovery. After jurisdictional discovery, Noom filed a renewed motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Article III standing); the court granted that renewed motion and dismissed the WESCA claim without prejudice.

Reported Holding

The district court held that Plaintiff Ariel Oliver failed to plead a concrete, Article III injury in fact from the alleged interception by session-replay code and therefore lacked standing; the court granted Defendant Noom, Inc.'s renewed motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the WESCA claim without prejudice.

What the Court Decided

The court granted Noom's renewed motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing and dismissed the remaining WESCA claim without prejudice. The court previously had dismissed the intrusion-upon-seclusion claim and did not reach the merits of the WESCA claim.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not decide the merits of whether Noom's use of session-replay software violated WESCA, did not award damages, and did not resolve class certification or other merits issues because it concluded it lacked jurisdiction.

Significance

Generally viewed as defense-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

• session replay
• session replay software (FullStory)

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: FullStory, Noom, Inc..

Statutes Invoked

• 18 Pa. C.S. § 5701 et seq. (Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act - WESCA) — all-party consent · private right of action

Claims Asserted

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

• Violation of Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA), 18 Pa. C.S. § 5701 et seq.
• Pennsylvania common law invasion of privacy - intrusion upon seclusion

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA) is an all-party consent statute with a private right of action. Consent standard and private enforceability are the structural features that most shape where website tracking claims are filed and how they are valued.

For operators using similar technologies, the recurring factual questions in matters like this one are when session recording begins relative to consent and whether input masking covers every field. Our scanner tests these behaviors empirically.

The reported outcome direction at the standing 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

• OLIVER v. NOOM, INC., No. 2:2022cv01857 - Document 69 (W.D. Pa. 2026) — Justia · Tier B (Authoritative secondary) · 2026-07-10

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.