By Bob Paterson A visit to a bank’s website can involve sensitive financial interests, even before someone opens an account. The PNC Bank website communications lawsuit raises questions about what happens to those online interactions. Plaintiff Leslie Birdsall alleges that LinkedIn tracking technology on PNC’s website intercepted visitors’ electronic communications without their knowledge or consent. These are allegations, not established findings of unlawful conduct.
The lawsuit is genuine. A federal court docket confirms the Birdsall litigation, but its procedural history needs careful reporting: the case was returned to Pennsylvania state court in March 2026. The federal docket’s closure does not mean the underlying privacy claims were dismissed or that customers received a settlement.
What Does the Lawsuit Allege?
According to contemporaneous reporting on the complaint, Birdsall challenged the collection and analysis of interactions with PNC’s website and its subpages through LinkedIn technology. The proposed Pennsylvania class covered people whose electronic communications allegedly were intercepted through that technology.
The reported claims include violations of the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act and invasion of privacy. Birdsall sought damages, declaratory relief and an injunction. Those requests describe what the plaintiff wants the court to award; they do not establish that any remedy has been granted.
Which Case Is This?
The state action was reported as Birdsall v. The PNC Financial Services Group Inc., case GD-25-009654, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. The later federal docket identifies the defendant as PNC Bank NA and lists case 2:26-cv-00078 in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Using the plaintiff’s name and case numbers helps distinguish this dispute from other PNC litigation. A general headline about bank privacy may refer to a different complaint, with different technology, plaintiffs or legal claims.
What Can Website Tracking Collect?
LinkedIn’s own documentation says its Insight Tag can collect information such as a page URL, referring page, IP address, browser and device characteristics, and a timestamp. This explains why website tracking can raise privacy questions: information about a visit may reveal more than a simple count of website traffic.
However, general product capabilities do not establish exactly what PNC transmitted during any particular visit. They also do not prove that passwords, full account numbers or every keystroke were disclosed. The sources reviewed do not support presenting those more sweeping claims as established facts in this case.
The factual questions include what information was collected, when it was transmitted and what notice or consent applied. Those details matter more than broad descriptions such as “spying” or “data theft.”
What Happened in Court?
PNC removed the action to federal court on January 14, 2026. Birdsall sought remand on February 5. Judge William S. Stickman granted that request on March 23 and directed the case back to Allegheny County. The remand paperwork was forwarded on March 25.
Remand addresses where a lawsuit proceeds. It does not, by itself, establish whether the alleged tracking violated privacy law. The available federal record therefore supports a procedural update, not a verdict on the underlying allegations.
What Does Pennsylvania Law Allow?
Section 5725 of Pennsylvania’s wiretap law authorizes a civil action for certain unlawful interception, disclosure or use of communications. Available remedies can include actual damages, a statutory minimum calculation, punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs.
The statute describes minimum liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher. That language is not a promise that every PNC website visitor will receive $1,000. A claimant must establish an entitlement to relief, and the statute also recognizes a good-faith defense in specified circumstances.
What Does PNC Say About Online Tracking?
PNC’s published privacy policy, effective June 1, 2026, describes cookies, clickstream information and analytics tools, including some hosted by third parties. It also discusses advertising technologies and information collected through online interactions.
That policy provides useful context, but its date matters. A June 2026 disclosure cannot, by itself, establish what notice Birdsall received during the earlier visits challenged in the lawsuit. Nor is a public privacy policy equivalent to a court finding that the disputed practices were lawful.
Is There a Verified Settlement?
No settlement agreement, approved payment program or claim deadline was verified in the sources reviewed for this article. Later developments in the state court were also not independently confirmed. Readers should therefore avoid treating the federal docket’s “case closed” label as evidence of a payout or a final resolution of the privacy dispute.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. Do I need a PNC account to fall within the proposed class?
The reported proposed class concerns Pennsylvania website visitors whose communications allegedly were intercepted. It was not described simply as everyone holding a PNC account. Visiting the website alone does not establish eligibility for any future recovery.
Q. Does posting “add me” under a news article enroll me?
No. A public comment is not a court filing or an official settlement claim. Top Class Actions, which reported this lawsuit, states that it is not a settlement administrator and that comments do not submit claims.
Q. Does changing cookie settings resolve a past privacy claim?
Changing preferences concerns future browsing; it does not establish what happened during an earlier visit or determine a legal claim. PNC’s policy describes cookie and privacy choices, but whether an earlier communication was unlawfully intercepted depends on the evidence and applicable law.