E.D.N.Y · No. 2:26-cv-05126
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utz Quality Foods, LLCsource ↗ filed by Sultzer & Lipari, PLLC · No. 2:26-cv-05126 · 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $90M–$586M ▾False advertising claims often survive early motions when specific labeling misrepresentations are pled (Dougherty MTD granted only in part), but class-wide relief can stall on individualized reliance issues as in Guthrie's affirmed denial of certification. Small-sample comparables show wide variance from dismissal to nine-figure settlements. Comparable settlements $90M–$586M median $90M · n=10 Western Union $586M · Toyota Industries $436M · Credit Glory $200M Comparable verdict: Papaya $420M · VPX, Inc. $293M Key precedent: Guthrie v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. — shows courts scrutinizing whether false-advertising claims can proceed as a class absent individualized proof of reliance, a likely defense hurdle here. Main risk: Class certification denial on individualized reliance/damages grounds, mirroring Guthrie, or early dismissal for lack of specific deceptive-statement pleading like Dougherty's partial MTD grant. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $200K–$37.50M Small, heterogeneous comparable set spans unrelated statutes and jurisdictions; no direct food-labeling precedent or defendant history, so figures are illustrative ranges, not point estimates. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 9 verdicts | Filing | False Advertising | E.D.N.Y | 2026-08-20 | $90M–$586M comparable settlements |