E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-05833
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 Juan Ramon Sanchez · No. 2:26-cv-05833 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾Health-privacy tracking claims are surviving in several courts (Bayhealth confidentiality claim survived; Gunnar Optiks BIPA claim revived), but factual questions on 'acting under' third-party sharing (Integris) leave outcomes uncertain. Six parallel BI filings suggest coordinated pixel/tracking litigation with variable early results. Comparable settlements $30M–$725M median $59.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google Assistant $68M · Google LLC and Alp $68M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $25–$30 (n=3) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425M Key precedent: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — healthcare-provider tracking-tech disclosure claim survived MTD, closely analogous to pharma website/patient-portal data sharing theory. Main risk: Dismissal on 'acting under'/consent grounds as in Integris, or failure to plead cognizable interception under wiretap statutes given ambiguous facts (see Gunnar Optiks vacatur history). This defendant: Six separate named-plaintiff suits (Ginzo, Isaacs, Taylor, Dillinger, Rivera, Rhinebarger) indicate a coordinated wave of privacy/wiretap claims against BI, likely consolidation-bound. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $6.25M–$75M Small comparable sample and no BI-specific settlement data; class size and per-member figures are rough proxies from analogous health-privacy litigation. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-13 | $30M–$725M comparable settlements |