M.G. v. Therapymatch, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Therapymatch, Inc.’s motion to dismiss M.G.’s third amended complaint in a data privacy action. The court held that the complaint plausibly alleged violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and that Therapymatch was barred under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g)(2) from again challenging the California Consumer Privacy Act claim.

Holdings

1. M.G. plausibly alleged that the information he entered into Headway's platform was medical information because it included substantive information about his symptoms, mental-health issues, treatment sought, and reasons for seeking treatment, combined with individually identifiable information.
2. M.G. plausibly alleged that Google viewed or otherwise accessed his medical information by collecting and using it for advertising, analytics, and content personalization.
3. Rule 12(g)(2) barred Headway from bringing a second motion to dismiss challenging the CCPA claim because the objection was available in its earlier motion and Headway did not establish a basis for discretionary consideration of the barred motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the third amended complaint plausibly alleged that information M.G. provided through Headway's platform constituted medical information under the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.
2. Whether the third amended complaint plausibly alleged that Google viewed or otherwise accessed M.G.'s medical information without authorization, as required for a CMIA claim.
3. Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g)(2) barred Headway from renewing its motion to dismiss the California Consumer Privacy Act claim when the objection was available in an earlier motion.

Disposition

other