E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-05654
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 Chad Francis Kenney Sr. · No. 2:26-cv-05654 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾Comparable health-privacy tracking claims show split outcomes: Bayhealth survived breach-of-confidentiality claims and Gunnar Optiks was revived on remand, but Integris Health saw state privacy claims left 'unclear' after removal fight. Six parallel filings against Boehringer suggest a coordinated tracking-technology theory (likely pixel/cookie disclosure to Meta/Google) common in this space. 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 owes confidentiality duty for tracking-tech disclosures, directly analogous to pharma website/app data sharing. Main risk: Integris Health-style removal/jurisdictional fights and unclear state-law viability could stall or narrow claims before reaching class-wide relief. This defendant: Six nearly-identical suits (Rhinebarger, Krueger, House, Taylor, Danks, Jones) filed against BI signal coordinated plaintiffs' bar targeting a single tracking-tech practice. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $1.25M–$45.50M No case-specific facts on tracking mechanism or class definition; estimate relies heavily on small realized-payout sample and analogous rulings, not direct BI precedent. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-07 | $30M–$725M comparable settlements |