S.D.N.Y. · No. 1:26-cv-06639
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edgewell Personal Care Companysource ↗ filed by Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC · Judge Colleen McMahon · No. 1:26-cv-06639 · 28:1332 Diversity Action · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $90M–$586M ▾None of the comparables directly involve false-advertising claims against a consumer-products manufacturer, but Dougherty v. Bojangles shows courts often let some consumer-protection theories survive MTD while trimming others, and Cetorelli v. Duell confirms deceptive-practices claims can yield real damages awards when proven. The mismatch of comparables (data breach, arbitration, wage-hour) limits reliable inference here. Comparable settlements $90M–$586M median $90M · n=10 Western Union $586M · Toyota Industries $436M · IM Mastery Academy $90M Per member (realized): ~$20 median · $20–$20 (n=1) Comparable verdict: Papaya $420M · Vital Pharmaceutical $293M Key precedent: Cetorelli v. Duell Action Builders — closest analog showing courts will sustain deceptive-practices claims and award treble damages/fees, relevant if Edgewell's labeling claims are found misleading. Main risk: Early dismissal for lack of individualized reliance/materiality, as seen in Guthrie v. Transamerica where class claims failed due to individualized inquiry into representations. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2.50M–$125M Extremely thin direct precedent (n=1 per-member data point, no on-point rulings) makes this a rough, low-confidence range. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 8 verdicts | Filing | False Advertising | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-08-03 | $90M–$586M comparable settlements |