E.D.N.Y · No. 2:26-cv-04763
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| South Shore Nissan LLCsource ↗ filed by The Law Offices of Robert J. Nahoum, P.C. · No. 2:26-cv-04763 · 15:1981 Fraud-Motor Vehicle (Odometer) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy rulings split: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks (2d ruling) survived motions to dismiss on tracking-tech claims, while Integris and LabCorp show courts scrutinizing causation/agency theories closely, suggesting fact-intensive survival odds for a wiretap claim against a small dealership website. Comparable settlements $30M–$725M median $59.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $68M · Google Assistant $68M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$30 (n=3) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425M Key precedent: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. - confirms confidentiality/tracking-tech claims can survive MTD when a duty analog exists, relevant if South Shore Nissan used tracking pixels on customer portals. Main risk: Small local business with limited class size and no prior enforcement history may lack the traffic/data volume to sustain a viable wiretap class, per Integris-style dismissal risk. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $44K–$600K Small local defendant with no scaled precedent; class size and survival are speculative given lack of case-specific facts or defendant litigation history. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D.N.Y | 2026-08-05 | $30M–$725M comparable settlements |