E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-05657
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 Mia Roberts Perez · No. 2:26-cv-05657 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾Similar health-data tracking claims survived in Doe v. Bayhealth (breach of confidentiality) and were left unclear in Doe v. Integris, showing courts split on third-party tracking pixel liability. Six prior filings against Boehringer Ingelheim on identical theory suggest a coordinated litigation wave testing this exact fact pattern. 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 applied to tracking-tech disclosures, directly analogous to pharma website tracking claims. Main risk: Integris-style removal/jurisdictional fights and unclear viability of state privacy claims for third-party data sharing (Google/Facebook pixels) could stall or shrink recovery. This defendant: Six near-identical Privacy & Wiretap filings against BI signal a repeat-target litigation pattern, likely coordinated MDL-style tracking-pixel claims. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $1.45M–$45M Small realized-payout sample (n=2) and unresolved theory viability make this estimate highly uncertain; actual class size undisclosed. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-07 | $30M–$725M comparable settlements |