Tennessee Website Tracking, Privacy & Wiretap Litigation

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

Lawsuits, demand letters, tracked matters, and reported claims are counted separately and are not interchangeable. Last intelligence update: October 13, 2026.

Current Landscape

The supplied Tennessee materials identify one lawsuit and no demand letters. A separate tracked-matter count is zero; the relationship between that field and the lawsuit count is unclear. These figures describe the supplied dataset, not statewide litigation activity.

Jane Doe v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc. d/b/a Saint Francis Hospital-Memphis concerns allegations about Tenet Healthcare’s use of third-party tracking pixels on its web pages. According to the settlement website, qualifying individuals who visited relevant websites or accessed the patient portal between January 1, 2017, and September 18, 2023, may receive settlement benefits. Tenet Healthcare denies wrongdoing, and the court has not decided the merits. The parties have reached a proposed settlement, with final approval pending and a hearing scheduled for January 14, 2027. The supplied summary reports no standing determination or substantive holding.

The facts also list the Tennessee Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act and numerous technologies. They do not establish that the statute or every listed technology is involved in this lawsuit.

Current Litigation Activity

Current litigation component: 17/100.

Important New Filings

• Jane Doe v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc. d/b/a Saint Francis Hospital-Memphis

Current Filing & Litigation Trends

One reported lawsuit and no reported demand letters provide too little information to establish a filing trend, an increase in activity, or likely future claims. The identified case is in a proposed-settlement posture, with final approval pending. No filing dates or historical comparisons are supplied.

Precedent Landscape: What Courts Have Decided

Precedent component: 50/100. Litigation activity (volume) and precedential risk (authority of decisions) are measured separately — a high number of filings does not by itself indicate strong plaintiff-favorable binding precedent.

No decided precedent with a clear substantive direction is currently tracked.

A settlement is not a binding precedent, and a procedural dismissal (for example, for lack of standing) is not a holding that the underlying technology is lawful. Where courts disagree, that disagreement is reflected rather than resolved.

Current Laws & Relevant Statutes

• Tennessee Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act — Tenn. Code § 39-13-601 · private right of action · statutory damages

Regulatory Enforcement

Regulatory enforcement component: 0/100. Regulatory enforcement (agency investigations, sweeps, settlements, guidance, rulemaking) is tracked separately from private litigation and is never counted as a lawsuit.

No specific enforcement actions are itemized for this jurisdiction.

Agency Guidance

Regulatory trend: insufficient data.

Global Privacy Control / Opt-Out Signals

Limited data

GPC / universal opt-out exposure component: limited data — this component is excluded from the overall risk guideline for this jurisdiction until researched (remaining components are reweighted accordingly).

GPC / universal opt-out privacy rights are a different legal theory from wiretap / interception litigation, though both affect third-party website data flows.

Learn more about Global Privacy Control → · How GPC posture is weighted in the risk guideline →

Changes Coming in the Next 24 Months

Forward-looking (24-month) component: 0/100. Enacted changes with future effective dates may affect a jurisdiction's forward-looking risk, but are not presented as currently enforceable.

Coming Into Effect (Enacted)

No enacted future-effective laws identified in our latest research cycle.

Legislation to Watch (Pending)

No pending website-privacy legislation identified for this jurisdiction in our latest research cycle.

Important Cases & Tracked Matters

Technologies Appearing in Claims

• Third-party tracking pixels
• Facebook web-tracking tool
• Facebook tracking pixel
• Instagram
• Facebook
• Algorithmic feeds
• Age assurance
• Push notifications
• Beauty filters
• Visible like counts
• Meta Pixel
• Website video tracking
• Google Analytics
• Google Tag Manager
• persistent Google 'cid' identifier
• session-replay tools
• automated_decisionmaking
• artificial_intelligence
• algorithmic_bias
• biometrics
• telehealth
• location_data
• data_brokers
• social_media
• Global Privacy Control (GPC)

Historical Risk Guideline

What Businesses Should Review

Businesses may consider reviewing third-party tracking pixels on healthcare websites and patient portals, including their placement, the information transmitted, vendor configurations, and related disclosures. The supplied technology list can also serve as an inventory checklist for tools actually in use, but it should not be presented as evidence that each technology is implicated in the reported case. Any discussion of the proposed settlement should preserve the distinction between allegations, potential eligibility for benefits, pending approval, and the absence of a merits decision.

Data Quality

13 source(s), 4 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

• Salazar v. Paramount Global — Cornell Law School — Legal Information Institute · Tier C (Professional analysis)
• Salazar v. Paramount Global (25-459) — SCOTUSblog · Tier B (Authoritative secondary)
• Supreme Court VPPA Case Salazar v. Paramount: Argument Preview — Recording Law · Tier E (General web)
• Michael Salazar v. Paramount Global, dba 247Sports — Docket No. 25-459 — Supreme Court of the United States · Tier A (Primary authority)
• Utah Secures $12.2 Billion Settlement With Meta Over Child Safety Practices — Governor Spencer J. Cox · Tier A (Primary authority)
• Jane Doe v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc. — Tracking Pixel Settlement — Simpluris, Court-Appointed Settlement Administrator · Tier E (General web)
• SCOTUS to Resolve Circuit Split on VPPA “Consumer” Definition in Salazar V. Paramount Global — Electronic Privacy Information Center · Tier C (Professional analysis)
• Salazar v. Paramount Global — Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center · Tier B (Authoritative secondary)
• Salazar v. Paramount Global — Supreme Court Docket No. 25-459 — Supreme Court of the United States · Tier A (Primary authority)
• Michael Salazar v. Paramount Global, dba 247Sports — Supreme Court Docket No. 25-459 — Supreme Court of the United States · Tier A (Primary authority)
• Planned Parenthood Sued Over Website Trackers That Allegedly Sent Patient Booking Data to Google — OpenClassActions · Tier D (Industry data)
• U.S. Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Review and Outlook – 2025 — Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP · Tier E (General web)
• The US State Privacy Law Tracker for 2026: Twenty Laws, One Compliance Baseline — Consenteo · Tier C (Professional analysis)

All State Pages