CRANDALL CONSULTING
HomeResearch › The State of Website Tracking Litigation: 2026

The State of Website Tracking Litigation: 2026

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: August 31, 2026

Risk scores, classifications, statistics, and technical findings are informational guidelines based on observed website behavior and publicly available litigation activity, statutes, court decisions, legal commentary, and other public sources. They are not legal advice, legal opinions, or determinations of liability.

This report is generated from the live intelligence database rather than written once and left to age: the jurisdiction rankings, statute and technology frequencies, and trend readings below reflect the current state of our tracked source set and update as new intelligence runs complete.

The National Picture

76
Tracked Lawsuits
2
Tracked Matters
0
Tracked Demand Letters
6
Reported Claims
569
Tracked Sources
84
Tracked Case Records

Statistic labels: Official = government/court published; Estimated = derived with stated method; Tracked = counted in the Crandall intelligence database; Reported = claimed by a third-party source. Counts on this page are Tracked unless labeled otherwise.

Where Activity Is Concentrated

The ten highest current risk guidelines in our database:

JurisdictionRisk GuidelineLevelConfidenceTrendTracked LawsuitsTracked Matters
California94Very High96%rising131
Florida52Elevated90%declining50
Connecticut46Elevated90%rising00
Massachusetts45Elevated71%rising10
Pennsylvania44Moderate96%declining50
Illinois41Moderate90%stable10
Maryland41Moderate72%rising00
New Hampshire41Moderate45%rising00
Nevada40Moderate6%rising00
Washington40Moderate52%rising00

Trend Direction

Jurisdictions currently trending upward in our data: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. Trend readings compare recent snapshots of each jurisdiction's tracked activity.

Technologies Driving Tracked Matters

TechnologyTracked Case Mentions
cookies15
session replay12
tracking pixels11
Google Analytics9
Meta Pixel8
device fingerprinting8
IP address collection7
TikTok Pixel6
pixels6
third-party trackers5
website analytics5
website tracking5

Statutes Doing the Work

StatuteTracked Case Mentions
California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA)3
Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA)3
Cal. Penal Code § 502 (CDAFA); Cal. Penal Code § 638.51(a) (CIPA); Cal. Const. art. I, § 11
California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA); California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) § 638.51(a)1
Cal. Penal Code § 638.51(a)1
Cal. Penal Code § 638.51(a) (CIPA pen register provision)1
California Penal Code § 638.51(a) (CIPA pen register provision); Cal. Penal Code § 638.50(a) referenced1
Florida Statutes 934.031
Fla. Stat. § 934 (including §§ 934.03, 934.10, 934.31)1
Florida Statutes § 934.031
Fla. Stat. § 934.10; Fla. Stat. § 934.31; Fla. Stat. § 934.031
Cal. Penal Code 630-638; Cal. Penal Code § 638.51; Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA)1

What Website Operators Should Take From This

The data continues to reward the same review discipline: know every third-party script on your site, know what each transmits and when relative to consent, and re-verify after every change. Technology detection is an informational risk indicator — the configuration details determine what, if anything, needs to change.

Jurisdictions Covered

About This Page

Publisher: Inspection-Ready Institute, Inc. (DBA Crandall Consulting), an independent website compliance and risk consultancy. We are not a law firm and nothing on this page is legal advice.

How this content is produced: Facts are extracted from publicly available sources — court and government materials, recognized legal press, professional analysis, and industry reports — by our litigation intelligence engine, stored with full source provenance, and rendered from the database. Risk guidelines are computed by a deterministic formula, never by an AI model directly. See the full methodology.

Limitations: Counts labeled "Tracked" reflect matters identified in our source set and are not official court statistics. We report what courts decided and did not decide; we do not predict outcomes.

Corrections: If you believe anything on this page is inaccurate, contact us via the contact page and we will review the underlying sources promptly.

Is Your Website Creating Hidden Tracking Risk?

Scan your site for third-party tracking and potential wiretap exposure. Free, no account required.

Scan My Website