E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-05897
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 Kelley Brisbon Hodge · No. 2:26-cv-05897 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾Comparable rulings split: Doe v. Bayhealth allowed breach-of-confidentiality claims for health-data tracking tech to survive, and Gunnar Optiks was revived on remand, but Integris's state privacy claims remain unresolved and LabCorp shows courts scrutinizing pleading specificity. BI faces six parallel Privacy & Wiretap filings, suggesting coordinated pixel/session-replay litigation with uncertain but plausible survival. 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. — health-data tracking tech claim survived MTD, closest analog to pharma-website wiretap theory Main risk: Dismissal on consent/standing grounds as in LabCorp, or claims narrowed to 'unclear' status like Integris's third-party sharing claims This defendant: Six near-identical Privacy & Wiretap filings against BI indicate a wave of coordinated suits, likely over shared tracking-tech vendor issue. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $5M–$60M Small comparable sample, no BI-specific rulings yet, and class size is inferred from general web signals, not case-specific data. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-14 | $30M–$725M comparable settlements |