• by Wendy Davis , July 31, 2026

In a mixed ruling, a federal judge said Thursday a Nevada resident could proceed with a privacy claim against LinkedIn over allegations that it collected tracking data from Nevada's Health Link -- a state-created insurance marketplace.

But the judge dismissed claims by two California residents who alleged that LinkedIn collected data from that state's health exchange, Covered California. That dismissal was without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs can beef up their allegations and bring the complaint again.

The decision, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila in the Northern District of California, stemmed from two separate class-action complaints against LinkedIn -- one by Nevada resident Kimberly Johnson, and the other by California residents including Cynthia Hays.

In both cases, the plaintiffs' complaint included claims that LinkedIn engaged in "intrusion upon seclusion" -- meaning that LinkedIn allegedly engaged in a "highly offensive" privacy violation.

Both lawsuits centered on claims that LinkedIn tracked web users' activity on the health insurance sites via the LinkedIn Insight Tag. The cases were filed after The Markup reported that the insurance sites were transmitting health data to LinkedIn via its Insight Tag, as part of a marketing campaign.

Nevada's Johnson specifically alleged in her complaint that she provided Health Link with information about her medication and dosage.

LinkedIn sought a rapid dismissal of both suits.

Among other arguments, the company contended that California plaintiffs failed to allege that they provided any specific 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 argued in a written motion.

Davila appeared to accept that argument, writing that the California plaintiffs "do not need to allege the exact information provided to LinkedIn with great detail at this stage, but they must at a minimum allege facts sufficient to provide notice and show they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in that data."

He gave the California plaintiffs until August 27 to amend their complaint.

LinkedIn also argued that the Nevada case should be dismissed at an early stage. Among other reasons, LinkedIn said Johnson's allegations, if true, wouldn't prove a "highly offensive" privacy violation because she wasn't required to provide information about medication.

"If Plaintiff in fact submitted information about her medication and dosage information on the website, she did so in response to questions that were explicitly marked as 'Optional,'" LinkedIn argued in its bid for a quick dismissal.

"Her choice “to answer these optional questions on a website renders her stated expectation of privacy implausible,” the company added.

Davila disagreed, effectively ruling that Johnson's allegations, if true, could support her claim for "intrusion upon seclusion."

The plaintiffs in California also alleged that LinkedIn violated a state wiretap law, and Johonson alleged that the company violated the federal wiretap law. Davila dismissed those claims, but said the plaintiffs could amend their wiretap-related allegations and bring those claims again.

LinkedIn hasn't yet responded to MediaPost's request for comment.