State of Missouri ex rel. Attorney General Andrew Bailey v. H&R Block Inc., TaxSlayer LLC, and TaxAct Inc.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: October 12, 2026

Summary

The Missouri Attorney General’s petition alleges that H&R Block, TaxSlayer, and TaxAct used website pixels to transmit sensitive personal, financial, and tax-return information to Meta, Google, and potentially other entities without customer consent. The petition brings a Missouri Merchandising Practices Act lawsuit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis City seeking injunctive relief, penalties, restitution, and other equitable relief; the excerpt contains no court ruling or subsequent case status.

Procedural Posture

Attorney General petition seeking injunctive relief, penalties, restitution, and other equitable relief; the excerpt provides no filing date or subsequent procedural history.

Significance

Neutral / mixed significance. Characterizations of significance describe how the matter has generally been discussed in tracked public sources; individual holdings are often narrow, procedural, or fact-specific, and this page does not state or imply broader holdings than the sources support.

What This Page Does and Does Not Say

This page reports what our tracked public sources say about this matter — including, where identified, the procedural posture (for example, a ruling on a motion to dismiss is not a final merits decision). It does not report legal conclusions beyond those sources, does not predict outcomes, and does not constitute legal advice.

Technologies at Issue

• Website tracking pixels
• Meta pixels
• Google pixels

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta, Google.

Statutes Invoked

• Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, § 407.020 et seq., RSMo.; § 407.100 RSMo.

Claims Asserted

Claims identified in tracked public sources; pleadings may include additional or amended claims.

• Alleged Missouri Merchandising Practices Act misconduct involving disclosure of consumers’ sensitive information without consent and contrary to representations

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

For operators using similar technologies, the recurring factual questions in matters like this one are whether advertising pixels transmit page URLs or hashed form data before a consent choice; what page URLs and query strings analytics tools share with third parties. Our scanner tests these behaviors empirically.

Detection of a similar technology on a website is an informational risk indicator, not a legal conclusion, and nothing in this section is legal advice.

Related Intelligence

Sources

• Missouri Attorney General Petition Against H&R Block, TaxSlayer, and TaxAct Concerning Website Tracking Pixels — Missouri Attorney General · Tier A (Primary authority)

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.