E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-06113
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-06113 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy-tracking rulings split: Doe v. Bayhealth allowed breach-of-confidentiality claims to survive MTD, and Gunnar Optiks survived on remand, but Integris shows state law privacy claims often remain 'unclear' pending factual development. Six prior filings against BI suggest a recurring pixel/tracking theory facing similar mixed 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-adjacent entity owed confidentiality duty for tracking-tech disclosures, directly analogous if BI's site shares health data. Main risk: Dismissal on HIPAA/health-data exclusion grounds or failure to show wiretap 'interception' element, as flagged in Gunnar Optiks' factual-dependency ruling. This defendant: Six near-identical filings (Ginzo, Isaacs, Taylor, Dillinger, Rivera, Rhinebarger) indicate a coordinated wave of tracking-tech suits against BI, raising consolidation/MDL risk. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $7.50M–$70M Small sample of rulings/settlements; theory-specific facts (tracking technology, HIPAA overlap) not confirmed, so estimate is highly speculative. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-20 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |