HENLEY v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-05904

No federal docket timeline hydrated for this case yet (state-court settlements have no RECAP docket).

Our records for this case (1)

Matter	Type	Practice area	Court	Date	Value
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.source ↗ filed by Keller Postman LLC · No. 2:26-cv-05904 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾ Comparable pixel/tracking privacy rulings split: Bayhealth's breach-of-confidentiality claim survived MTD, while Integris's state privacy claims were left unclear on remand and Gunnar Optiks saw one BIPA claim vacated for dismissal and another survive. No controlling E.D. Pa. precedent directly on point yet. 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 owed confidentiality duty for tracking-tech disclosures, closely analogous to BI's likely pixel/analytics claims. Main risk: Integris-style removal/jurisdictional or standing dismissal, or courts finding no cognizable interception under Wiretap Act absent contemporaneous third-party disclosure. This defendant: Six near-identical filings (Taylor, Dillinger, Rivera, Rhinebarger, Krueger, Shepherd) suggest coordinated multi-plaintiff tracking-technology litigation against BI. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $7.50M–$90M Small comparable sample, no BI-specific rulings yet, and class size is inferred from general web presence, not confirmed user data. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts	Filing	Privacy & Wiretap	E.D. Pa.	2026-08-14	$30M–$725M comparable settlements