E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-05413
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CERTIPHI SCREENING, INC.source ↗ filed by Francis Mailman Soumilas Pc · Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro · No. 2:26-cv-05413 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$68M ▾Comparable privacy rulings split: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks claims survived dismissal on similar data-collection theories, while Integris and LabCorp show courts dismissing or leaving unresolved key statutory elements. No prior Certiphi rulings exist, so this is a first-of-kind test for the company under a Wiretap/privacy theory. 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. — confidentiality claim survived MTD, showing courts will let privacy claims proceed against data handlers with duty-like relationships, relevant to a background-screening company. Main risk: Federal Wiretap Act claims often falter on consent or 'party to communication' defenses, as seen in Integris' partial dismissal on procedural/jurisdictional grounds. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $500K–$7.25M Small, cross-theory comparable set; no Certiphi-specific rulings or settlements exist, so figures are extrapolated from analogous privacy/data cases. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-07-31 | $30M–$68M comparable settlements |