S.D.N.Y. · No. 1:26-cv-06492
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.source ↗ filed by Wilk Auslander LLP · No. 1:26-cv-06492 · 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$68M ▾Clements v. Gunnar shows privacy/biometric claims often survive dismissal due to unresolved factual questions, while Integris shows similar data-sharing claims remain 'unclear' at pleading stage; no direct precedent against a biotech defendant exists. 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: Clements v. Gunnar Optiks (7th Cir.) — vacated dismissal shows courts reluctant to resolve privacy/tracking claims on pleadings alone. Main risk: Small, niche website traffic (cancer therapy company) sharply limits class size versus mass-market comparables like Google/Flo Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $1.25M–$15M No direct biotech privacy-suit comparables; class size is a rough estimate absent traffic/user data for Iovance. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-07-29 | $30M–$68M comparable settlements |