Inova, a large healthcare system in Northern Virginia, faces a proposed $2.45 million class action settlement tied to how certain tracking technologies were allegedly used on its public-facing websites. The case centers on the modern reality that many organizations embed tools like pixels, tags, or analytics scripts to measure traffic and marketing performance—tools that can collect device identifiers, browsing behavior, and sometimes details about what pages a person viewed. According to the settlement website, you may be included if you visited an Inova website between April 29, 2022 and April 29, 2024 and had an Inova MyChart account, reflecting concerns that website activity could be linked back to a person’s patient portal identity. The lawsuit was filed because plaintiffs allege that this web tracking compromised privacy by transmitting information to third parties in a way that could reveal sensitive interactions with healthcare-related pages, potentially tying those interactions to an identified patient. Its significance is less about the dollar amount than the compliance signal it sends: healthcare providers are under intense scrutiny for “digital front door” practices—marketing and analytics on websites and apps—that may conflict with longstanding health privacy expectations. Even when a tracking tool doesn’t capture full medical records, combining identifiers, URLs, and portal relationships can create heightened risk, which is why these cases have proliferated alongside similar suits against hospitals and telehealth providers over pixels and session-replay tools. The industry backdrop includes HIPAA’s focus on protected health information and the Department of Health and Human Services’ enforcement posture on online tracking, plus a growing patchwork of state privacy and wiretapping statutes often cited in these complaints, pushing healthcare organizations to reassess consent banners, vendor contracts, and whether tracking is appropriate on patient-facing pages at all.