Web browsing tracking doesn't violate Massachusetts wiretap law, court rules
By Nate Raymond
Oct 24 (Reuters) -Massachusetts' top court on Thursday held that a 1960s law prohibiting eavesdropping on phone calls does not bar website operators from collecting users' browsing activities without their consent using analytics tools including ones produced by Meta PlatformsMETA.O and Alphabet's GOOGL.O Google.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on a 5-1 vote ruled in favor of two hospitals seeking to dismiss proposed class action lawsuits alleging they violated the privacy of users of their websites by holding that the state's wiretap statute did not cover the tracking of a person's web browsing.
The lawsuits were being closely watched by business groups, which had warned of the risk of exposing thousands of commercial website operators to liability for using popular website analytics tools like Google Analytics and Meta Pixel.
Justice Scott Kafker, writing for the majority, said that when Massachusetts Wiretap Act was enacted, "wiretaps involved the interception of person-to-person conversations and messages using hidden electronic surveillance devices placed in people's homes or businesses or tapping their telephone lines."
He said the law was expansive enough to prohibit eavesdropping on more modern means of communication, including text messages, internet chats and e-mails messages than what the legislature could have imagined in 1968.
But Kafker said the browsing tracking activities that occur when someone uses the websites of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and New England Baptist Hospital do not involve person-to-person conversations the law clearly intended to protect.
"If the Legislature intends for the wiretap act's criminal and civil penalties to prohibit the tracking of a person's browsing of, and interaction with, published information on websites, it must say so expressly," Kafker wrote.
The lawsuits were filed in 2023 by the same lead plaintiff, Kathleen Vita, who said she regularly visited both hospitals' websites and that they illegally transmitted users' browsing activities to Google and Meta without her permission.
The hospitals said those lawsuits would have exposed them to "massive" damages if allowed to proceed based on the financial penalties in the law. A website with just 1,000 unique visitors per day would face at least $36 million in damages per year over a three-year statute-of-limitations period under Vita's legal theory, they said.
Lawyers for the hospitals and Vita did not respond to requests for comment.
Hundreds of similar cases have been filed nationally, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in an amicus brief had expressed concern that the Massachusetts' court could buck a trend in which courts in other states had tossed such cases.
In Massachusetts, the first such case, against the healthcare system now called Mass General Brigham, settled for $18.4 million in 2022. At least 24 other cases have been filed in Massachusetts since then, including the two decided Thursday.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt said the hospitals at issue understood their websites were a means to communicate privately with patients yet aided third parties to record their healthcare information.
"The court decides that the wiretap act provides no recourse despite its prohibition on surreptitious electronic surveillance by private parties," she wrote. "Lamentably, the court is right about one thing; the Legislature will need to correct today's error."
The case is Kathleen Vita v. New England Baptist Hospital, et al, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, No. SJC-13542.
For the plaintiffs: Patrick Vallely of Shapiro Haber & Urmy
For the hospitals: David Gacioch of McDermott Will & Emery
Read more:
Massachusetts top court considers allowing website tracking class actions
Biden-era policy against hospital web trackers unlawful, judge rules
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston
免责声明: XM Group仅提供在线交易平台的执行服务和访问权限，并允许个人查看和/或使用网站或网站所提供的内容，但无意进行任何更改或扩展，也不会更改或扩展其服务和访问权限。所有访问和使用权限，将受下列条款与条例约束：(i) 条款与条例；(ii) 风险提示；以及(iii) 完整免责声明。请注意，网站所提供的所有讯息，仅限一般资讯用途。此外，XM所有在线交易平台的内容并不构成，也不能被用于任何未经授权的金融市场交易邀约和/或邀请。金融市场交易对于您的投资资本含有重大风险。
所有在线交易平台所发布的资料，仅适用于教育/资讯类用途，不包含也不应被视为用于金融、投资税或交易相关咨询和建议，或是交易价格纪录，或是任何金融商品或非应邀途径的金融相关优惠的交易邀约或邀请。
本网站上由XM和第三方供应商所提供的所有内容，包括意见、新闻、研究、分析、价格、其他资讯和第三方网站链接，皆保持不变，并作为一般市场评论所提供，而非投资性建议。所有在线交易平台所发布的资料，仅适用于教育/资讯类用途，不包含也不应被视为适用于金融、投资税或交易相关咨询和建议，或是交易价格纪录，或是任何金融商品或非应邀途径的金融相关优惠的交易邀约或邀请。请确保您已阅读并完全理解，XM非独立投资研究提示和风险提示相关资讯，更多详情请点击 这里。
