E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-06111
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-06111 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Similar tracking-tech privacy claims split: Doe v. Bayhealth let a confidentiality claim survive while Doe v. Integris found state-law tracking claims 'unclear' and rejected federal officer removal. Six parallel filings against BI suggest a coordinated wave typical of pixel/session-replay suits with uneven early outcomes. 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 factual analog to BI's likely pixel/tracking exposure. Main risk: Dismissal on causation/consent grounds as in LabCorp (loss-causation hurdle) or removal/jurisdictional dismissal as partially seen in Integris This defendant: Six near-identical filings (Ginzo, Isaacs, Taylor, Dillinger, Rivera, Rhinebarger) indicate a repeat-litigation pattern against BI, likely consolidated or MDL-bound. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $3M–$55M Small sample (2 realized per-member data points, 2 closely analogous rulings) — figures are illustrative, not predictive. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-20 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |