S.D. Tex. · No. 4:26-cv-06261
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DNOW Inc.source ↗ filed by The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. · No. 4:26-cv-06261 · 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$68M ▾Wiretap/tracking-tech claims split in comparables: Bayhealth's confidentiality claim survived and Gunnar Optiks was revived on appeal, but Integris and LabCorp show courts scrutinizing whether a genuine consumer relationship and data-sharing occurred, which is doubtful for a B2B industrial distributor like DNOW. 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 Key precedent: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — shows privacy/confidentiality claims survive MTD when a duty-bearing relationship with data subjects is plausible, a fact DNOW's B2B model may lack. Main risk: DNOW's industrial/B2B customer base may undercut standing or class certification, similar to Integris's rejected 'acting under' theory limiting viable claims. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $100K–$7.50M Extremely limited data on DNOW's actual consumer touchpoints; class size is speculative given its industrial B2B profile, not a typical consumer privacy defendant. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D. Tex. | 2026-08-03 | $30M–$68M comparable settlements |