D. Colo. · No. 1:26-cv-03590
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sixt Rent a Car, LLCsource ↗ filed by Resnick & Louis PC · No. 1:26-cv-03590 · 28:1332t - Diversity: Torts · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾Comparable wiretap/privacy suits show split outcomes: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived MTD on tracking-tech claims, while Integris saw only 'unclear' status on similar third-party sharing claims. No direct Sixt or car-rental precedent exists, increasing uncertainty about how a Colorado court will treat website/telematics tracking allegations. Comparable settlements $30M–$725M median $59.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $68M · Google Assistant $68M Per member (realized): ~$30 median · $29–$30 (n=2) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425M Key precedent: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — survived MTD on tracking-technology disclosure theory, showing courts increasingly allow these claims past pleading stage. Main risk: Dismissal for lack of interception/consent element, as seen in Integris where third-party sharing claims stalled procedurally rather than substantively resolving. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2M–$45M No Sixt-specific rulings or class data exist; estimates rely on analogous tracking-tech cases and rough scaling from company revenue, not verified class size. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D. Colo. | 2026-08-07 | $30M–$725M comparable settlements |