D.S.C. · No. 2:26-cv-03438
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.source ↗ filed by Bruce E Miller PA · Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks · No. 2:26-cv-03438 · 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy/tracking rulings split: Bayhealth's confidentiality claim survived and Gunnar Optiks' BIPA claim was revived on remand, but Integris shows analogous 'sharing data with third parties' claims remain unresolved (unclear). No wiretap-specific ruling directly tracks Walmart's facts, so outcome is fact-dependent on the tracking technology alleged. 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. — confirms confidentiality/tracking-tech disclosure claims can survive MTD when a duty-like relationship or statutory analog exists. Main risk: Dismissal on standing/consent grounds or narrow statutory reading, as seen in LabCorp's restrictive interpretation and Integris's unresolved third-party-sharing theory. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $25M–$600M Small, non-wiretap-specific comparable set; class size and per-member figures are highly sensitive to exact tracking practice and certification outcome. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D.S.C. | 2026-08-13 | $30M–$725M comparable settlements |