Adobe Optum Patient Data Privacy Class Action Lawsuit 2026, What Patients Need to Know

A new class action lawsuit claims that Adobe Inc. secretly intercepted, recorded, and eavesdropped on private patient communications on health care company Optum’s website — including sensitive medical search activity and protected health information — without patients’ knowledge or consent. The case is in active litigation. No settlement has been reached, and no claim form exists yet. Patients who used Optum’s website to search for medical providers or health services may be members of the proposed class.

Quick Facts

Field	Detail
Defendant	Adobe Inc.
Co-Defendant / Website Operator	Optum Inc. (Note: separate case Hodges v. Optum Inc., No. 5:25-cv-03325, also filed against Optum directly)
Current Court Stage	Litigation phase — complaint filed; preliminary approval not yet sought
Case Name & Number	Hodges v. Adobe Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-02958, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Lead Law Firm	Bursor & Fisher P.A. (attorney: Ines Diaz Villafana)
Claim Deadline	TBD — no settlement has been reached; class members are automatically included if a settlement is approved
Laws Alleged Violated	Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511); California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA); California Constitution (right to privacy); intrusion upon seclusion
Tracking Technology at Issue	Adobe Marketo Engage
Last Updated	April 23, 2026

Current Status & What Happens Next

• The complaint in Hodges v. Adobe Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-02958, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Adobe has not yet filed its response, and the court has not yet certified a class.
• A parallel lawsuit against Optum directly — Hodges v. Optum Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-03325 — was filed in the California Central District Court on December 9, 2025. The two cases may be consolidated or proceed separately.
• If a settlement is reached in the future, affected Optum website users will likely receive notice by mail or email. No action is required from class members at this stage.

What Is the Adobe Lawsuit About? Hodges v. Adobe Inc., No. 5:26-cv-02958

Plaintiff Gil Hodges accuses Adobe of intercepting communications containing personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of patients using Optum’s website to search for medical providers and services. The lawsuit targets a specific Adobe product — Marketo Engage — a marketing automation platform. The lawsuit alleges Optum uses Adobe’s Marketo Engage platform to “streamline, automate and measure marketing tasks and workflows so [clients like Optum] can increase operational efficiency and grow revenue faster.”

The plaintiff argues that Adobe did not passively receive data that Optum shared with it. Instead, Hodges argues Adobe used tracking technology embedded on Optum’s website to intercept patient communications without their consent. The plaintiff claims that the tracking technology secretly duplicated and transmitted patient data to Adobe’s servers, allowing the company to intercept communications in real time. This distinction — active interception versus passive receipt — is legally significant under the Federal Wiretap Act.

The class action lawsuit claims Adobe’s actions violate the Federal Wiretap Act and California’s Invasion of Privacy Act and constitute an invasion of privacy under the California Constitution and intrusion upon seclusion. Adobe has not admitted any wrongdoing, and the court has not ruled on the merits of the claims.

This case fits within a fast-growing wave of healthcare website tracking litigation. Beginning in earnest around 2022 and accelerating through 2024 and 2025, plaintiffs’ attorneys filed more than approximately 3,500 lawsuits under federal and state wiretap laws targeting tracking technologies that contemporaneously intercept and disclose website visitors’ communications. High-profile healthcare tracking technology settlements have exceeded $135 million between 2023 and March 2026.

Adobe already faces separate legal scrutiny on a different front. In March 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a proposed stipulated order that, if entered by the court, would resolve a case against Adobe Inc. requiring the company to pay $75 million in civil penalties and offer customers $75 million in free services to resolve allegations that the company’s subscription practices violated the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA). That DOJ case is unrelated to this patient privacy lawsuit but reflects broader regulatory scrutiny of Adobe’s business practices.

Who Is Eligible for the Adobe Optum Privacy Lawsuit?

No official class has been certified yet. The eligibility criteria below reflect what the plaintiff’s complaint proposes. Final class definitions are determined by the court after litigation proceeds.

• You may qualify if you used Optum’s website to search for medical providers, healthcare services, or other health-related information at any time while Adobe’s Marketo Engage tracking code was embedded on the site.
• You may qualify if you entered personal information — such as your name, health condition, or location — into Optum’s website during a search for care.
• You may qualify if you are a U.S. resident whose personally identifiable information (PII) or protected health information (PHI) was intercepted, recorded, or transmitted to Adobe’s servers without your consent.
• You may qualify if you received healthcare services through Optum or used Optum’s provider-finder, appointment scheduling, or other patient-facing web tools.
• You may not qualify if you never used Optum’s website or never entered health-related information on the site.

Hodges wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who had their PII or PHI intercepted, recorded or eavesdropped on by Adobe as a result of using Optum’s website.

What is Optum? Optum is one of the largest U.S. health services companies and a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group. It operates online tools that allow patients to search for in-network physicians, schedule appointments, manage prescriptions, and access health plan information. Millions of Americans use Optum’s web platforms annually.

Potential Recovery & Legal Theory

No damages amounts have been confirmed in this case. The following reflects what the plaintiff is seeking and what the law allows — not a guaranteed outcome.

Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): The Federal Wiretap Act — part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act — prohibits the intentional interception of electronic communications without consent. Allegations involving HIPAA have emerged as a key example in Wiretap Act litigation: some courts treat knowing disclosure of individually identifiable health information as the qualifying act triggering the crime/tort exception to the statute. Under this law, plaintiffs can seek statutory damages of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, whichever is greater, per person — plus attorney’s fees.

California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA, Cal. Penal Code § 631): CIPA prohibits the interception or recording of communications in California without all-party consent. CIPA carries statutory damages of $5,000 per violation. Because Adobe and Optum’s website users include California residents, CIPA applies even to a national class when the interception occurs in California.

California Constitutional Right to Privacy: California’s Constitution explicitly protects the right to privacy, and courts have recognized healthcare data as among the most sensitive categories warranting the strongest protection.

Intrusion Upon Seclusion: This common law tort allows recovery when a person intentionally intrudes into another’s private affairs in a manner that a reasonable person would find highly offensive. Medical search activity on a healthcare platform falls squarely within the type of private communication courts have found supports this claim.

Healthcare website tracking lawsuits across the country have produced significant settlements. One recent example: Aspen Dental Management was sued over its use of tracking tools that transmitted web user data to Meta (Facebook) and Google without users’ knowledge or consent, with the lawsuit alleging violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Florida Security of Communications Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act. That case settled. The legal theories in the Adobe/Optum case are closely parallel.

How to Join the Adobe Optum Lawsuit

You do not need to take any action right now to preserve your rights as a potential class member. Here is what to do at each stage:

Step 1 — Do nothing to join. If the court certifies a class and a settlement is reached, you will automatically be included as a class member if you used Optum’s website and had your data intercepted.

Step 2 — Watch for a class notice. If a settlement is reached, Adobe and/or the settlement administrator will mail or email a notice to affected individuals. Keep your current address and email updated with Optum.

Step 3 — Do not file a claim anywhere yet. No claim form, administrator site, or settlement portal exists as of April 23, 2026. Any site claiming to take claims for this case right now is not official.

Step 4 — Contact class counsel with specific questions. The plaintiff’s attorney is Ines Diaz Villafana of Bursor & Fisher P.A. Bursor & Fisher is a well-established plaintiffs’ firm specializing in consumer class actions. Their contact details are publicly available at bursor.com.

Step 5 — Preserve any evidence of Optum web use. If you used Optum’s website to search for providers or services, consider noting the approximate dates and the type of information you entered. This context may be relevant if you later need to verify your eligibility.

Case Timeline

Event	Date
Complaint Filed Against Optum Directly (Hodges v. Optum Inc., No. 5:25-cv-03325)	December 9, 2025
Complaint Filed Against Adobe (Hodges v. Adobe Inc., No. 5:26-cv-02958)	April 2026
Adobe Response / Motion to Dismiss Deadline	TBD — not yet set by the court
Class Certification Hearing	TBD — typically 12–24 months after filing in complex privacy cases
Settlement Negotiations / Mediation	TBD — may begin after motion practice
Expected Class Notice (if settlement reached)	TBD — no settlement has been reached

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I need a lawyer to join this lawsuit?

 No. If the court certifies a class, you are automatically included as a class member without hiring an attorney. Bursor & Fisher P.A. represents the class. You only need separate legal representation if you want to opt out and pursue your own individual lawsuit against Adobe.

Is this lawsuit legitimate? 

Yes. Hodges v. Adobe Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-02958, is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Bursor & Fisher P.A. is a nationally recognized plaintiffs’ firm with a track record in consumer privacy and technology cases. The legal theories mirror those used in other healthcare tracking cases that have produced settlements exceeding $135 million industrywide.

When will a settlement be reached? 

No timeline for a settlement is available. Complex privacy class actions in the Northern District of California typically take 18–36 months from filing to settlement, depending on motion practice, discovery, and mediation. The court has not set any scheduling order yet.

What if I already deleted my Optum account? 

Deletion of your account after the fact does not disqualify you from the class. The alleged interception occurred in real time as you used the website, and your eligibility depends on whether you used the site during the relevant period — not whether you still have an account.

What data does the lawsuit claim Adobe collected? 

The complaint alleges Adobe intercepted communications containing PII and PHI, including patients’ healthcare-related searches, provider selections and other protected health information, while they used Optum’s website. This may include your search terms for medical providers, your geographic location during the search, and identifying information that could link your activity to your identity.

Will this settlement payment affect my taxes?

 Any cash payment from a future settlement may be taxable. Payments that compensate for actual economic harm are sometimes treated differently from statutory damage payments. Consult a tax professional about your specific situation if and when a settlement is reached.

What is Adobe Marketo Engage and how did it allegedly intercept data?

 Marketo Engage is Adobe’s marketing automation platform used by companies to track website visitors, automate marketing communications, and analyze user behavior. The plaintiff claims the tracking technology secretly duplicated and transmitted patient data to Adobe’s servers, allowing the company to intercept communications in real time — without patients knowing their medical searches were being captured and sent to a third party.

Sources & References

• Hodges v. Adobe Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-02958, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California — docket available at PACER (pacer.gov)
• Hodges v. Optum Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-03325, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — filed December 9, 2025
• U.S. Department of Justice, Adobe Agrees to $150 Million Settlement — ROSCA Violations, March 13, 2026: justice.gov

Prepared by the AllAboutLawyer.com Editorial Team and reviewed for factual accuracy against publicly available court docket records and the Law.com Radar case report on April 23, 2026. Last Updated: April 23, 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal claims and outcomes depend on specific facts and applicable law. For advice regarding a particular situation, consult a qualified attorney.