Wehrle v. McLaren Health Care Corporation

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

Docket / citation: 25-cv-11420 · Filed: 2025-05-14

Summary

Sourcepoint reports that the Michigan court in Wehrle v. McLaren Health Care Corp allowed patients’ federal Wiretap Act and unjust-enrichment claims concerning alleged website disclosures of identifiable health information to proceed to discovery, while dismissing their remaining common-law claims. The judge described the conclusion as provisional and subject to reconsideration at summary judgment; the excerpt also reports an opposite federal-claim result in a Pennsylvania brokerage case without identifying that case.

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

Putative patient class action proceeding to discovery on the federal Wiretap Act and unjust-enrichment claims following dismissal of the remaining common-law claims.

Reported Holding

The source reports that the Michigan court allowed the federal Wiretap Act claim to proceed after applying both approaches to the criminal-or-tortious-purpose exception to one-party consent. The court indicated it would revisit its conclusion at summary judgment.

What the Court Decided

The Wiretap Act and unjust-enrichment claims could proceed to discovery, while the remaining common-law claims were dismissed.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not finally resolve the Wiretap Act claim; the source states that the judge would revisit the conclusion at summary judgment.

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

• Meta Pixel
• Google Analytics
• Google Tag Manager
• LinkedIn Insight Tag
• Cookies

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta, Google, LinkedIn.

Statutes Invoked

• ECPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2511; HIPAA, 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6
• Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511; HIPAA, 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6
• Federal Wiretap Act; HIPAA

Claims Asserted

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

• Breach of fiduciary duty
• ECPA
• Intrusion upon seclusion
• Breach of implied contract
• Unjust enrichment
• Negligence
• Electronic Communications Privacy Act
• Federal Wiretap Act
• Other common-law claims (not specified)

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; 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

• Wehrle v. McLaren Health Care Corporation — Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, via Justia · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-09-15
• Wehrle v. McLaren Health Care Corporation — Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (via Justia) · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-09-15
• Wehrle v. McLaren Health Care Corporation — Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, via Justia · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-09-15
• Michigan Court Lets Patients’ Federal Wiretap Act Claim Over Website Tracking Proceed as Pennsylvania Court Reaches the Opposite Result — Sourcepoint · Tier D (Industry data) · 2026-09-22

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.