KRUEGER v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-05650

No federal docket timeline hydrated for this case yet (state-court settlements have no RECAP docket).

Our records for this case (1)

Matter	Type	Practice area	Court	Date	Value
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.source ↗ filed by Keller Postman LLC · Judge Mary Kay Costello · No. 2:26-cv-05650 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾ Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks show tracking-technology health-privacy claims can survive dismissal when factual questions on disclosure remain, but Integris shows removal/preemption defenses succeed and state claims stay unresolved. Multiple parallel BI filings suggest a coordinated tracking-pixel theory of uncertain strength. 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. — confirms healthcare-provider confidentiality duty can survive MTD for tracking-tech disclosures, directly analogous to pharma patient data sharing. Main risk: Integris-style removal/jurisdictional and standing challenges could stall or dismiss claims before reaching merits. This defendant: Six near-identical filings against BI indicate a coordinated multi-plaintiff tracking-technology litigation wave, raising consolidation/MDL risk. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2.50M–$70M Small comparable sample, no confirmed class size or per-member data specific to BI; multiple parallel suits could merge, changing valuation significantly. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts	Filing	Privacy & Wiretap	E.D. Pa.	2026-08-07	$30M–$725M comparable settlements