S.D.N.Y. · No. 1:26-cv-06823
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| StubHub, Inc.source ↗ filed by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP · Judge Paul Adam Engelmayer · No. 1:26-cv-06823 · 15:1125la Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy rulings split: Bayhealth's breach-of-confidentiality claim survived MTD, and Gunnar Optiks' biometric claim was revived on remand, but Integris and LabCorp show courts often narrow or dismiss adjacent theories on technical grounds. StubHub's wiretap theory likely hinges on similar tracking-technology consent issues seen in Bayhealth and Integris. Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M median $59.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google LLC and Alp $68M · Google $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. — survived MTD on tracking-technology disclosure claim, closest factual analog to StubHub's alleged data-sharing practices. Main risk: Dismissal on consent/disclosure grounds, as seen in Integris where courts scrutinized adequacy of privacy-policy disclosures for third-party sharing. This defendant: Prior Sanquini false-advertising suit suggests StubHub faces recurring consumer-protection litigation exposure. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $72.50M–$360M Small comparable sample, no StubHub-specific class certification or damages data; wide range reflects uncertainty in class size and survival. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-08-10 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |