E.D. Pa. · No. 5:26-cv-05876
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VISIONQUEST NATIONAL LTD.source ↗ filed by Medina Morgan, LLC · Judge Catherine Henry · No. 5:26-cv-05876 · 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾Comparable rulings split: Bayhealth Medical Ctr. survived a breach-of-confidentiality claim against a healthcare-type provider, while Integris Health saw state privacy claims remain unclear after removal was rejected. Gunnar Optiks shows courts often defer dismissal pending factual development on data-collection mechanics, suggesting VisionQuest's wiretap claim could survive initial motions but faces uncertain merits resolution. 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. — most analogous as a service-provider defendant sued for tracking-tech disclosures to a healthcare-adjacent entity, and the claim survived MTD. Main risk: Dismissal on 'acting under' or consent grounds similar to Integris Health, where core third-party disclosure claims were left unresolved/removed. This defendant: Second filing against VisionQuest on same Privacy & Wiretap theory (Thompson v. VisionQuest) suggests a recurring tracking-technology exposure pattern. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $62K–$750K Small comparable sample, uncertain class size due to lack of direct user/patient count data, and defendant is a niche youth-services entity not comparable to tech-platform defendants in settlement dataset. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-14 | $30M–$725M comparable settlements |