A group of Cigna health plan participants who claimed that the company failed to protect their data when it tracked their website activities asked a Pennsylvania federal judge not to throw out the suit, arguing that the proposed class had standing to sue over the alleged violations of state and federal privacy laws.

The proposed class's filing on Monday came in response to a Nov. 12 order from Chief U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone directing the plaintiffs to explain why the litigation should continue. The judge said in the order that the proposed class's briefing at that time was inadequate in showing that the plaintiffs had standing.

Jerry M. Adair and several other named plaintiffs said in their Monday brief that they had made valid claims they were injured by Cigna's alleged breach of the privacy laws, including the Federal Wiretap Act and Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act.

Adair argued that Cigna's alleged use of cookies on its website to capture members' visit activities and information allowed plaintiffs' data to be viewed by companies like Meta. Because it was done without the class members' consent, they had standing, the brief said.

"Because plaintiffs allege that defendant disclosed their private health information to third parties without authorization, plaintiffs have alleged an injury in fact, and therefore have standing to bring their claims," the brief said.

The brief continued, "Here, because courts universally recognize that a defendant's unauthorized disclosure of private information causes an 'injury in fact,' because the information alleged to have been disclosed by defendants is private health information, and because there is no dispute that second and third prongs of the Article III standing test are satisfied, Article III standing is present."

Adair argued that the plaintiffs had Article III standing to pursue the FWA claim specifically.

"Plaintiffs' FWA claim alleges a concrete injury sufficient to confer Article III standing: the unauthorized interception and disclosure of plaintiffs' private communications containing private health-related information. A violation of the FWA occurs when any person 'intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral or electronic communication,'" the brief said.

Adair said that the class's WESCA claims were also solid.

"Here, plaintiffs allege that they suffered the same concrete injury from defendants' WESCA violation as from defendants' FWA violation: the unauthorized interception and disclosure to third parties of plaintiffs' private health-related information," the brief said.

Cigna was hit with the putative class action in May. The insurer had argued in a July dismissal motion that the class claims didn't rise to the level of a privacy violation and relied on nonspecific statements that fell short of stating how the data was allegedly compromised.

The company also argued that when users agreed to the terms and conditions of the website, they consented to having marketers present ads to them. However, Cigna noted that the plaintiffs did not make claims of receiving targeted ads.

Plaintiff's attorney Andrew J. Schlichter declined to comment Tuesday, and a representative for Cigna did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Andrew J. Schlichter, Alexander L. Braitberg, Chen Kasher, Jerome J. Schlichter, Sean M. Milford and Nathan D. Stump of Schlichter Bogard LLC.

Cigna is represented by Elisabeth Hutchinson, Katherine Driscoll and Tiffany Cheung of Morrison Foerster LLP, and Bridget C. Giroud and Joe Nguyen of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP.

The case is Adair et al. v. Cigna Corporate Services LLC et al., case number 2:25-cv-02384, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.