E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-06105
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-06105 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Comparable pixel/tracking rulings split: Doe v. Bayhealth allowed breach-of-confidentiality claims to survive while Integris Health left state privacy claims 'unclear' after removal fight, and Clements v. Gunnar Optiks needed factual development before surviving. No single ruling clearly forecasts outcome for BI's wiretap theory. 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. — closest factual analog, healthcare-adjacent tracking tech claim survived MTD on confidentiality duty grounds. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to plead actionable interception/disclosure, as seen in LabCorp's unresolved materiality/loss-causation dispute and Integris's unclear privacy-claim survival. This defendant: Six near-identical wiretap/tracking suits filed against BI (Ginzo, Isaacs, Taylor, Dillinger, Rivera, Rhinebarger) signal coordinated plaintiff-side targeting of BI's website tracking tech. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $7M–$95M Small comparable sample, no BI-specific ruling yet, and class size is inferred from general web traffic signals, not case-specific discovery. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-20 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |