E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-06101
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-06101 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Tracking-tech privacy claims split: Bayhealth found a duty of confidentiality survived MTD, while Integris saw state privacy claims deemed 'unclear' and federal officer removal rejected; Gunnar Optiks shows pleadings-stage dismissals are often premature and vacated on appeal. Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M median $59.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google Assistant $68M · Google LLC and Alp $68M Per member (realized): ~$30 median · $29–$30 (n=2) 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 analog to pharma site tracking suits. Main risk: Multiple parallel suits (Ginzo, Isaacs, Taylor, Ferrell, Shane, Dillinger) risk consolidation but also dismissal on shared pixel/tracking theory if court follows Integris-style skepticism This defendant: Six separate Privacy & Wiretap filings against BI signal a coordinated litigation wave, likely over website tracking pixels Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $5M–$70M No confirmed class size or breach scope for BI; estimate relies on small realized-recovery sample and analogous tracking-tech rulings, not BI-specific facts · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-20 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |