E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-05893
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-05893 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾Doe v. Bayhealth found a viable confidentiality claim for health-data disclosure via tracking tech, and Gunnar Optiks survived on remand after vacatur, showing courts often let privacy/wiretap claims proceed past pleadings. But Doe v. Integris shows outcomes on state-law data-sharing claims remain unclear, and BI faces six parallel filings suggesting fact-intensive, inconsistent rulings. Comparable settlements $30M–$725M median $59.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $68M · Google Assistant $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 use of tracking tech to disclose health info survived MTD, directly analogous to pharma-website tracking theory here. Main risk: Dismissal on standing/consent grounds or narrow statutory interpretation, as seen in Integris (removal/state-law claims deemed unclear) and LabCorp's restrictive reading of disclosure obligations This defendant: Six near-identical suits (Taylor, Rivera, Rhinebarger, Krueger, Jones, Danks) indicate a coordinated wave of tracking-technology claims against BI, likely to consolidate. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2.50M–$35M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; class size and per-member figures are rough extrapolations absent confirmed class definition or discovery on tracking scope. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-14 | $30M–$725M comparable settlements |