South Carolina 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 South Carolina dataset reports zero tracked lawsuits, zero demand letters, and zero total tracked matters, and labels the jurisdiction's risk level as “Lower.” These are dataset indicators, not conclusions about all disputes or future litigation.

The sole listed statute is the South Carolina Homeland Security Act (Interception) (S.C. Code § 17-30-20). The record does not provide statutory text or case analysis establishing how it applies to the listed technologies. Those technologies include social-media platforms and features, session replay, Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel, form tracking, cookies, device fingerprinting, cross-site profiling, AI, automated decisionmaking, biometrics, telehealth, and location data.

No case summaries are supplied, so the record provides no allegations, holdings, standing decisions, or procedural rulings to describe.

Current Litigation Activity

Current litigation component: 0/100.

Current Filing & Litigation Trends

No filing trend can be established from the supplied zero counts. The record contains no historical comparison or case summaries from which to assess changes in activity, recurring allegations, or litigation outcomes.

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

• South Carolina Homeland Security Act (Interception) — S.C. Code § 17-30-20 · 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

• Instagram
• Facebook
• Algorithmic feeds
• Age assurance
• Push notifications
• Beauty filters
• Visible like counts
• session replay
• Microsoft Clarity
• Facebook Pixel
• form tracking
• cross-site profiling
• Session replay
• Form-input tracking
• Cookies
• Device fingerprinting
• Cross-site profiling
• automated_decisionmaking
• artificial_intelligence
• algorithmic_bias
• biometrics
• telehealth
• location_data
• data_brokers
• social_media

Historical Risk Guideline

What Businesses Should Review

As a practical review checklist—not a statement of legal requirements established by this record—businesses can compare their actual technology use with their disclosures, consent flows, vendor contracts, and data maps. For relevant implementations, review what third-party scripts and integrations collect, share, retain, and use. Any assessment of the cited statute's applicability would require its text and additional legal sources.

Data Quality

4 source(s), 3 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

• Utah Secures $12.2 Billion Settlement With Meta Over Child Safety Practices — Governor Spencer J. Cox · Tier A (Primary authority)
• In Re: Zillow Group, Inc. Session Replay Software Litigation — Document 119 — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, via Justia · Tier A (Primary authority)
• In Re: Zillow Group, Inc. Session Replay Software Litigation — Document 119 — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (via Justia) · Tier A (Primary authority)
• U.S. Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Review and Outlook – 2025 — Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP · Tier E (General web)

All State Pages