The Washington Supreme Court on Oct. 8 affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action against Seattle Children’s Hospital, holding that website searches, clicks and automated server responses are not “private communications” under the Washington Privacy Act (WPA), RCW 9.73.030(1)(a). The decision, in Baker v. Seattle Children’s Hospital, No. 104590-5, gives companies a potentially dispositive defense in WPA cases that involve third-party web tracking.
What the court said
The plaintiffs alleged that the hospital used Meta Pixel — a tracking tool from Meta — on a public-facing website to collect and transmit visitors’ searches, clicks and browsing activity to Meta for targeted advertising. The complaint said some of the tracked searches involved children’s medical conditions and symptoms.
The court examined the WPA’s prohibition on intercepting or recording “private communications between two or more individuals without the consent of all participants.” It found that the alleged conduct involved interactions between a single individual and an automated corporate server. Because the communications did not occur between two or more people, the statute’s requirement was not satisfied and the WPA claim failed.
Legal and practical consequences
- Defense tool for businesses: Companies facing WPA claims over website tracking can argue that automated site interactions fall outside the statute’s definition of covered communications.
- Scope is limited: The ruling focused on public website activity involving automated responses; communications that involve live people — for example, live chat agents or interpersonal messages — may still raise WPA issues.
- Other laws remain a risk: The court distinguished Washington’s statute from federal wiretapping law and California privacy law, noting that similar tracking practices could still trigger liability under other statutes or in other jurisdictions.
| Item | Ruling |
|---|---|
| Case | Baker v. Seattle Children’s Hospital, No. 104590-5 |
| Date of decision | Oct. 8, 2026 |
| Statute interpreted | Washington Privacy Act, RCW 9.73.030(1)(a) |
| Core holding | Automated website interactions are not “private communications” between two or more individuals |
The decision gives Washington-based defendants a meaningful pleading-stage argument in WPA litigation: even if a complaint accepts the alleged collection and transmission of user information as true, the court said the conduct must still satisfy the statutory elements for a WPA claim to proceed.
Legal observers and privacy counsel will likely weigh the ruling when advising clients about exposure from third-party trackers and tags. But the court’s distinction between automated system interactions and person-to-person communications means that companies cannot treat the decision as a blanket shield for all tracking technology. The court left open the possibility that different facts — such as communications involving employees, live chat representatives or other individuals — could present a different legal question under the WPA.
Finally, the opinion underscores that privacy liability can vary significantly by jurisdiction. Practices that escape liability under Washington’s statute may remain actionable under federal wiretapping statutes, California’s privacy rules or other state laws.
