North Carolina Website Tracking, Privacy & Wiretap Litigation

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last intelligence update: October 13, 2026

Lawsuits, demand letters, tracked matters, and reported claims are counted separately and are not interchangeable. Last intelligence update: October 13, 2026.

Current Landscape

The supplied North Carolina data lists zero tracked lawsuits, demand letters, and total matters, and includes no case summaries. It assigns a Moderate risk level and identifies the North Carolina Electronic Surveillance Act (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287). These tracking counts do not establish that no litigation or demand activity exists statewide. The listed technologies include website pixels, online tracking tools, social platforms, patient portals, submission forms, and app engagement features, but the data does not connect them to any North Carolina proceeding.

Current Litigation Activity

Current litigation component: 0/100.

Current Filing & Litigation Trends

No North Carolina filing trend can be established from the supplied data. All tracked counts are zero, and no historical comparison or case-level information is provided. The technology list alone does not demonstrate filing activity in North Carolina or elsewhere.

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

• North Carolina Electronic Surveillance Act — N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287 · private right of action · statutory damages

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

• Internet tracking pixel
• pixel tracking tools
• online tracking tools
• Instagram
• Facebook
• Algorithmic feeds
• Age assurance
• Push notifications
• Beauty filters
• Visible like counts
• Internet tracking tools
• Pixel
• Website pixels, as identified in the settlement title
• MyChart patient portal
• Website submission forms
• TikTok Pixel
• Microsoft Bat Bing Tracker
• Microsoft Bing trackers

Historical Risk Guideline

What Businesses Should Review

As a practical review checklist, organizations can inventory any listed technologies they actually use, identify where pixels and trackers operate, and document what information is transmitted and to whom. Where applicable, review patient-portal and submission-form data flows, third-party integrations, activation settings, and related notices and consent processes. This checklist is not a conclusion about statutory applicability or a guarantee of compliance.

Data Quality

7 source(s), 5 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

• Settlement agreement involving tracking tools and pixel disclosure — U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · Tier A (Primary authority)
• Labcorp Agrees to Limit Use of Pixel Trackers, Ending Class Suit — Bloomberg Law · Tier B (Authoritative secondary)
• Utah Secures $12.2 Billion Settlement With Meta Over Child Safety Practices — Governor Spencer J. Cox · Tier A (Primary authority)
• Williams v. Duke University Health — Frequently Asked Questions — Epiq, court-authorized settlement administrator · Tier B (Authoritative secondary)
• Cone Health Pixel Settlement — Frequently Asked Questions — Simpluris, court-authorized settlement administrator · Tier A (Primary authority)
• Bradshaw et al. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc.: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss — Justia · Tier A (Primary authority)
• Bradshaw et al v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., 3:2025cv00742 - Document 58 (S.D. Cal. 2026) — Justia · Tier A (Primary authority)

All State Pages