D.N.J. · No. 1:26-cv-10134
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| THE CAMPBELL'S COMPANYsource ↗ filed by Bryson Harris Suciu & DeMay PLLC · No. 1:26-cv-10134 · 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾The class definition (soup mislabeling) doesn't match the 'Privacy & Wiretap' theory tag or any cited comparable rulings, all of which involve data tracking/BIPA/health privacy. Mixed survival among privacy comparables (Bayhealth survived, Integris state claims unclear, Gunnar Optiks vacated for factual development) suggests moderate viability if reframed as a consumer-protection claim. 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 Class (from complaint): Margaret Peggi Louise Garvey on behalf of all others similarly situated who purchased Campbell's microwavable soup products labeled as safe for microwave use. Key precedent: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — survived MTD on confidentiality duty, showing consumer privacy-adjacent claims can clear dismissal, but facts here diverge sharply. Main risk: Theory-fact mismatch: mislabeling claim may not fit Privacy & Wiretap statutes, risking early dismissal similar to LabCorp's rejected fraud-by-omission theory. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $7.25M–$75M Severe mismatch between stated theory and class definition undermines confidence; true legal basis (mislabeling vs privacy) unclear from provided data. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D.N.J. | 2026-08-11 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |