D. Ariz. · No. 2:26-cv-05899
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yuma Regional Medical Centersource ↗ filed by Don Bivens PLLC · Judge Sharad H. Desai · No. 2:26-cv-05899 · 18:2510 Electronic Communications Privacy Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $30M–$725M ▾Comparable rulings split: Doe v. Bayhealth allowed a confidentiality claim to survive over tracking-tech disclosures, while Doe v. Integris left similar third-party sharing claims 'unclear' after removal was rejected. Clements v. Gunnar shows courts reluctant to dismiss health-data tracking claims at the pleading stage absent factual development. Comparable settlements $30M–$725M median $59.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $68M · Google Assistant $68M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $25–$30 (n=3) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425M Key precedent: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — closest fact pattern (healthcare provider disclosing health info via tracking tech) and claim survived MTD. Main risk: Dismissal on standing/consent grounds or removal maneuvering, as seen in Integris where core privacy claims stalled procedurally despite surviving in substance This defendant: Six prior privacy/wiretap filings against BI suggest a coordinated multi-plaintiff wave, likely tied to website tracking pixels across drug information pages. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $3.75M–$45M Small comparable sample, no confirmed class size or website traffic data; figures are directional, not precise. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D. Ariz. | 2026-08-19 | $30M–$725M comparable settlements |