M Physicians Lawsuit: Niesen v. University of Minnesota Physicians
Questions about this case?
AI Legal Assistant · free · answers in seconds · general information, not legal advice
The M Physicians lawsuit is Niesen v. University of Minnesota Physicians, No. 0:26-cv-03438, filed on July 28, 2026 in federal court in Minnesota. The docket lists the federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2510) as the cause; the complaint is not freely available. The docket entries available to us (through September 22, 2026) show no settlement and no claim form, so there is nothing to file. Separately, we tested mphysicians.org on October 6, 2026: Google’s advertising tag received the full address and title of a doctor’s profile page, and Meta’s pixel loaded on each of the three pages that loaded for us. If you used the site, you can tell us below.
Editorially Reviewed — Content reviewed for accuracy using published legal research, government data, and verified court records. See our methodology
Reviewed by Leonard Goldberg, Editor · Last updated
What the Docket Shows — and What We Found on mphysicians.org
The lawsuit. Margie Niesen sued University of Minnesota Physicians in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 28, 2026. The docket lists 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (the federal Wiretap Act) as the cause and shows a jury demand. The complaint is not freely available, so we have not read its allegations and do not know what conduct or which website the case concerns; we report only what the public docket shows. M Physicians has not been found liable for anything.
What we found. Separately from the lawsuit, we tested mphysicians.org on October 6, 2026 in an ordinary Chromium browser and in an iPhone (Safari engine) profile, and recorded which outside services each page contacted. Three pages loaded for us: the home page, a doctor’s profile page and the MyChart page; other attempts were stopped by the site’s bot check. We did not log in, fill in a form or book anything.
- Google Ads: on the profile page of a radiologist whose listed clinical interests include breast imaging, the site sent requests to Google’s advertising services (googleadservices.com and doubleclick.net, tag AW-339615668) that carried the full address of the page and its title (the doctor’s name followed by “| University of Minnesota Physicians”). The same tag fired on the MyChart page. Google Analytics received the same page address.
- Meta: Meta’s pixel (ID 4790733407604563) loaded on all three pages and sent a “PageView” event to facebook.com. In our test its page-address field contained only the site’s domain, not the address of the individual page.
- No click needed: these requests went out as soon as a page loaded, and no cookie banner appears in the page text we saved.
What the privacy statement says. The site’s privacy statement (effective November 2018) says some University websites use Google Analytics and that “this website does not collect any Personally Identifiable Information.” It does not mention Google’s advertising tags or Meta’s pixel.
What a website sends today does not show what it sent in earlier years, and whether any of this breaks a law is for a court to decide.
Case Details
Case: Niesen v. University of Minnesota Physicians, No. 0:26-cv-03438 (D. Minn.)
Filed: July 28, 2026
Judge: Donovan W. Frank; Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko
Cause listed on the docket: 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (federal Wiretap Act); jury demanded
Defendant served: August 3, 2026
Latest entries available to us: orders on stipulations, August 31 and September 22, 2026
Settlement or claim form: none on the docket
Where the Case Stands
Follow this case
There's no claim deadline yet. We'll email you if a settlement opens a claim period.
Who This Page Is For
This page is for people who used mphysicians.org — for example to look up a doctor or a clinic, to get to MyChart, or for billing information — and for M Physicians patients following the lawsuit. The docket does not say who, if anyone, the case covers.
M Physicians is the University of Minnesota Physicians group practice for the University of Minnesota Medical School faculty. It says it employs more than 2,000 physicians and advanced practice providers, lists 40+ locations and reports about 1M patient visits a year.
mphysicians.org is a different website from MyChart and from mhealthfairview.org. Most M Physicians patients log into M Health Fairview MyChart; patients of the Broadway Family Medicine Clinic use North Memorial’s MyChart.
No class has been certified in this case.
What Similar Cases Have Paid
There is no money in the M Physicians case today. For context, here is how two hospital website-tracking cases ended:
- Allina Health (Minnesota): Ahlers v. Allina Health System settled for $12,500,000 for people who used Allina’s websites between September 16, 2018 and May 11, 2026. The claim deadline was September 8, 2026, and the court granted final approval on September 24, 2026. Payments are a share of the fund, not a fixed amount; the parties estimated 2,531,323 class members.
- Inova Health (Virginia): Lugo v. Inova Health Care Services settled for up to $3,147,390.04 for about 817,504 people who visited an Inova public website between April 29, 2022 and April 29, 2024 and had an Inova MyChart account. Each approved claim receives an equal share. Final approval came on April 17, 2026. That case was brought under the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which includes the Wiretap Act.
A result in one case says nothing certain about another.
Timeline
- 1
August 2019 — Tag manager on mphysicians.org
The oldest Internet Archive copy of the home page we checked (August 17, 2019) already loads the Google Tag Manager container that delivers the site’s tracking tags today.
