D. Mass. · No. 1:26-cv-13525
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DraftKings, Inc.source ↗ filed by Bryson Harris Suciu & Demay, Pllc · Judge William G. Young · No. 1:26-cv-13525 · 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$68M ▾Comparable privacy rulings split: Doe v. Bayhealth allowed confidentiality claims to survive while Doe v. Integris left state privacy claims unclear; Clements v. Gunnar Optiks shows wiretap/tracking claims often survive dismissal on factual grounds rather than being resolved on pleadings. Comparable settlements $30M–$68M median $59.50M · n=10 Google Assistant $68M · Google LLC and Alp $68M · Google $68M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $25–$30 (n=4) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425M Class (from complaint): Californians who participated in DraftKings' Daily Fantasy Sports and Pick6 contests and lost money on the Gambling Websites. Key precedent: Clements v. Gunnar Optiks (7th Cir.) — shows tracking/data-collection claims frequently survive 12(b)(6) due to unresolved factual issues, a pattern likely to apply to DraftKings' tracking tech claims. Main risk: Dismissal on standing or consent grounds, as seen in Integris where 'acting under' and disclosure theories were left unresolved or dismissed. This defendant: Prior filing (Chan v. DraftKings) shows repeat privacy/wiretap litigation exposure for this defendant. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2.50M–$15M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; DraftKings-specific class size and per-member recovery are estimated, not directly observed. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D. Mass. | 2026-08-03 | $30M–$68M comparable settlements |