E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-05648
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.source ↗ filed by Keller Postman LLC · Judge Mark A. Kearney · No. 2:26-cv-05648 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾Doe v. Bayhealth found tracking-technology disclosures can state a breach-of-confidentiality claim, and Clements v. Gunnar Optiks was revived on similar consent/tracking theories, but Integris Health shows state privacy claims often remain unresolved or narrowly construed. 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. — healthcare provider duty of confidentiality extended to tracking-technology disclosures, directly analogous to pharma website/portal tracking claims. Main risk: Dismissal on standing/duty grounds as in Integris Health, where state privacy claims stayed unresolved amid removal disputes. This defendant: Six nearly-identical filings (House, Taylor, Danks, Jones, Hilscher, Ramos) suggest coordinated pixel/tracking litigation against BI, raising consolidation and repeat-exposure risk. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2.50M–$105M Small comparable sample, unresolved theory viability, and undisclosed actual class size make this a wide, low-confidence estimate. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-07 | $30M–$725M comparable settlements |