E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-05907
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 Wendy Beetlestone · No. 2:26-cv-05907 · 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾Bayhealth survived breach-of-confidentiality claims via tracking tech, and Gunnar Optiks was revived on remand, showing courts allow privacy/wiretap theories past MTD when factual disputes exist. But Integris shows dismissal risk on removal/jurisdictional grounds and unclear outcomes on merits. 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 duty of confidentiality via tracking tech directly parallels VisionQuest's likely data-sharing exposure. Main risk: Dismissal on standing/jurisdictional grounds as in Integris, or narrow statutory reading limiting wiretap claim viability Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $62K–$750K Small comparable sample, defendant is a niche youth-services company not a data-platform giant, so scale and settlement analogs may overstate exposure. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-14 | $30M–$725M comparable settlements |