W.W. v. Orlando Health

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: August 30, 2026

Docket / citation: 6:24-cv-1068-JSS-RMN

Summary

A Wiley Rein alert describes a surge in litigation alleging that common website technologies (cookies, analytics, pixels, chat, etc.) give rise to claims under pre‑internet state wiretap statutes such as California's CIPA and Florida's FSCA. The alert cites specific court actions: a March 6, 2025 M.D. Fla. order denying in part a motion to dismiss under the FSCA and a Jan. 7, 2026 N.D. Cal. order transferring a case to E.D. Va. based on a forum‑selection clause.

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

At pleading stage: motion to dismiss denied in part in W.W.; separate matter transferred from N.D. Cal. to E.D. Va. on motion to transfer based on forum selection clause.

Reported Holding

The alert reports that in W.W. v. Orlando Health, a Middle District of Florida court determined the plaintiff sufficiently alleged interception of the contents of electronic communications under the FSCA and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss. The alert also reports that in Shah v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, the Northern District of California granted a motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Virginia based on a forum‑selection clause.

What the Court Decided

M.D. Fla. denied in part a motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiff's allegations sufficient to state an interception claim under the FSCA (reported March 6, 2025). N.D. Cal. granted a motion to transfer Shah v. Hilton to the E.D. Va. based on a forum selection clause (order dated Jan. 7, 2026).

What the Court Did Not Decide

The courts did not resolve the merits of the underlying interception allegations; decisions described concern pleading-stage rulings and a transfer motion rather than final merits determinations.

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

• chatbots
• tracking pixels
• session replay tools
• website tracking tools
• chat widgets
• customer data platforms
• ad retargeting scripts
• website analytics
• tracking_pixels
• session_replay_tools
• website_tracking_tools
• online_forms
• pixel tracking (Meta Pixel)
• Google Analytics 4 (GA4)
• Floodlight
• third-party ad retargeting scripts
• third-party tracking scripts
• cookies
• third-party analytics
• social media pixels
• web beacons
• chat features

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta Pixel, TikTok Pixel, Floodlight, LinkedIn Insight Tag, GA4.

Statutes Invoked

• Florida Statutes 934.03
• Fla. Stat. § 934 (including §§ 934.03, 934.10, 934.31)
• Florida Statutes § 934.03
• Fla. Stat. § 934.10; Fla. Stat. § 934.31; Fla. Stat. § 934.03
• Cal. Penal Code 630-638; Cal. Penal Code § 638.51; 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 (Fla. Stat. § 934) - wiretapping/interception
• Pen register/trap-and-trace theory (Fla. Stat. § 934.31) as applied to website analytics and pixels
• interception_of_communications_under_FSCA
• recording_without_all-party_consent
• statutory_and_actual_damages_under_FSCA
• Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA) wiretapping/interception
• claims treating trackers as pen registers/trap-and-trace
• state wiretap/wiretapping/interception claims
• claims under California Penal Code (CIPA)
• claims under the Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA)
• privacy/data collection claims related to website technologies

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 when session recording begins relative to consent and whether input masking covers every field; whether chat transcripts or typing previews transit a vendor's servers before the visitor presses send; 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.

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

• CHATBOTS AND WEBSITE TRACKING TECHNOLOGIES: CONSIDERATIONS UNDER FLORIDA’S SECURITY OF COMMUNICATIONS ACT — Berger Singerman · Tier B (Authoritative secondary) · 2026-03-31
• Chatbots and Website Tracking Technologies: Considerations Under Florida’s Security of Communications Act — Berger Singerman LLP · Tier C (Professional analysis) · 2026-03-31
• Key Areas to Watch as Website Technology Litigation Continues to Surge — Wiley Rein LLP · Tier C (Professional analysis) · March 3, 2026
• Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA) - The Wiretapping Law — Enzuzo · Tier E (General web) · 2026-05-13
• Received a Florida FSCA Wiretapping Demand Letter? Read This First — Enzuzo (blog) · Tier E (General web) · 2026-04-22

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.