E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-06106
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 · Judge Cynthia M. Rufe · No. 2:26-cv-06106 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Comparable healthcare-tracking-tech rulings split: Bayhealth allowed breach-of-confidentiality claims to survive while Integris left state privacy claims unclear and Gunnar Optiks required factual development before dismissal could stick. Six prior filings against this same defendant suggest a coordinated wave of pixel/tracker claims, increasing scrutiny but also settlement pressure. 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. — health-provider tracking-tech disclosure claim survived MTD, closest factual analog to BI's likely pixel/analytics exposure. Main risk: Motion to dismiss on statutory standing/consent grounds, as seen in Integris where federal claims failed and state claims stayed 'unclear' Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $1.45M–$30M Small comparable sample, class size and per-member figures are rough proxies from unrelated tech-sector cases, not pharma-specific data. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-20 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |