S.D.N.Y. · No. 1:26-cv-06484
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| iTonic Holdings Ltd (f/k/a Pheton Holdings Ltd)source ↗ filed by Morris Kandinov LLP · No. 1:26-cv-06484 · 15:77 Securities Fraud · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$68M ▾Comparable rulings split: Clements v. Gunnar Optiks shows BIPA-type privacy claims survive dismissal when HIPAA/health exclusions are fact-bound, while Bayhealth found a duty of confidentiality plausible; but Integris shows core third-party sharing claims can remain 'unclear' at pleading stage. No case here was cleanly dismissed on the merits. Comparable settlements $30M–$68M median $59.50M · n=10 Google LLC and Alp $68M · Google Assistant $68M · Flo, Google, Flurr $59.50M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $25–$30 (n=3) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425M Key precedent: William Clements v. Gunnar Optiks - shows privacy/data-collection claims survive 12(b)(6) when statutory exclusions are fact-dependent, likely persuasive if iTonic raises similar defenses. Main risk: Web signals show no clear consumer-facing product or user base tied to iTonic Holdings, raising doubt about actual class size and viability of the claim. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $62K–$1.50M Extremely limited defendant-specific data; web signals are largely irrelevant/noisy, making class size and settlement estimates highly speculative. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-07-29 | $30M–$68M comparable settlements |