E.D. Mo. · No. 4:26-cv-01154
Full docket on CourtListener ↗
No federal docket timeline hydrated for this case yet (state-court settlements have no RECAP docket).
| Matter | Type | Practice area | Court | Date | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLCsource ↗ filed by Pontello Bressler LLC · Judge Shirley P. Mensah · No. 4:26-cv-01154 · 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$68M ▾Comparable rulings split: BIPA claims survived/vacated for further fact-finding (Clements v. Gunnar), while removal and procedural claims were dismissed (Integris, Olson); no direct wiretap precedent matches PRA's SOL-letter theory. Comparable settlements $30M–$68M median $59.50M · n=10 Google Assistant $68M · Google $68M · Flo, Google, and F $59.50M Per member (realized): ~$30 median · $29–$30 (n=2) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425M Class (from complaint): All individuals to whom Defendant sent collection letters containing misleading language regarding statute of limitations on time-barred debts. Key precedent: Wright v. Portfolio Recovery Associates (reversed and remanded) shows PRA has prior adverse appellate rulings on FCRA/FDCPA-style collection claims, suggesting exposure here. Main risk: Claim theory mismatch (wiretap label vs. FDCPA-style SOL letter content) could trigger dismissal for failure to state a privacy/wiretap injury, as in Integris removal/dismissal pattern. This defendant: PRA Group has repeat CFPB enforcement history and prior reversed FDCPA ruling (Wright), indicating recurring compliance litigation exposure. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $145K–$2.50M Theory (wiretap) doesn't align well with class definition (misleading SOL letters); estimate is highly speculative given small, mismatched sample. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Mo. | 2026-07-22 | $30M–$68M comparable settlements |