E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-05832
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 Kai N. Scott · No. 2:26-cv-05832 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾Bayhealth (breach of confidentiality via tracking tech) survived, and Gunnar Optiks was revived on remand, but Integris shows privacy claims tied to third-party data sharing (Google/Facebook) remain 'unclear' at pleading stage. Six parallel BI filings suggest a coordinated pixel/session-replay tracking theory with inconsistent early outcomes. 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's duty of confidentiality for tracking-tech disclosures survived MTD, closest factual analog to BI's consumer health site tracking. Main risk: Integris-style dismissal of third-party data-sharing claims as too speculative or lacking cognizable harm at pleading stage This defendant: Six near-identical filings (Ginzo, Isaacs, Taylor, Dillinger, Rivera, Rhinebarger) indicate a mass tracking-pixel litigation wave against BI. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $5M–$135M Small, mixed comparable set; BI-specific case facts (tracking mechanism, data sensitivity) unknown, limiting precision. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-13 | $30M–$725M comparable settlements |