E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-06104
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-06104 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Rulings split: Bayhealth allowed confidentiality claims from tracking tech to survive, while Integris saw privacy-sharing claims called 'unclear' and Gunnar's BIPA claim was remanded for fact development rather than resolved. No clean pharma-wiretap precedent yet decides this exact fact pattern. 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 claims survived MTD, closest analog to pharma website/patient data tracking. Main risk: Dismissal on 'unclear' pleading grounds seen in Integris and LabCorp rulings, especially if third-party sharing/consent facts remain undeveloped at MTD stage This defendant: Six near-identical Privacy & Wiretap filings against Boehringer Ingelheim suggest a coordinated pixel/tracking-tech litigation wave, likely to be consolidated. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $1.45M–$22.50M Small comparable sample, no confirmed class size or specific tracking mechanism disclosed; figures are order-of-magnitude estimates only. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-20 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |