For years, the debate over healthcare website tracking technologies has centered on pixels, cookies, and data flows. A new case before the Seventh Circuit shifts the focus to something more fundamental: intent. In supporting Edward-Elmhurst Health, the American Hospital Association is urging the court to distinguish between technologies used to improve digital services and technologies deployed for unlawful purposes — a distinction that could reshape how tracking technology claims are evaluated across the healthcare industry.
The legal debate over intent in healthcare website tracking lawsuits
The American Hospital Association’s recent amicus brief in Stein v. Edward-Elmhurst Health may prove to be one of the more consequential filings in the ongoing wave of healthcare website tracking litigation. On its face, the appeal concerns a narrow legal issue under the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). In practice, however, it raises a broader question that courts, regulators, and healthcare organizations have been grappling with for years: when does the use of ordinary website analytics become evidence of unlawful intent?
The case arises from allegations that Edward-Elmhurst Health used technologies such as Meta Pixel, Facebook Conversion API, and Google Analytics on its public-facing website. Plaintiffs argue that the hospital’s use of those tools supports an ECPA claim because information was allegedly transmitted to third parties. The district court allowed the claim to proceed, finding that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged conduct falling within ECPA’s crime-tort exception.
The AHA’s position is that this approach conflates the existence of analytics technologies with the purpose behind their use. In its view, the critical inquiry is not whether a hospital used tracking tools, but whether it did so for the purpose of committing a crime or tort. The brief argues that hospitals deploy these technologies for numerous lawful reasons, including improving website functionality, understanding how users navigate health information, enhancing accessibility, measuring outreach effectiveness, and responding to community health needs. If those purposes are plausibly alleged on the face of a complaint, AHA contends that courts should not infer criminal or tortious intent merely because the organization also derives operational or marketing benefits from the data.
That distinction matters far beyond this case.
For the past several years, healthcare organizations have found themselves caught between competing expectations. Patients expect healthcare websites to function like modern digital platforms: searchable, intuitive, personalized, multilingual, and responsive. Public health leaders have simultaneously encouraged providers to use digital channels to combat misinformation and make reliable health information more accessible. Yet the technologies commonly used to measure whether those efforts are working have increasingly become the basis for privacy and wiretapping litigation.
The AHA’s brief highlights the scale of that trend, noting that nearly 300 healthcare-related tracking lawsuits have been filed since 2022 and that more than 120 have been filed within the Seventh Circuit alone. It also emphasizes that similar analytics technologies are used across industries, including on federal government websites and healthcare-related government portals.
The argument is not that widespread use makes a practice lawful. Rather, it underscores that these tools have become standard components of digital operations and are routinely deployed for purposes that are plainly non-criminal and non-tortious.
The broader implication is that the Seventh Circuit may be asked to clarify an increasingly important boundary in privacy litigation: whether allegations of marketing, analytics, or organizational benefit are sufficient on their own to establish unlawful intent at the pleading stage. If courts conclude that they are, many organizations may face continued litigation exposure regardless of whether their actual objectives were service improvement, public education, or digital accessibility. If courts require a more direct connection between the technology and an alleged unlawful purpose, plaintiffs may face a higher threshold before these cases can proceed.
Why the Stein v. Edward-Elmhurst Health case is different
AHA’s brief is notable for what it does not argue. It does not say privacy is unimportant. It does not dismiss patient concerns about digital tracking. Instead, it argues that “marketing purpose” should not automatically be equated with “criminal or tortious purpose,” and that courts should carefully distinguish between technologies deployed for ordinary business and operational objectives and those used for unlawful ends.
Whatever the outcome, this appeal highlights a challenge that will continue to shape the healthcare privacy landscape. The debate is no longer simply about whether tracking technologies exist on healthcare websites. It is increasingly about how courts interpret the intent behind their use. That distinction may ultimately determine whether routine digital analytics are treated as evidence of operational necessity—or evidence of liability.
Sources:
https://www.aha.org/amicus-brief/2026-05-27-aha-files-amicus-brief-7th-us-circuit-court-appeals-online-tracking-case
https://www.aha.org/system/files/media/file/2026/05/aha-files-amicus-brief-in-7th-us-circuit-court-of-appeals-for-online-tracking-case-5-27-26.pdf
