DANKS v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-05660

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 · No. 2:26-cv-05660 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾ Comparables split: Doe v. Bayhealth allowed a breach-of-confidentiality claim for health-data tracking tech to survive, while Doe v. Integris Health found state privacy claims 'unclear' after remand and Gunnar Optiks needed factual development before surviving. No clean dismissal pattern exists for pharma website tracking claims like this. 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 owed confidentiality duty for third-party tracking tech disclosures; directly analogous to BI's likely pixel/tracker exposure. Main risk: Dismissal on standing/causation grounds akin to LabCorp's loss-causation requirement, or jurisdictional hurdles like Integris Health's removal fight stalling merits progress. This defendant: Six nearly-identical suits (Rhinebarger, Krueger, Lipkey, Ramos, Jones, House) filed against BI signal coordinated pixel-tracking litigation likely headed to consolidation. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $5M–$60M Small comparable sample (n=6 rulings, n=2 realized per-member data points); class size and BI's specific tracking conduct unverified from web signals alone. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts	Filing	Privacy & Wiretap	E.D. Pa.	2026-08-07	$30M–$725M comparable settlements