E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-05398
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIRCLE K STORES, INC.source ↗ filed by Law Office of Andrew M Carroll · Judge Gerald Austin McHugh Jr. · No. 2:26-cv-05398 · 47:227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $28M–$76M ▾TCPA text/call theories are frequently dismissed on technical grounds (Howard v. RNC on prerecorded-voice threshold; Hulce v. Zipongo on 'solicitation' scope), but claims alleging concrete injury from unconsented calls can survive (League of Women Voters v. Kramer). Outcome likely turns on how Circle K's texts are characterized. Comparable settlements $28M–$76M median $36.20M · n=10 Caribbean Cruise L $76M · Dish Network $61M · US Coachways $49.90M Per member (realized): ~$30 median · $10–$500 (n=3) Comparable verdict: Dish Network, L.L.C. $61M · ccAdvertising $32.42M Class (from complaint): All persons in the United States who filled out Defendant's standard Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Consent form that included an authorization and a liabilit Key precedent: Hulce v. Zipongo (7th Cir.) - narrowed 'telephone solicitation' definition for promotional/rewards-type texts, a close factual analog to retail loyalty messaging. Main risk: Dismissal under Howard/Hulce reasoning if texts lack prerecorded voice or are deemed non-solicitation informational messages. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2.50M–$75M Class definition text (FCRA consent form) conflicts with stated TCPA theory, suggesting data inconsistency; estimates rely on TCPA comparables only. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | E.D. Pa. | 2026-07-31 | $28M–$76M comparable settlements |