Know what’s on your site before a plaintiff’s firm does
A free privacy audit shows which cookies, pixels and trackers are running — and which ones commonly appear in privacy claims.
Federal wire fraud is a serious crime. It is the statute prosecutors use when someone runs a scheme to obtain money or property by lies and uses interstate wires, including the internet, to do it. A recent Meta Pixel demand letter, and others sent to e-commerce and website operators, lists 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1349 as claim (g). The suggestion is that a privacy policy, or the quiet installation of the Meta Pixel, was a scheme to defraud visitors. That is an extraordinary label for an advertising tag, and it is being used for a narrow tactical reason.
TL;DR
- Section 1343 makes it a crime to use interstate wires in a scheme to defraud, or to obtain money or property by false pretenses. Section 1349 covers attempts and conspiracies.
- There is no private right of action for wire fraud. A visitor cannot simply sue on those sections and collect criminal penalties.
- Demand letters cite the statutes mainly as a “criminal purpose” for the ECPA crime-tort exception. Courts require a real scheme to obtain money or property, not a restatement of the tracking itself.
What the wire-fraud statutes actually prohibit
18 U.S.C. § 1343 reaches whoever, having devised or intending to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by wire any writing or signal for the purpose of executing that scheme. Section 1349 makes it a crime to attempt or conspire to commit that offense. The government must prove a specific intent to defraud and a scheme aimed at money or property.
The Supreme Court has been unwilling to let “property” become an abstraction that covers every lost opportunity or disappointed expectation. In Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. 306 (2023), the Court rejected the “right to control” theory of property in federal fraud cases. A scheme must target traditional property interests, not merely interfere with someone’s ability to make an informed economic decision in the air. That matters when a letter says visitors were defrauded because they did not know a pixel existed. Not every undisclosed fact is federal fraud, and not every privacy omission is “property.”
Just as important, these sections are criminal. Private parties do not enforce them, except in the limited and carefully bounded context of statutes such as RICO that Congress actually opened to civil plaintiffs. A demand letter that recites sections 1343 and 1349 is not a substitute for an indictment, and it does not create a standalone civil cause of action.
Why the statutes appear in a pixel letter
In the procurement-and-crime-tort letters we are seeing, wire fraud is almost never the claim counsel expects to try to a jury on its own. It is a named crime that can be offered as the purpose of the interception. If the business intercepted communications in order to run a fraudulent scheme, the argument goes, then 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) takes away the one-party-consent defense.
The supposed scheme is usually described in the same sentences used for the FTC Act theory and for statutory larceny. The business published a website or a privacy policy that did not highlight the Meta Pixel. Visitors used the site. The pixel sent information to Meta. Therefore, counsel say, the business devised a scheme to obtain valuable data, or to obtain purchases, by hiding a material fact. The wires are the internet requests themselves.
That description borrows the vocabulary of fraud without borrowing its limits. A scheme to defraud is more than a disclosure counsel would have written differently. It requires intent to deceive in order to obtain money or property. Installing a widely used advertising pixel, even carelessly, is not automatically that mental state. If the only “property” identified is the browsing information copied by the pixel, the theory starts to collapse into the interception itself, which is what the crime-tort exception is not supposed to do.
How strong is the theory?
As a private claim, it is the wrong statute. Recipients should not evaluate settlement as if they were facing a federal fraud prosecution unless independent facts actually suggest one. As a crime-tort predicate, it is still one of the weaker add-ons in an ordinary commercial pixel dispute. Judges who have required an independent criminal purpose are unlikely to accept “you committed wire fraud by intercepting communications, and you intercepted them in order to commit wire fraud.”
The theory would look different if the facts did. A business that invented a fake privacy promise in order to induce paying customers to hand over information it then sold under another name is closer to traditional fraud than a business whose marketing team pasted the Meta Pixel into a tag manager and forgot to update a policy. Letters rarely pause to make that distinction. They list sections 1343 and 1349 because the numbers look severe and because a crime is what the exception asks for.
There is also a practical reason not to overreact in writing. Accusing a company of federal fraud in a private demand, without a developed factual basis, can say more about the letter’s rhetoric than about the recipient’s conduct. Counsel can note the citation, ask what money or property was supposedly obtained by the alleged scheme, and return to the statutes that actually supply private remedies.
A related, quieter issue is the company’s own privacy-policy hygiene. Even if wire fraud is the wrong label, a policy that contradicts the pixel is still a problem for consumer-protection theories and for regulators. Fixing the contradiction is the right operational move whether or not claim (g) would survive a motion to dismiss.
Practical steps if wire fraud is on the list
- Ask what money or property the letter says was obtained. If the answer is only “the communications” or “the value of privacy,” the fraud theory is doing circular work.
- Separate careless tracking from intentional deceit. Intent is an element. Internal emails about “how do we get around the banner” are a different record from internal emails about “we forgot to add Meta to the policy.”
- Do not ignore a true false statement just because the statute is a poor fit. Correct the statement and the tag.
- Let counsel handle any suggestion of criminal exposure. Do not try to debate federal criminal law with the sender in an informal reply.
How Captain Compliance reduces the raw material of a deception story
Wire-fraud rhetoric feeds on hidden tags and mismatched notices. Captain Compliance’s consent manager is designed to make advertising pixels wait for a recorded choice and to keep a receipt of what the visitor was shown. The cookie scanner can reveal a pixel that still runs in the background after a rejection or a Global Privacy Control signal. Updating the privacy notice so it describes Meta and other advertising partners removes one of the “false pretenses” the letter wants to allege. Compliance Shield can cover qualifying consent and notice claims when the platform is properly used; it does not, and should not be described as, insurance against intentional fraud. If someone is actually running a scheme to deceive customers, that is outside what a compliance platform is for.
Frequently asked questions
Can a private claimant sue us for wire fraud?
Not under sections 1343 and 1349 themselves. Those are criminal statutes. A letter that lists them is almost always trying to name a crime for the ECPA exception, not filing a federal fraud case.
Is an incomplete privacy policy a “scheme to defraud”?
An incomplete or inaccurate policy can support other claims and can attract regulators. A federal fraud scheme requires specific intent to obtain money or property by deception. Many sloppy pixel implementations will not meet that standard. Some deliberate cover-ups might. The difference is factual.
Does the Supreme Court’s Ciminelli decision matter here?
It matters as a reminder that federal fraud is about traditional property interests, not every frustrated expectation or undisclosed detail. A letter that treats any omitted pixel disclosure as stolen “right to control information” is leaning on a theory the Court has rejected in the criminal-fraud context.
Reserve criminal labels for criminal schemes
Wire fraud has a job in the United States Code. It is not a synonym for “we wish your privacy policy had mentioned Meta.” In Meta Pixel demand letters, claim (g) is usually a piece of scaffolding for the crime-tort exception. Take hidden data practices seriously. Take intentional deceit seriously. Do not let a criminal citation talk you into treating an advertising tag as a completed federal fraud. Ask what property was obtained, what representation was knowingly false, and which private statutes in the same letter actually provide a remedy. Those questions bring the file back to scale.
This article is for educational purposes and is not legal advice.
Put this into practice
Turn privacy guidance into working controls.
Captain Compliance helps teams discover tracking technologies, enforce consent, manage privacy requests and document the evidence behind every decision.
