Michigan Website Tracking, Privacy & Wiretap Litigation

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

Lawsuits, demand letters, tracked matters, and reported claims are counted separately and are not interchangeable. Last intelligence update: October 12, 2026.

Current Landscape

The supplied Michigan dataset lists zero tracked lawsuits, demand letters, or other matters and contains no case summaries. These counts describe the dataset, not the absence of litigation or demands statewide. The monitoring profile assigns Michigan a Moderate risk level and lists the Michigan Eavesdropping Statute (Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539a et seq.), but provides no cases or analysis supporting a conclusion about how that statute applies to particular technologies.

The technology list includes analytics and advertising tags, cookies, tracking pixels, session replay and keystroke capture, third-party data sharing, and social-platform features. Their inclusion does not establish that they are involved in Michigan disputes or in tracked matters elsewhere. No allegations, holdings, standing determinations, or procedural rulings are supplied.

Current Litigation Activity

Current litigation component: 0/100.

Current Filing & Litigation Trends

No filing trend can be inferred from the supplied dataset. It lists no tracked matters and provides no historical counts or case summaries for comparison.

Precedent Landscape: What Courts Have Decided

Precedent component: 50/100. Litigation activity (volume) and precedential risk (authority of decisions) are measured separately — a high number of filings does not by itself indicate strong plaintiff-favorable binding precedent.

No decided precedent with a clear substantive direction is currently tracked.

A settlement is not a binding precedent, and a procedural dismissal (for example, for lack of standing) is not a holding that the underlying technology is lawful. Where courts disagree, that disagreement is reflected rather than resolved.

Current Laws & Relevant Statutes

• Michigan Eavesdropping Statute — Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539a et seq. · all-party consent · private right of action

Regulatory Enforcement

Regulatory enforcement component: 0/100. Regulatory enforcement (agency investigations, sweeps, settlements, guidance, rulemaking) is tracked separately from private litigation and is never counted as a lawsuit.

No specific enforcement actions are itemized for this jurisdiction.

Agency Guidance

Regulatory trend: insufficient data.

Global Privacy Control / Opt-Out Signals

Limited data

GPC / universal opt-out exposure component: limited data — this component is excluded from the overall risk guideline for this jurisdiction until researched (remaining components are reweighted accordingly).

GPC / universal opt-out privacy rights are a different legal theory from wiretap / interception litigation, though both affect third-party website data flows.

Learn more about Global Privacy Control → · How GPC posture is weighted in the risk guideline →

Changes Coming in the Next 24 Months

Forward-looking (24-month) component: 0/100. Enacted changes with future effective dates may affect a jurisdiction's forward-looking risk, but are not presented as currently enforceable.

Coming Into Effect (Enacted)

No enacted future-effective laws identified in our latest research cycle.

Legislation to Watch (Pending)

No pending website-privacy legislation identified for this jurisdiction in our latest research cycle.

Important Cases & Tracked Matters

No cases are currently tracked for this jurisdiction. This reflects our tracked source set, not an absence of litigation.

Technologies Appearing in Claims

• Meta Pixel
• Google Analytics
• Google Tag Manager
• LinkedIn Insight Tag
• Instagram
• Facebook
• Algorithmic feeds
• Age assurance
• Push notifications
• Beauty filters
• Visible like counts
• Cookies
• tracking pixels
• session replay code
• session replay / keystroke capture
• tracking technologies (general)
• session replay
• third‑party tracking pixels
• website analytics
• third‑party advertising/analytics data sharing

Historical Risk Guideline

What Businesses Should Review

As a practical review checklist, businesses with Michigan-facing websites or apps may consider inventorying analytics and advertising tags, cookies, pixels, session replay tools, and third-party data-sharing configurations. Review what information is collected, whether user inputs are captured, where scripts load, which vendors receive data, and how these practices compare with notices, consent flows, and internal policies. These are review suggestions, not requirements or conclusions established by the supplied statute or case facts.

Data Quality

8 source(s), 6 primary; evidence is fresh.

Methodology & Limitations

Statistics on this page are generated by the Crandall Consulting litigation intelligence engine. Publicly available sources (court and government materials, recognized legal press, professional analysis, and industry reports) are discovered through automated web research, classified into a tiered source hierarchy, and reduced to structured facts with full source provenance. Risk guidelines and evidence-confidence scores are computed by a deterministic formula from those stored facts — never by an AI model directly (AI explains findings; it never assigns a score). Counts labeled "tracked" reflect matters identified in our source set and are not official court statistics.

The overall risk guideline is composed of six deterministically weighted components: statutory structure (25%), current litigation activity (25%), prior precedent (18%), GPC / universal opt-out posture (15%), regulatory enforcement (9%), and the forward-looking 24-month horizon (8%). When a state's GPC status is limited data, that component is excluded and the remaining weights are renormalized — limited data never reads as lower exposure. Current litigation activity is measured over recent windows (velocity), not lifetime volume, so a jurisdiction with high historical activity but declining current filings reflects that decline. Litigation activity (volume) and precedential risk (authority of decisions) are measured separately. Full details are on the methodology page.

Sources

• Michigan Court Lets Patients’ Federal Wiretap Act Claim Over Website Tracking Proceed as Pennsylvania Court Reaches the Opposite Result — Sourcepoint · Tier D (Industry data)
• Utah Secures $12.2 Billion Settlement With Meta Over Child Safety Practices — Governor Spencer J. Cox · Tier A (Primary authority)
• Wehrle v. McLaren Health Care Corporation — Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, via Justia · Tier A (Primary authority)
• Wehrle v. McLaren Health Care Corp. — Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, via Leagle · Tier A (Primary authority)
• Wehrle v. McLaren Health Care Corporation — Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (via Justia) · Tier A (Primary authority)
• Wehrle v. McLaren Health Care Corporation — Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, via Justia · Tier A (Primary authority)
• Deidun v. Humana, Inc — Lawsuit Complaint (Document #1 Filed 01/23/2026) — DocketNexus · Tier A (Primary authority)
• The Privacy Map Expands: Michigan Emerges in Website Tracking Litigation — Miller Canfield · Tier C (Professional analysis)

All State Pages