D. Colo. · No. 1:26-cv-03637
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General Motors, LLCsource ↗ filed by Duck Law Firm LLC · No. 1:26-cv-03637 · 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy rulings split: Bayhealth confidentiality claim survived and Gunnar Optiks (BIPA) was revived on remand, but Integris shows state privacy claims often left 'unclear' after removal fights, and LabCorp/Olson are inapposite non-privacy dismissals inflating uncertainty. 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): All owners and lessees of 2015-2020 Chevrolet Tahoe, Chevrolet Suburban, GMC Yukon, GMC Yukon XL, and Cadillac Escalade vehicles with defective paint that peels Key precedent: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — confirms privacy/confidentiality claims against corporate defendants can survive MTD when duty-based theory is pled, supporting plausibility here. Main risk: Class definition in filing describes a paint-defect class, not data/privacy harm — mismatch could doom Article III standing or theory coherence, similar to Integris removal/standing fights. This defendant: Prior GM privacy filing (Bockelman-Phillips) suggests repeat exposure on connected-vehicle data practices. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $23.20M–$60M Class definition (paint defect) conflicts with stated Privacy & Wiretap theory, undermining confidence in size/harm alignment; small comparable sample limits precision. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D. Colo. | 2026-08-11 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |