W.W. v. Orlando Health, Inc., No. 6-24-cv-1068-JSS-RMU

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

Docket / citation: No. 6-24-cv-1068-JSS-RMU

Summary

A Robinson+Cole blog post reports a 2025 Middle District of Florida decision (W.W. v. Orlando Health) that found allegations that website tracking tools captured substantive healthcare communications sufficiently alleged interception under the Florida Security of Communications Act. The article says that decision has spurred hundreds of similar FSCA claims in small claims court and may signal more surviving pleadings in Florida federal courts.

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

Decision at motion-to-dismiss stage: the court concluded the complaint adequately alleged FSCA interception claims and did not dismiss those claims at that stage.

Reported Holding

The district court held at the motion-to-dismiss stage that the plaintiff adequately alleged interception of contents under the FSCA based on allegations that third-party pixels captured and transmitted substantive healthcare communications (e.g., health conditions, desired treatment, preferred doctors), and cited legislative intent to protect private medical information.

What the Court Decided

That the complaint sufficiently alleged interception of the contents of communications under the FSCA such that the claim could survive a motion to dismiss.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not resolve factual issues about whether the tracking tools in fact intercepted and transmitted the plaintiff's communications on the merits, nor did it decide damages or final liability.

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

• third-party pixels
• website analytics
• advertising tools
• website tracking technology

Statutes Invoked

• Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA) — all-party consent · private right of action

Claims Asserted

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

• Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA) – interception/wiretap-style claim
• Statutory liquidated damages under FSCA (up to $1,000 per violation) as alleged in complaint

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA) 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 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 pleading 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

• New Trend under Florida’s Wiretap Statute: Websites with Tracking Technology Beware — Data Privacy + Cybersecurity Insider (Law.com) · Tier C (Professional analysis) · 2026-02-05

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.