Ward v. Mochi Health Corp.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: October 12, 2026

Docket / citation: 26-cv-01393-RFL

Summary

Ward alleges that third-party trackers or pixels on Mochi Health's website collected her sensitive health information. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, finding several privacy claims plausibly pleaded and concluding that later alleged collection events support timely CIPA claims despite some older incidents falling outside the limitations period.

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

Order granting in part and denying in part Mochi's motion to dismiss.

Reported Holding

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The excerpt finds standing sufficiently alleged and the Wiretap Act and CIPA Sections 631 and 632 claims plausibly pleaded. Some CIPA incidents fall outside the limitations period without adequately alleged tolling, but the CIPA claims remain timely based on later alleged collection events.

What the Court Decided

At the pleading stage, the court found sufficient allegations of injury, traceability, and standing for injunctive relief, and plausible Wiretap Act and CIPA Sections 631 and 632 claims. It rejected discovery-rule tolling for older CIPA incidents but concluded that later alleged collection events support timely claims.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The bounded excerpt does not disclose the disposition of every claim or establish liability, final judgment, class certification, or appellate status.

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-party website trackers
• Tracking pixels
• third-party trackers
• pixels

Statutes Invoked

• Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1); California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632, 638.51; California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Penal Code § 502; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340
• 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1); Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632, 638.51; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340

Claims Asserted

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

• Wiretap Act claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)
• CIPA wiretapping claim under Cal. Penal Code § 631
• CIPA eavesdropping and recording claim under Cal. Penal Code § 632
• CIPA pen-register and trap-and-trace claim under Cal. Penal Code § 638.51
• Breach of express contract
• Breach of implied contract
• Negligence
• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Bailment
• CDAFA claim under Cal. Penal Code § 502
• Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)
• CIPA wiretapping, Cal. Penal Code § 631
• CIPA eavesdropping and recording, Cal. Penal Code § 632
• CIPA pen-register and trap-and-trace, Cal. Penal Code § 638.51

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

• Ward v. Mochi Health Corp. — Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, via GovInfo · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-09-01

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.