The situation
You've heard that banks are getting sued over pixels on their websites, and you don't know if that's your bank or just headlines. The reporting names national banks and community credit unions alike, which doesn't help you narrow it down - if anything, the range of defendants makes the worry feel less like something that happens to other people.
Somebody forwards you an article, or counsel raises it in a meeting, and the question lands on marketing's desk: do we have this problem? Nobody wants to guess wrong in either direction - overreacting and stripping tags you didn't need to, or underreacting and leaving something exposed you could have caught.
The pain
The fear is real but vague. Nobody on the marketing team can say which of your own tags would actually be named in a complaint like the ones filed against other institutions, because nobody has looked at the site the way a plaintiff's counsel would: page by page, tag by tag, tracing where each request actually goes.
Without that view, the instinct is often to do nothing and hope, or to do everything - rip out every third-party tag defensively - and neither response is based on what your site actually does.
What we implement
We run a read-only capture of every tag and pixel firing on your public pages and document exactly which ones send visitor data to third parties and under what circumstances - the same runtime tracking audit method referenced in the litigation record itself, just pointed at your site instead of a plaintiff's exhibit. The output is a page-by-page, tag-by-tag record, not a summary judgment on your risk. It covers your full public site - marketing pages, rate pages, and application flows alike - because the litigation pattern doesn't confine itself to any one page type, and a partial inventory would leave the same open question it was meant to close.
What you get
- A factual inventory of what your site actually sends, before an examiner, regulator, or plaintiff's counsel asks.
- A clear line between tags on your rates and marketing pages and tags on your account-opening and application flows, which is where the litigation exposure concentrates.
- A path to keep the tags that carry real value, instead of a blanket teardown that also kills your attribution.
- Something concrete to hand counsel instead of a verbal description of what marketing thinks the site does.
Illustrative example
A community credit union whose leadership assumed their tag footprint was minimal might learn from the inventory that it carried the same ad-platform pixel pattern named in suits against much larger banks - not because anyone did anything unusual, but because the pixel shipped as a platform default years earlier and nobody had reason to revisit it since. Illustrative - the audit reports facts, not a verdict on your exposure; that judgment belongs to counsel.