Website Wiretap Litigation Statistics
The figures on this page are generated directly from our litigation intelligence database — the same dataset that powers the state risk pages and the Website Wiretap Risk Scanner. Counts reflect matters identified in our tracked public source set and are labeled 'Tracked'; they are not official court statistics.
Database Totals
Most Active Jurisdictions
| Jurisdiction | Risk Guideline | Level | Confidence | Trend | Tracked Lawsuits | Tracked Matters |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | 94 | Very High | 96% | rising | 13 | 1 |
| Florida | 52 | Elevated | 90% | declining | 5 | 0 |
| Connecticut | 46 | Elevated | 90% | rising | 0 | 0 |
| Massachusetts | 45 | Elevated | 71% | rising | 1 | 0 |
| Pennsylvania | 44 | Moderate | 96% | declining | 5 | 0 |
| Illinois | 41 | Moderate | 90% | stable | 1 | 0 |
| Maryland | 41 | Moderate | 72% | rising | 0 | 0 |
| New Hampshire | 41 | Moderate | 45% | rising | 0 | 0 |
| Nevada | 40 | Moderate | 6% | rising | 0 | 0 |
| Washington | 40 | Moderate | 52% | rising | 0 | 0 |
| Minnesota | 39 | Moderate | 60% | rising | 0 | 0 |
| New Jersey | 39 | Moderate | 47% | rising | 0 | 0 |
| Texas | 39 | Moderate | 76% | rising | 0 | 0 |
| Michigan | 34 | Moderate | 3% | rising | 0 | 0 |
| Nebraska | 34 | Moderate | 43% | rising | 0 | 0 |
Technologies Most Frequently Appearing in Tracked Cases
| Technology | Tracked Case Mentions |
|---|---|
| cookies | 15 |
| session replay | 12 |
| tracking pixels | 11 |
| Google Analytics | 9 |
| Meta Pixel | 8 |
| device fingerprinting | 8 |
| IP address collection | 7 |
| TikTok Pixel | 6 |
| pixels | 6 |
| third-party trackers | 5 |
| website analytics | 5 |
| website tracking | 5 |
Statutes Most Frequently Invoked in Tracked Cases
| Statute | Tracked 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, § 1 | 1 |
| 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) referenced | 1 |
| Florida Statutes 934.03 | 1 |
| Fla. Stat. § 934 (including §§ 934.03, 934.10, 934.31) | 1 |
| Florida Statutes § 934.03 | 1 |
| Fla. Stat. § 934.10; Fla. Stat. § 934.31; Fla. Stat. § 934.03 | 1 |
| Cal. Penal Code 630-638; Cal. Penal Code § 638.51; Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA) | 1 |
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