E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-05903
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-05903 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾Comparable healthcare-privacy rulings split: Bayhealth confidentiality claim survived MTD, Gunnar Optiks BIPA claim survived on remand, but Integris state privacy claims remained unclear and federal removal failed. Multiple parallel BI filings (Taylor, Dillinger, Rivera, etc.) suggest a coordinated tracking-technology theory with uneven early outcomes. 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 tracking-tech disclosure claim survived MTD, closest factual analog to pharma website data sharing. Main risk: Dismissal on 'acting under' or consent grounds, as in Integris removal fight and unresolved health-info-sharing claims. This defendant: Six near-identical filings against BI (Taylor, Dillinger, Rivera, Rhinebarger, Krueger, Shepherd) suggest coordinated plaintiff-side tracking-pixel litigation campaign. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2M–$60M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; actual class size and website-tracking mechanics undisclosed, so figures are illustrative ranges only. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-14 | $30M–$725M comparable settlements |