E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-05656
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 Joel Harvey Slomsky · No. 2:26-cv-05656 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾Tracking-tech privacy claims show inconsistent outcomes: Bayhealth survived on breach-of-confidentiality theory, while Integris Health's state privacy claims were left 'unclear' after removal was rejected. Gunnar Optiks shows courts often defer dismissal pending factual development on exclusions/consent. 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. — health-provider tracking-tech disclosure claim survived MTD, closest analog to pharma website/app tracking theory here. Main risk: Dismissal on federal officer removal or exclusion grounds analogous to Integris Health's unresolved state-law privacy claims, or exclusion defenses like Gunnar's HIPAA carveout requiring fact development. This defendant: Six separate suits (Rhinebarger, Krueger, Lipkey, Ramos, House, Taylor) against same defendant for identical theory suggest a single tracking-technology incident spawning parallel litigation. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $1.25M–$26.25M Small comparable sample, unknown actual class size/scope of tracking incident, and multiple parallel suits may consolidate or split recovery, reducing precision. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-07 | $30M–$725M comparable settlements |