• by Wendy Davis , Yesterday

LinkedIn is urging a federal judge to dismiss a privacy lawsuit alleging that it collected tracking data from the state-run health exchange Covered California.

In a motion filed Monday, LinkedIn argues that even if the allegations in the complaint were proven true, they wouldn't show that LinkedIn ran afoul of any laws.

"Plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed because they have failed to plausibly plead -- and cannot plead -- that LinkedIn knowingly and intentionally invaded their privacy," the Microsoft-owned company writes in papers filed with U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila in the Northern District of California.

The tech company's motion comes in a dispute dating to April, when a California resident proceeding anonymously alleged in a class-action complaint that she visited the Covered California website and disclosed "identifying information" to the site.

She alleged that LinkedIn tracked her activity on Covered California via the LinkedIn Insight Tag, which she said was embedded in Covered California's website.

"LinkedIn used this software to track plaintiff and intercept her communications with Covered California," the complaint alleged. A second California resident, Cynthia Hays, later joined the case as a plaintiff.

The complaint included claims that LinkedIn violated various privacy laws, including California's wiretap law.

The initial suit was filed one day after The Markup reported that Covered California sent health data to LinkedIn, via its Insight Tag, as part of a marketing campaign. (Covered California removed the tags in early April, according to The Markup.)

LinkedIn is now asking Davila to dismiss the matter at an early stage for several reasons. Among other arguments, the company says the users failed to allege that they provided any health data to Covered California.

"Although plaintiffs claim that LinkedIn collected users’ 'sensitive personal and health information,” they never once allege that they submitted any health information or other sensitive information whatsoever to Covered California," LinkedIn writes in papers filed with U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila in the Northern District of California.

LinkedIn adds that it "expressly instructed" Covered California not to place the Insight Tag on pages that could transmit sensitive data.

"Because Covered California is a government actor, it was reasonable for LinkedIn to presume that it would operate its website not only within its agreements with LinkedIn but also within its own state laws," LinkedIn writes.

Davila is expected to hold a hearing in the matter in April.