E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-05905
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-05905 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾Comparable rulings split: Doe v. Bayhealth allowed breach-of-confidentiality claims for tracking-tech disclosures to survive, and Gunnar Optiks survived on remand over consent-based data collection, but Integris shows state privacy claims can remain unclear and federal removal often fails. Six prior BI filings on same theory suggest a coordinated litigation wave with inconsistent 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-adjacent tracking tech disclosure claim survived MTD, closely analogous to pharma website/portal data sharing. Main risk: Dismissal on standing/consent grounds as in Integris, where mere data-sharing with third parties (Google/Facebook) was deemed unclear/insufficiently pled. This defendant: Six near-identical Privacy & Wiretap filings against BI suggest a repeat-litigation pattern, likely tied to website tracking pixels across cases. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2.50M–$60M Small comparable sample, no BI-specific settlement data, and class size is a rough estimate absent disclosed website traffic or user counts. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-14 | $30M–$725M comparable settlements |