E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-05902
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 · No. 2:26-cv-05902 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy/tracking rulings split: Bayhealth allowed confidentiality claims to survive against a healthcare provider, while Integris saw state privacy claims deemed 'unclear' and LabCorp narrowed fraud-based theories. Gunnar Optiks shows courts often decline dismissal at pleading stage when factual questions on consent/exclusions remain. 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. — closest analog; healthcare-adjacent defendant's tracking-tech disclosure claim survived MTD, supporting similar pharma privacy suits. Main risk: Dismissal on standing/consent grounds akin to LabCorp's narrow statutory reading, or removal/preemption fights like Integris. This defendant: Six near-identical Privacy & Wiretap filings against Boehringer Ingelheim suggest a coordinated wave of tracking-pixel/session-replay suits, raising consolidation and multi-district exposure risk. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2.50M–$45M Small comparable set mixes unrelated statutes (BIPA, CIPA, common law); no rulings yet exist for Boehringer Ingelheim itself, so figures are directional only. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-14 | $30M–$725M comparable settlements |