Published
July 9, 2026
People answer Covered California's health-insurance application expecting it to stay between them and the exchange. A class action says LinkedIn and Google were quietly listening in.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes class action complaints. The statements below are unproven allegations. No defendant has been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
A proposed class action alleges that LinkedIn and Google used website trackers to intercept the sensitive answers people entered while applying for health insurance through Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act exchange. The lead case, Doe v. LinkedIn Corporation, No. 5:25-cv-03737, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 29, 2025, before Judge Edward J. Davila, and a related case, Hays v. LinkedIn Corporation, was consolidated into it by court order on September 30, 2025.One clarification up front: the defendants are the tech companies — LinkedIn Corporation and Google LLC — not Covered California itself. The exchange is where the alleged interception happened, but it is not named as a defendant. The complaints draw in part on a 2025 investigation by the newsrooms CalMatters and The Markup, whose forensic testing of CoveredCA.com first documented the data flow. The case is at its early stage: the allegations are unproven, no class has been certified, and there is no settlement and nothing to claim.
Status
Complaint Filed & Consolidated
Doe v. LinkedIn Corporation · N.D. Cal. · filed Apr. 29, 2025 · consolidated with Hays
Who's Affected
CoveredCA.com users whose application data was allegedly transmitted
Covered California added the LinkedIn Insight Tag ~Feb 2024 and removed the trackers ~early April 2025
Allegedly Shared
Pregnancy, gender identity, abuse-survivor status, prescriptions, provider searches, income
Sent to LinkedIn and Google without consent, plaintiffs allege
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim yet
No settlement, no fund, no claim form
What the Trackers Allegedly Did
Covered California, according to the reporting, added LinkedIn's Insight Tag — a small piece of tracking code — to its website around February 2024 as part of an advertising campaign, and also ran Google trackers. The plaintiffs allege that as users moved through the health-insurance application, those trackers captured what they entered and transmitted it to LinkedIn and Google, where it could be used to build advertising profiles. The allegedly captured information is what makes the case notable: not just that someone visited a health site, but reportedly whether an applicant was pregnant, blind, transgender, or a domestic-abuse survivor, along with the providers they searched for, prescription details, gender identity, and income.After CalMatters and The Markup published their findings in spring 2025, Covered California removed the trackers — the exchange described the Insight Tag as tied to a marketing-agency arrangement and said it was taken down in early April 2025. Members of Congress later pressed for answers. The plaintiffs allege they had a reasonable expectation that information handed to a government health exchange would stay private, and that the interception happened without their consent.
The Claims
The complaints bring privacy and wiretapping claims: the federal Wiretap Act (part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act), the California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code sections 631 and 632), and the privacy clause of the California Constitution. The plaintiffs seek damages — including statutory and punitive damages — plus injunctive relief and disgorgement. Because these are wiretap-style claims, the legal fight will turn on questions like whether the trackers "intercepted" communications and whether users consented. LinkedIn and Google have not been found liable, and nothing has been decided; the theories will be tested as the case proceeds.Part of a Bigger Trend
This case sits in a fast-growing wave of "pixel" and tracking-technology privacy suits, in which companies are accused of letting third-party trackers capture visitors' activity without consent. OCA has covered several — see the Crocs website-tracking class action and the Dolce & Gabbana tracking case. What sets the Covered California matter apart is the sensitivity of the data — health-application answers — which is exactly the category privacy laws guard most closely. (It is distinct from an earlier, separate LinkedIn Insight Tag medical-data case, L.B. v. LinkedIn, No. 5:24-cv-06832, also in the Northern District of California.)Is There Anything to Claim?
No. The consolidated case is in its pleading stage — the parties are still litigating the basics. There is no certified class, no settlement, no fund, and no claim form. If the case were to settle or reach judgment later, a court-approved notice would explain who qualifies and how to file. For now, there is nothing to claim, and no legitimate site can sign you up for a payout.This page is informational and is not legal advice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is being sued over the Covered California trackers?
LinkedIn Corporation and Google LLC. The lead case is Doe v. LinkedIn Corporation, No. 5:25-cv-03737 (N.D. Cal.), consolidated with Hays v. LinkedIn. Covered California is not a defendant. The allegations are unproven.What do the plaintiffs allege happened?
That LinkedIn's Insight Tag and Google trackers on CoveredCA.com captured sensitive answers entered during the health-insurance application — reportedly including pregnancy, transgender status, and abuse-survivor status, plus provider searches, prescriptions, and income — and sent them to the companies without consent. Unproven allegations.Were the trackers removed?
Yes. Per the reporting, Covered California added the LinkedIn Insight Tag around February 2024 and removed the trackers in early April 2025 after CalMatters and The Markup documented the data flow.Is there a settlement or money to claim?
No. The consolidated case is at the pleading stage. No class is certified; there is no settlement, fund, claim form, or deadline. Nothing to claim.Sources
• CourtListener — Doe v. LinkedIn Corporation, 5:25-cv-03737 (N.D. Cal.)• Justia Dockets — Hays v. LinkedIn Corporation, 5:25-cv-04181 (consolidation partner)
• CalMatters — Covered California LinkedIn Tracker Investigation
• The Markup — LinkedIn and Google Face Lawsuit Over Health Data
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Complaint filed & consolidated — no class certified, no settlement
Case Title
Doe v. LinkedIn Corporation (consolidated with Hays v. LinkedIn)
Case Number
5:25-cv-03737 (Hays: 5:25-cv-04181)
Court
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Judge Edward J. Davila)
Date Filed
April 29, 2025 (consolidated Sept. 30, 2025)
Defendants
LinkedIn Corporation & Google LLC (Covered California is not a defendant)
Official Website
CourtListener Docket — Doe v. LinkedIn
