LinkedIn Insight Tag Lawsuits Are Growing. What Makes the Tag a Target?

What Is the LinkedIn Insight Tag?

The Insight Tag is a piece of JavaScript code that businesses add to their websites to measure and target their LinkedIn advertising. Each time a page loads, the tag sends LinkedIn the page address, the referring page, the IP address, device and browser details, and a timestamp, according to LinkedIn's help center.

LinkedIn's cookie table says that li_fat_id, a cookie on the website's own domain, identifies members indirectly for conversion tracking, retargeting, and analytics. For li_sugr, a cookie on LinkedIn's domain, the table lists the purpose "Used to make a probabilistic match of a user's identity." The tag also creates a first-party identifier that LinkedIn calls the LinkedIn Ads ID (li_adsid), which helps connect later actions on the website to an ad. LinkedIn matches this information to its members' accounts.

Businesses use the tag to track conversions, such as sign-ups and purchases that follow a LinkedIn ad. They also build audiences of website visitors to retarget with ads, and view reports about the LinkedIn members who visit their websites. LinkedIn says that it does not share members' personal data with advertisers, and that these reports "are aggregate and do not identify individuals."

Two features add to what the tag collects. Website Actions "automatically collects and tags actions such as button clicks, page visits, and form submissions," although LinkedIn says it records only limited details, such as button text and the page name. Enhanced matching sends visitors' email addresses, which are "hashed on the website before being sent to LinkedIn," according to LinkedIn's help page for the tag.

Why Do Plaintiffs Focus on It?

Plaintiffs focus on the Insight Tag for many of the same reasons that they focus on the Meta Pixel. It sends LinkedIn a record of what visitors did on websites, which LinkedIn can connect to members' accounts. Four types of information that the tag collects are central to these claims:

Based on LinkedIn's help center and cookie table, as of October 2026.

In an October 2025 order, a federal judge summarized the plaintiffs' allegations by writing that LinkedIn "uses that data to identify the visitor as a particular LinkedIn account holder and provide insights to the advertiser about its audience." Plaintiffs also point to LinkedIn's use of the data for its own advertising business. LinkedIn's help center says that it uses data from advertisers' websites "to improve how LinkedIn selects and measures relevant ads for its members overall."

Plaintiffs argue that this use makes LinkedIn a third party to visitors' communications, rather than a tool of the websites. In the same order, the judge found these allegations enough, at an early stage, to keep LinkedIn from claiming that it was simply an extension of the websites. Another judge in the same court reached the same conclusion in 2024.

What Have Courts Said in the Cases Against LinkedIn?

LinkedIn itself has been sued repeatedly over the Insight Tag in federal court in San Jose since 2024, mostly over health-related websites. In October 2025, Judge Edward Davila dismissed the claims under Section 631 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), the wiretapping provision, because the complaints did not say when or how LinkedIn read the communications in transit. However, he let claims under Section 632, which covers recording confidential communications, and under the California Constitution proceed in cases involving weight loss and therapy websites.

In July 2026, in cases over California's and Nevada's state health insurance marketplaces, the judge ruled that LinkedIn's privacy and cookie policies disclosed its tracking on other websites, but that members may still expect health information to stay private. He let the Nevada plaintiff's privacy claim proceed, because she alleged that her medication and dosage information was sent to LinkedIn. He dismissed the California case, which followed an April 2025 investigation by The Markup and CalMatters, because the complaint did not say what information the plaintiffs had entered.

Are Businesses That Use the Tag Being Sued Too?

Businesses that install the tag are being sued as well, often over several advertising tools at once. In 2026, complaints naming the Insight Tag have been filed against banks, investment firms, news publishers, a health system, a student loan servicer, and a resort operator, among others.

Under CIPA's wiretapping provision, plaintiffs allege that these businesses helped LinkedIn read visitors' communications without their consent. Complaints also cite CIPA's pen register provision, which targets the collection of IP addresses and device details, or the federal Wiretap Act. SB 690 ends private pen register claims over website tracking on January 1, 2027, but it does not change the wiretapping provision.

What Does This Mean for Businesses?

The Insight Tag is a lawful tool that many businesses, especially in business-to-business markets, rely on to measure their LinkedIn advertising. LinkedIn's own guidance says that "the Insight Tag should not be installed on web pages that collect or contain Sensitive Data," such as pages where users manage financial accounts or medical appointments. It also makes businesses responsible for obtaining any consent that their users must give.

I recommend that businesses confirm where the tag runs on their websites and whether Website Actions or enhanced matching is active. Pages with forms, account areas, and health or financial content deserve particular attention, because the claims that courts have allowed to proceed involved that kind of information. Retargeting with the tag likely counts as sharing for targeted advertising under state privacy laws, so privacy notices and opt-out tools need to account for it as well.

Consent banners can reduce the risk, but only if they block the tag itself when visitors decline. A banner that records a refusal while the tag keeps loading leaves the same information flowing to LinkedIn. To prevent that, the consent platform has to pass each visitor's choice to the system that loads the tag, such as a tag manager or an e-commerce platform. At Captain Compliance, where I serve as Chief Trust & Privacy Officer, our platform passes those choices so that the tag stops when visitors decline.