Washington Supreme Court Rejects Meta Pixel Claims: A Significant but Narrow Win for Businesses

Earlier this month, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of Washington Privacy Act (“WPA”) claims arising from a hospital’s alleged use of the Meta Pixel on its website, handing defendants a new victory in the expanding wave of pixel-tracking litigation.¹

Because the ruling turned on a straightforward question of statutory interpretation under the WPA, broader questions surrounding pixel technologies remain unresolved as litigation continues across the country. Still, the decision provides defendants with a potent defense to certain WPA claims and potentially persuasive authority for challenging similar claims under other state and federal wiretapping statutes.

Background: Pixel-Tracking Litigation Landscape

In recent years, the plaintiffs’ bar has turned its attention to challenging businesses’ use of pixels, session-replay tools, and similar technologies under theories ranging from the federal Wiretap Act and state wiretapping statutes to consumer protection and common law claims. The recurring allegation is that a website operator allowed a third-party vendor to capture users’ activity, without consent, for use in targeted advertising. Healthcare organizations have been prominent targets,² though businesses across industries operating websites or mobile apps face similar risk.

The Decision: Baker v. Seattle Children’s Hospital

Baker followed a similar playbook. The plaintiffs, parents of Seattle Children’s Hospital (“SCH”) patients, alleged that the Meta Pixel embedded on SCH’s website transmitted their “private communications” to Meta for targeted advertising in violation of RCW 9.73.030(1)(a), which prohibits intercepting or recording any “private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals” without the consent of all participants.

Setting aside whether the plaintiffs had a viable argument on the merits (which is uncertain given SCH’s use of a popup disclosure informing website visitors that accepting cookies meant consenting to software used for marketing purposes), the court held that plaintiffs’ theory failed at the outset under the plain language of the WPA. Because the statute distinguishes “individuals” from corporations, a single plaintiff interacting with an automated website operated by a corporation did not constitute a communication “between two or more individuals.” The court thus affirmed dismissal without reaching whether plaintiffs’ website activity could be considered “private communications” or whether they consented.

Although the holding rests on an interpretation of Washington’s particular statute, which may not offer an immediate or direct benefit to businesses facing claims in other jurisdictions, a state supreme court’s conclusive and unanimous rejection of plaintiffs’ theory is significant. Specifically, the court rejected plaintiffs’ reliance on federal and California decisions allowing similar claims to proceed, explaining that those statutes differ significantly from the WPA. The case also attracted the attention of notable amici curiae, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Washington State Hospital Association, and the Interactive Advertising Bureau, underscoring the continued importance of these issues to businesses across industries.³

More broadly, the decision reflects a recognition of the limits of applying decades-old wiretapping statutes to modern website technologies in ways that legislatures did not contemplate. And while Baker may not control the outcome of similar claims elsewhere, it provides defendants with another persuasive basis to push back against efforts to shoehorn modern website technologies into statutes never designed to regulate them.

As courts continue to grapple with website-tracking claims and legislatures consider reforms,⁴ Baker offers businesses both an immediate defense to certain WPA claims and persuasive arguments in litigation elsewhere. But the decision also has important limits, particularly for businesses whose websites facilitate direct communications with consumers.

Key Takeaways for Businesses With Consumer-Facing Websites

• Expect Plaintiffs to Shift Focus to Other Website Functions and Legal Theories
  
  Baker does not foreclose WPA claims involving communications between individuals, including potentially live chat, patient or customer messaging, or other interactions involving actual employees. Plaintiffs may shift their focus to these features or pursue claims under other statutes and common-law theories. Businesses should therefore remain mindful of how their websites collect and share user information, particularly through features that facilitate direct communications with employees.

• Baker Leaves a Persuasive Roadmap for Challenging Expansive Interpretations of Other Wiretapping Statutes
  
  Although Baker does not control claims under other states’ wiretapping statutes or the federal Wiretap Act, its emphasis on statutory text provides businesses with a useful framework for challenging attempts to extend those laws to modern website technologies. The California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) is a prime example: Courts have reached conflicting conclusions about its application to website-tracking technologies, prompting one federal judge to describe CIPA’s language as a “total mess” and warn that “companies have no way of telling whether their online business activities will subject them to liability.”⁵ Baker offers a welcome counterpoint, demonstrating that these claims can, and should, be tested against the statutory language before proceeding to costly and protracted litigation.

---

¹ Baker v. Seattle Children’s Hosp., No. 104590-5, slip op. at 1 (Wash. Oct. 8, 2026) (en banc), https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1045905.pdf.
² See Rachel Riley, Law360, Wash. Justices Say Privacy Act Doesn’t Bar Hospital Pixel Use, https://www.law360.com/articles/2535872/wash-justices-say-privacy-act-doesn-t-bar-hospital-pixel-use (Oct. 8, 2026) (discussing recent outcomes, including dismissals and settlements, in notable pixel-tracking cases against healthcare organizations).
³ See Baker, No. 104590-5, slip op. at 5.
⁴ See, e.g., Sidley Austin LLP, Consumer Class Actions Update, California’s SB 690 Clears the Legislature: What It Means for California Invasion of Privacy Act Website-Tracking Claims (Sept. 3, 2026), https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2026/09/californias-sb-690-clears-the-legislature-what-it-means-for-cipa-website-tracking-claims.
⁵ Doe v. Eating Recovery Ctr. LLC, No. 23-CV-05561, 2025 WL 2971090, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2025).