- 2
November 2019 — No Meta pixel in the archived container
An archived copy of that container from November 13, 2019 includes Google Analytics and Hotjar, but not Meta’s pixel. We cannot tell from the archive when the pixel was added.
- 3
June 16, 2022 — The Markup tests hospital websites
The Markup reports that Meta’s pixel sent Facebook data when visitors clicked to schedule an appointment on 33 of Newsweek’s top 100 U.S. hospital websites, and that it sat inside the patient portals of seven health systems.
- 4
June 20, 2024 — Court limits HHS tracking guidance
In American Hospital Association v. Becerra, a federal court in Texas vacates the part of HHS’s HIPAA guidance that covered tracking tools linking a visitor’s IP address with a visit to an unauthenticated public webpage addressing specific health conditions or healthcare providers. The docket for the M Physicians lawsuit lists the federal Wiretap Act as the cause; we have not seen the complaint.
- 5
July 28, 2026 — Lawsuit filed
Niesen v. University of Minnesota Physicians is filed in the District of Minnesota; the docket lists 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (the federal Wiretap Act) as the cause. M Physicians is served on August 3, 2026.
- 6
October 6, 2026 — Our check of mphysicians.org
Google’s advertising tag receives the address and title of a doctor’s profile page; Meta’s pixel loads on each of the three pages that load for us. The docket shows no settlement.
Watch Out For
We found no settlement and no claim form on the M Physicians docket. Be careful with:
“Settlement payment” messages
Any email, text or call saying you can collect M Physicians settlement money now should be treated as not real — we found no settlement on the docket.
Requests for your MyChart password
No court, law firm or settlement administrator needs your patient-portal login. Never share it.
Upfront fees to “sign you up”
You do not need to pay anyone to receive a settlement payment. Walk away from anyone who asks for a fee to add you to this case.
M Physicians Lawsuit: Frequently Asked Questions
Is there an M Physicians lawsuit?
Yes. The University of Minnesota Physicians lawsuit is Niesen v. University of Minnesota Physicians, No. 0:26-cv-03438, filed on July 28, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and assigned to Judge Donovan W. Frank. The docket lists the federal Wiretap Act as the cause. In the latest docket entries available to us (through September 22, 2026) there is no settlement.
Can I file a claim or join the case now?
There is no claim form, because there is no settlement on the docket. If you used mphysicians.org, you can answer three questions in the form on this page; a law firm that handles website-tracking cases may contact you.
What exactly did Google receive from mphysicians.org?
In our October 6, 2026 test, opening a doctor’s profile page sent the full page address and the page title (the doctor’s name followed by the site name) to Google’s advertising services and to Google Analytics. A doctor’s profile page lists the doctor’s specialties; the page we tested belongs to a radiologist whose listed interests include breast imaging (mammography).
Did Facebook (Meta) get my medical information?
In our test, Meta’s pixel reported a page view, and its page-address field contained only the domain mphysicians.org, not the address of the page. We cannot see what was sent in earlier years.
Is mphysicians.org the same as MyChart or the M Health Fairview website?
No. mphysicians.org is M Physicians’ own website. MyChart is the patient portal (for most M Physicians patients, M Health Fairview MyChart), and mhealthfairview.org is a separate website. The form asks which one you used, because they are separate websites.
Is this a class action?
The public docket does not say, and the complaint is not freely available, so we cannot tell whether it is brought on behalf of a class. No class has been certified.
Is this kind of tracking illegal?
Courts decide that case by case. In June 2024 a federal court in Texas set aside part of HHS’s HIPAA guidance about tracking on unauthenticated public webpages about health conditions or healthcare providers. Other lawsuits over website tracking rely on other laws, such as the federal Wiretap Act, which is the cause listed on the docket here. Two such cases, against Allina Health and Inova, ended in court-approved settlements in 2026. The M Physicians case has not been decided.
What happens when I fill out the form?
We ask which website you used (mphysicians.org, or MyChart and mhealthfairview.org), what you did there and when. Your answers and contact details may be shared with a participating law firm that handles website-tracking cases, which may contact you. Submitting the form is free, there is no obligation, and it does not file a claim.
Separate from this case: were you injured in the last 2 years?
Class-action payouts are fixed amounts through an administrator. A personal injury claim is a different case — and often worth far more. Free estimate, no obligation.
Related Consumer Brand Lawsuits
MyChart Claim Forms
Every MyChart settlement, with deadlines and official sites
MyChart Settlement Calculator
What hospital pixel settlements actually pay per person
Data Breach Settlement Calculator
Estimate a breach payout from documented losses
Open Class Action Settlements
Settlements still accepting claims right now