Florida Website Tracking, Privacy & Wiretap Litigation
Current Landscape
The supplied Florida dataset lists eight lawsuits involving website tracking and related privacy claims, including claims under the Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA). It separately lists zero demand letters and zero tracked matters; those fields do not establish the total volume of Florida litigation. The case summaries concern healthcare, retail, veterinary-commerce, and educational websites. Plaintiffs allege that embedded third-party tools captured or disclosed website communications or personal information without consent. These allegations are not established findings of liability.
A Robinson+Cole blog reports that a 2025 decision in W.W. v. Orlando Health found allegations concerning the capture of substantive healthcare communications sufficient to plead interception under the FSCA. That is a pleading-stage determination, not a merits judgment. A separate October 1, 2025 motion sought class certification; the supplied excerpt does not establish whether certification was granted. In Mika v. Rollins College, the court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice as a shotgun pleading and for failure to state plausible claims, allowing another amendment. The supplied facts do not establish the subsequent outcome or identify a standing ruling.
Settlement outcomes also differ. European Wax Center reportedly agreed to a $5 million settlement without admitting wrongdoing, but the source does not confirm final approval. Grubor v. Barefoot Dreams describes a proposed settlement without confirmation of final approval, while Juliette Blatt v. Barefoot Dreams reports an approved settlement and dismissal with prejudice, subject to vacatur if the settlement's Effective Date does not occur. The relationship between those Barefoot Dreams entries is not established. The WISP settlement website lists benefits and a scheduled final approval hearing, but the supplied facts do not report the hearing's outcome. Cobbs v. PetMed reports termination followed by an appeal without establishing a substantive result.
Current Litigation Activity
Important New Filings
- Cumor, Dunn v. European Wax Center Inc.
- Grubor, et al. v. Barefoot Dreams, Inc.
- Cobbs v. PetMed Express, Inc.
- Juliette Blatt, et al. v. Barefoot Dreams, Inc.
- Sophin v. WISP, Inc.
Current Filing & Litigation Trends
The dataset records eight lawsuits, but it supplies no consistent filing-date series from which to measure growth or a filing rate. A Robinson+Cole blog attributes hundreds of similar small-claims FSCA claims to the reported Orlando Health decision; that is a source-reported trend, not a count independently established by this dataset. The summaries show a mix of pleading motions, a class-certification request, settlements, and an appeal. They do not establish a uniform outcome or a case-level pattern involving every technology listed in the dataset.
Precedent Landscape: What Courts Have Decided
No decided precedent with a clear substantive direction is currently tracked.
Current Laws & Relevant Statutes
- Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA) — Fla. Stat. § 934.01 et seq. · all-party consent · private right of action · statutory damages
Regulatory Enforcement
Agency Guidance
Global Privacy Control / Opt-Out Signals
Limited data
| Applicability | The post does not provide a government or statutory source tying GPC to FSCA compliance; it focuses on FSCA claims about interception and consent rather than global privacy controls. |
|---|---|
| Universal opt-out requirement | No |
| Recognized mechanisms | click-wrap, browser-wrap (discussed) |
Article is a practitioner summary and does not identify specific regulatory or statutory GPC requirements.
Learn more about Global Privacy Control → · How GPC posture is weighted in the risk guideline →
Changes Coming in the Next 24 Months
Coming Into Effect (Enacted)
Legislation to Watch (Pending)
- Calls for updating the Florida Security of Communications Act
Important Cases & Tracked Matters
W.W. v. Orlando Health
What the court decided: Judge Julie S. Sneed issued an order dismissing the action following the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal.
What the court did not decide: The excerpt contains plaintiff's motion, not a court ruling; it provides no decision on certification or liability.
Cumor, Dunn v. European Wax Center Inc.
Top Class Actions reports that European Wax Center agreed to a $5 million settlement of a Florida state-court class action alleging collection and sharing of website visitors' information through tracking pixels without consent; the company did not admit wrongdoing. The article identifies a June 30, 2026 claim deadline and a July 15, 2026 scheduled final approval hearing, but does not report a final approval decision despite labeling the settlement closed.
Grubor, et al. v. Barefoot Dreams, Inc.
What the court decided: The website reports final settlement approval on September 26, 2026.
What the court did not decide: The FAQ states that the court has not decided in favor of either party.
Cobbs v. PetMed Express, Inc.
What the court decided: According to the source, discovery showed that neither named plaintiff established a concrete privacy injury sufficient for Article III standing. The court denied class certification and dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
What the court did not decide: The source does not establish which substantive issues were decided or left unresolved.
Juliette Blatt, et al. v. Barefoot Dreams, Inc.
What the court decided: The court approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate and certified a settlement class.
What the court did not decide: Did not determine underlying liability; the order expressly disclaims any admission of liability or validity of claims.
W.W. v. Orlando Health, Inc., No. 6-24-cv-1068-JSS-RMU
What the court decided: 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 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.
Patrick J. Mika v. Rollins College
What the court decided: The court granted Defendant Rollins College's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, finding the amended complaint constituted a shotgun pleading and failed to state plausible claims on multiple counts. The amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint by April 10, 2026, subject to the limitations described in the order.
What the court did not decide: The court did not rule on the merits of Plaintiff's underlying substantive claims (Title IX, Rehabilitation Act, ADA, wiretap and state privacy claims, contract/tort claims) because dismissal was procedural for pleading deficiencies; the order did not resolve factual disputes or adjudicate the substantive liability of the defendant.
Sophin v. WISP, Inc.
