W.W. v. Orlando Health

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

Docket / citation: 6:24-cv-01068-JSS-RMN · Filed: 2025-10-01

Summary

In a motion filed October 1, 2025, plaintiff W.W. seeks certification of nationwide and Florida classes in litigation against Orlando Health concerning appointment-request forms on OrlandoHealth.com. Plaintiff alleges that Meta Pixel, Google Analytics, and related tracking tools captured and disclosed sensitive patient communications without consent; the excerpt contains no court ruling on those allegations or class certification.

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 Document 52 seeking class certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(3), and (g), appointment as class representative, and appointment of class counsel. The filing date identifies this motion, not the original complaint.

Reported Holding

Judge Julie S. Sneed issued an order dismissing the action following the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal.

What the Court Decided

The court dismissed the action on February 13, 2026. The excerpt also reports that the court previously allowed most claims to survive Orlando Health's motion to dismiss.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The excerpt contains plaintiff's motion, not a court ruling; it provides no decision on certification or 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

• 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
• Website tracking tools
• Meta Pixel
• Google Analytics

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

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
• Alleged disclosure of patients' personal information to Meta Platforms Inc. and Google LLC without consent under federal and state privacy law
• Alleged disclosure of patients' personal information without consent under federal and state privacy law
• Alleged interception and disclosure of sensitive appointment-request communications without consent
• Alleged patient-privacy claims involving protected health information

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.

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

• WW v. Orlando Health, Inc. - Order / filing discussing Meta (Facebook) pixel on website — PACERMonitor · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2025-10-01
• CHATBOTS AND WEBSITE TRACKING TECHNOLOGIES: CONSIDERATIONS UNDER FLORIDA’S SECURITY OF COMMUNICATIONS ACT — Berger Singerman · Tier B (Authoritative secondary) · 2026-03-31
• Orlando Health Patient Drops Lawsuit Over Website Tracking Tools — Bloomberg Law · Tier B (Authoritative secondary) · 2026-02-17
• Orlando Health Patient Drops Lawsuit Over Website Tracking Tools — Bloomberg Law · Tier B (Authoritative secondary) · 2026-02-17
• 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.