PNC Bank Website Tracking Lawsuit (LinkedIn Insight Tag)

Q: What is the PNC website tracking lawsuit about?

A proposed class action, Birdsall v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., alleges PNC's website used the LinkedIn Insight Tag to intercept visitors' interactions and share them with LinkedIn without consent, in violation of Pennsylvania's wiretap law. The case was filed in Allegheny County court in September 2025 and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (No. 2:26-cv-00078) in January 2026. The allegations are unproven.

Q: What is the LinkedIn Insight Tag?

The LinkedIn Insight Tag is a piece of tracking code companies place on their websites, typically for advertising analytics. The complaint alleges that on PNC's site it captured visitors' interactions and allowed LinkedIn to match that activity to LinkedIn member profiles for ad targeting. That is the plaintiff's allegation, not a proven fact.

Q: Is there a settlement or money to claim?

No. The case is at the complaint/removal stage — the plaintiff has asked to send it back to state court, and PNC has not answered on the merits. No class is certified, there is no settlement, no fund, and no claim form. There is nothing to claim.

Published July 9, 2026

Visiting your bank's website feels private. A class action says a single line of LinkedIn tracking code on PNC's site turned that visit into data someone else could read.

A Pennsylvania class action alleges PNC's website used the LinkedIn Insight Tag to intercept visitors without consent.

By Steve Levine

Editor-in-Chief

▼ Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet

This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. PNC has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.

What Is This About?

PNC is facing a proposed class action alleging that its website secretly intercepted visitors' activity using a LinkedIn tracking tool. The case, Birdsall v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., was filed in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas in Pittsburgh in September 2025 and removed by PNC to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (No. 2:26-cv-00078) in January 2026. Brought by the firm Lynch Carpenter on behalf of Pennsylvania residents, it invokes the state's wiretap statute — a law that has become the engine of a wave of website-tracking suits.

The specific tool at issue is the LinkedIn Insight Tag, a snippet of code companies embed for advertising analytics. The complaint alleges that on PNC's site, the tag captured visitors' interactions and let LinkedIn match that activity to LinkedIn member profiles — all without visitors' consent. These are allegations; PNC has not been found liable, no class has been certified, and there is no settlement and nothing to claim.

Status Complaint Filed — Removed to Federal Court Birdsall v. PNC · filed Allegheny County Sept. 2025 · removed to W.D. Pa. Jan. 2026

The Technology LinkedIn Insight Tag on PNC's website Allegedly intercepted visitor interactions and matched them to LinkedIn profiles

The Law Pennsylvania Wiretap Act (WESCA) + invasion of privacy 18 Pa.C.S. § 5701 et seq.

Can I Claim? No — nothing to claim yet No settlement, no fund, no claim form

What the Insight Tag Allegedly Did

The LinkedIn Insight Tag is ordinary marketing technology — companies use it to measure ad performance and build audiences. The complaint's theory is that PNC's use of it went further than visitors would expect: that as people browsed PNC's website, the tag allegedly captured their communications and interactions and transmitted them to LinkedIn, which could match the activity to a visitor's LinkedIn profile for ad targeting and profiling. In the complaint's framing, LinkedIn is the third-party recipient of intercepted communications, and PNC is the site operator that allegedly allowed the interception. It is important to keep this in the allegation column: nothing has been proven, and PNC will have the chance to argue that visitors consented or that no interception occurred.

Why Pennsylvania's Wiretap Law Matters

The case rides on Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA), which bars intercepting electronic communications without all-party consent and provides for statutory damages. WESCA has become a magnet for website-tracking suits after the federal Third Circuit's decision in Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts allowed a WESCA interception theory to proceed against third-party website tracking. That ruling is why a steady stream of these cases — against retailers, banks, and other site operators — has landed in Pennsylvania courts. It is also why the outcomes are far from settled: some website-tracking suits elsewhere have been dismissed on consent or standing grounds, so this theory is still being tested case by case.

Where the Case Stands

After the suit was filed in state court, PNC removed it to federal court, and the plaintiff asked the federal judge to send it back to state court (a motion to remand). PNC had not yet answered the complaint on the merits as the case moved into 2026. In other words, the parties are still fighting over where the case belongs and whether it can proceed — not over damages. No class has been certified, and there is no settlement. (This is a distinct matter from an unrelated PNC debt-collection case OCA covers separately.)

Is There Anything to Claim?

No. There is no certified class, no settlement, no fund, and no claim form, and no deadline. If the case were to settle or reach judgment, a court-approved notice would explain who qualifies and how to file. For now, there is nothing to claim.

This page is informational and is not legal advice.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the PNC website tracking lawsuit about?

Birdsall v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. alleges PNC's website used the LinkedIn Insight Tag to intercept visitors' interactions and share them with LinkedIn without consent, under Pennsylvania's wiretap law. Filed in Allegheny County in September 2025; removed to W.D. Pa. (No. 2:26-cv-00078) in January 2026. Unproven allegations.

What is the LinkedIn Insight Tag?

A snippet of tracking code companies place on their websites for advertising analytics. The complaint alleges that on PNC's site it captured visitors' interactions and let LinkedIn match them to member profiles. That is the plaintiff's allegation.

What law does the case rely on?

Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA), 18 Pa.C.S. § 5701 et seq., plus invasion of privacy. The Third Circuit's Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts decision has allowed such interception theories to proceed.

Is there a settlement or money to claim?

No. The case is at the complaint/removal stage. No class is certified; there is no settlement, fund, claim form, or deadline. Nothing to claim.

Sources

• Law360 — "PNC Accused Of Sharing Site Users' Private Info With LinkedIn"
• Law.com Radar — Birdsall v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (docket card)

Free settlement alerts

Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.

For more class actions keep scrolling below.

Status Complaint filed & removed to federal court — no class certified, no settlement

Case Title Birdsall v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.

Case Number W.D. Pa. 2:26-cv-00078 (removed from Allegheny County GD-25-009654)

Court U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania

Date Filed September 15, 2025 (removed January 14, 2026)

Law Pennsylvania Wiretapping & Electronic Surveillance Control Act (18 Pa.C.S. § 5701 et seq.)

Official Website Law360 — Case Coverage