This is the court-authorized settlement website for Sophin v. WISP, Inc., a class action pending in Broward County, Florida. The settlement resolves claims alleging that WISP disclosed customers' PII via the Meta Pixel and other tracking technologies and provides an $18.00 cash payment to eligible class members who purchased products on hellowisp.com between February 1, 2018 and September 9, 2025. Deadlines for claims, exclusion, and objections were July 13, 2026 and a Final Approval Hearing was scheduled for August 5, 2026.
What the court did not decide: The page states the Defendant denies the Plaintiff's claims and that the settlement was reached to avoid expense and uncertainty; it does not state that the court made any merits adjudication resolving the underlying allegations.
Technologies Appearing in Claims
- 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
Historical Risk Guideline
| Date | Risk Guideline | Level | Confidence | Tracked Lawsuits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| October 9, 2026 | 54 | Elevated | 96% | 5 |
| October 11, 2026 | 54 | Elevated | 96% | 5 |
| October 11, 2026 | 59 | Elevated | 96% | 7 |
| October 12, 2026 | 63 | High | 96% | 7 |
| October 12, 2026 | 63 | High | 96% | 7 |
| October 12, 2026 | 63 | High | 96% | 7 |
| October 12, 2026 | 63 | High | 96% | 7 |
| October 12, 2026 | 63 | High | 96% | 7 |
| October 12, 2026 | 63 | High | 96% | 7 |
| October 13, 2026 | 68 | High | 96% | 8 |
| October 13, 2026 | 68 | High | 96% | 8 |
| October 13, 2026 | 68 | High | 96% | 8 |
What Businesses Should Review
Businesses may want to inventory website forms, pixels, analytics, chat widgets, session replay tools, and other third-party integrations. Review what information each tool receives, when transmission occurs, which vendors receive it, and whether user-entered or sensitive information is included. Consent workflows, disclosures, tag settings on healthcare or other sensitive pages, and separation of analytics from sensitive submission flows may also warrant review. The broader technology list is an inventory aid, not confirmation that each technology was identified in a particular case. Any public description of these matters should verify later docket developments before presenting scheduled hearings, proposed settlements, amendments, or appeals as completed outcomes.
Data Quality
58 source(s), 13 primary; evidence is fresh.
Methodology & Limitations
Statistics on this page are generated by the Crandall Consulting litigation intelligence engine. Publicly available sources (court and government materials, recognized legal press, professional analysis, and industry reports) are discovered through automated web research, classified into a tiered source hierarchy, and reduced to structured facts with full source provenance. Risk guidelines and evidence-confidence scores are computed by a deterministic formula from those stored facts — never by an AI model directly (AI explains findings; it never assigns a score). Counts labeled "tracked" reflect matters identified in our source set and are not official court statistics.
The overall risk guideline is composed of six deterministically weighted components: statutory structure (25%), current litigation activity (25%), prior precedent (18%), GPC / universal opt-out posture (15%), regulatory enforcement (9%), and the forward-looking 24-month horizon (8%). When a state's GPC status is limited data, that component is excluded and the remaining weights are renormalized — limited data never reads as lower exposure. Current litigation activity is measured over recent windows (velocity), not lifetime volume, so a jurisdiction with high historical activity but declining current filings reflects that decline. Litigation activity (volume) and precedential risk (authority of decisions) are measured separately. Full details are on the methodology page.
Sources
- Heredia Crespi et al. v. BayCare Health System, Inc. — Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss
- WW v. Orlando Health, Inc. - Order / filing discussing Meta (Facebook) pixel on website
- $5M European Wax Center privacy class action settlement
- CVS settles class action Web Tracker Privacy lawsuit for $20.5M!
- Still Tracking, Still Suing: Website Privacy Litigation After SB 690
- Grubor, et al., v. Barefoot Dreams, Inc. — Frequently Asked Questions
- Orlando Health Patient Drops Lawsuit Over Website Tracking Tools
- California Enacts SB 690, But Website Tracking Litigation Is Far from Over
- Kueppers et al. v. Zumba Fitness, LLC — Order Granting Class Certification
- Cobbs v. PetMed Express, Inc.
- Grubor, et al., v. Barefoot Dreams, Inc. — Official Settlement Website
- Orlando Health Patient Drops Lawsuit Over Website Tracking Tools
- Grubor, et al. v. Barefoot Dreams, Inc. — Final Approval Order
- Letting the Cat Out of the Bag: Named Plaintiffs’ Own Conduct Defeats Privacy Claims
- Website Tracking Lawsuit Against Retailer Dismissed for Lack of Standing: What California Ruling Means for Your Business
- Still Tracking, Still Suing: Website Privacy Litigation After SB 690
- Client Alert: Two Businesses Go on the Offensive Against Vivek Shah’s Nationwide CIPA Demand Letter Campaign
- Session replay lawsuits, explained for site owners
- When One Statute Closes, Another Opens: How CIPA Plaintiffs Are Shifting to the Wiretap Act, VPPA, and Florida's FSCA
- Beyond CIPA: SB 690 Clears the Legislature: What the Pen Register Fix Does — and Where the Claims Go Next
- One Claim Down? California's SB 690 Would End Private Website Pen Register Suits
- Website Tracking Litigation Cases — Tracked Matters
- Deidun v. Humana, Inc — Lawsuit Complaint (Document #1 Filed 01/23/2026)
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) & Website Tracking
- Key Areas to Watch as Website Technology Litigation Continues to Surge
All State Pages
Is Your Website Creating Hidden Tracking Risk?
Scan your site for third-party tracking and potential wiretap exposure. Free, no account required.
Scan My Website