E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-05392
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TRANS UNION, LLCsource ↗ filed by Francis & Mailman Pc · Judge Mary Kay Costello · No. 2:26-cv-05392 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$68M ▾Comparable privacy rulings split: Bayhealth's confidentiality claim survived and Gunnar Optiks' BIPA claim survived on remand, but Integris's data-sharing claim was left unclear and LabCorp shows courts narrowing fraud/privacy theories. No wiretap-specific precedent directly involving TransUnion 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–$29 (n=3) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425M Key precedent: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — shows courts willing to sustain privacy/confidentiality claims against data-handling defendants at MTD stage. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to plead interception/consent under wiretap statutes, akin to LabCorp's narrowing of privacy-adjacent claims. This defendant: TransUnion's litigation history is dominated by FCRA/FDCPA suits, not wiretap claims — this is a novel theory for this defendant. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $12.50M–$145M Small, non-wiretap-specific comparable set; class size is speculative absent case-specific allegations of data scope. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-07-30 | $30M–$68M comparable settlements |