M.D. Fla. · No. 8:26-cv-02271
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IQ Fiber (DE), LLCsource ↗ filed by Justice Litigation Associates PLLC · No. 8:26-cv-02271 · 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks show privacy/wiretap claims can survive 12(b)(6) when factual disclosure/consent issues are pled, but Integris shows state privacy claims can stall on removal and remain unclear; no wiretap-specific ISP precedent exists yet. 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/privacy claims against service providers survive when a duty analogous to fiduciary/professional relationship is alleged, relevant to ISP data-sharing theories. Main risk: Small regional ISP with limited subscriber base and no comparable prior wiretap suits means low leverage and possible early dismissal absent concrete interception allegations, as seen in Integris removal/dismissal path. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $500K–$5.25M Small, single-defendant sample; no wiretap-specific ISP precedent or defendant litigation history exists, so estimates rely heavily on analogized privacy rulings and settlement medians from unrelated large-scale tech cases. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | M.D. Fla. | 2026-08-05 | $30M–$725M comparable settlements |