A recent Washington federal court decision emphasizes two key federal Wiretap Act principles. First, the Act’s crime-tort exception only applies if there are plausible allegations that a party to the communication intercepted communications specifically to commit a separate wrongdoing. Second, the statute does not allow secondary liability for “procuring” an interception by a third party. Nichols v. PeaceHealth Networks on Demand LLC, 2026 WL 607763, at *3-4 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 4, 2026).

In Nichols, the plaintiff alleged that defendant PeaceHealth Networks’ website used third-party software to capture users’ interactions—like personal health information and medical appointment details—and sent this information to the third party for targeted advertising. The plaintiff argued that the alleged interceptions violated her privacy and PeaceHealth Networks’ obligations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), and she sued under the Wiretap Act.

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, holding that the plaintiff failed to plead an unlawful “interception” and reasoning that the defendant, as a direct party to the communication, cannot be liable for intercepting it. The plaintiff argued that the interception fell outside this general rule based on the crime-tort exception, whereby a party to the communication cannot escape liability if they have acquired the communication for the purpose of committing a tortious act that is “separate and secondary to the acquisition of the information.” Id. at *3. The court held that the crime-tort exception did not apply because the plaintiff did not plead any facts to support the conclusory statements that PeaceHealth Networks “intended to violate” HIPAA and “disclosed HIPAA-protected health information to unauthorized third parties.” Id. at *4.

The court also rejected the assertion that PeaceHealth Networks could be liable for “procuring” an interception by the third party because “the majority [of courts] have rejected the notion that a defendant may be held liable for ‘aiding and abetting’ or ‘procuring’ an interception.” Id.