Washington Supreme Court Limits Website Tracking Claims Under State Privacy Act

On October 8, 2026, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of a putative class action against Seattle Children’s Hospital, holding that website searches and clicks generating automated responses are not protected communications under the Washington Privacy Act (WPA). The decision in Baker v. Seattle Children’s Hospital, No. 104590-5, gives businesses facing Washington-based privacy claims over third-party website tracking a potentially dispositive defense: The alleged conduct must satisfy the statute’s actual requirements.

Background and Decision

The plaintiffs alleged that Seattle Children’s Hospital violated the WPA by using Meta Pixel on its public-facing website to collect and transmit visitors’ searches, clicks, and browsing activity to Meta for targeted advertising. That information allegedly included searches about children’s medical conditions and symptoms.

The WPA, RCW 9.73.030(1)(a), prohibits the interception or recording of private communications between two or more individuals without the consent of all participants.

The plaintiffs’ allegations did not meet that requirement. The Court distinguished communications between individuals from interactions between a website visitor and a corporation’s automated server. Because the alleged communications involved only one individual and an automated system, the WPA claim failed.

What Businesses Should Know

• A meaningful pleading-stage defense. The decision provides businesses defending WPA claims involving automated website interactions with a potentially dispositive argument, even where the alleged collection and transmission of user information is accepted as true.
• Not all website communications are created equal. The ruling concerned searches, clicks, and automated responses on a public-facing website. Communications involving employees, live chat representatives, or other individuals may present different questions.
• The distinction between jurisdictions matters. The Court expressly distinguished Washington’s statute from federal wiretapping law and California’s privacy statute. Similar tracking practices may therefore still present litigation and liability risks under other statutes.
• Other claims remain available. The Court did not address the sufficiency of claims under Washington’s consumer protection or other privacy laws, common law claims, or tracking activity within authenticated patient portals.
• Website compliance remains important. Businesses should continue evaluating what tracking technologies operate on their websites, what information is transmitted to third parties, and whether disclosures and consent mechanisms accurately reflect those practices.

Baker provides welcome clarity for businesses facing website tracking litigation in Washington, but the broader takeaway is not limited to the WPA. We have observed proposed and passed legislative changes and new court decisions providing more clarity regarding what plaintiffs must plead and prove and what can support a recovery.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.