Class-action-Privacy

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Matt Dinerstein v. Google, LLC

Case No.: 20-3134

Officials: Sykes, Chief Judge, and Flaum and Kirsch, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Class-action-Privacy

Google and the University of Chicago Medical Center joined forces to develop software with the ability to predict the future healthcare needs of patients. In order to “train” the software’s algorithms, the University provided Google with several years’ worth of de-identified patient medical records. A contractual agreement was established, which limited Google’s use of the records to specific research-related activities and prohibited any attempts to identify the patients whose records were shared.

However, a lawsuit was filed by Dinerstein on behalf of himself and a class of other patients whose de-identified records were disclosed. The claim stated that the University had breached either an explicit or an implied contract based on a privacy notice Dinerstein received and an authorization he signed during each admission to the Medical Center. As an alternative argument, he asserted unjust enrichment. By citing the same notice and authorization, he alleged that the University had violated its promise of patient confidentiality, thus violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Dinerstein also claimed unjust enrichment and tortious interference with his contract with the University against Google. Additionally, he brought a privacy claim based on intrusion upon seclusion.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the case. According to federal court requirements, a plaintiff must plausibly allege (and subsequently prove) that they have suffered a concrete and specific injury that is actual or imminent, and that can be traced back to the defendant’s actions. However, the injuries alleged by Dinerstein lacked plausibility, concreteness, or imminence, or a combination thereof.

Affirmed.

Decided 07/11/23

Full Text