E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-06156
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-06156 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Doe v. Bayhealth found a viable confidentiality claim for health-data tracking tech, and Clements v. Gunnar Optiks was twice vacated/remanded rather than dismissed outright, showing courts reluctant to kill tracking-tech claims at pleadings. But Integris Health left state privacy claims 'unclear' and BI's own six parallel filings are all still at filing stage with no rulings yet. 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's duty of confidentiality via tracking tech survived MTD, closely analogous to pharma-site tracking claims. Main risk: Courts dismissing for lack of concrete disclosure/standing or narrow statutory reading, as flagged in LabCorp dissent and Integris's unresolved state-law claims This defendant: Six near-simultaneous Privacy & Wiretap filings against BI (Ginzo, Isaacs, Taylor, Dillinger, Rivera, Rhinebarger) suggest coordinated pixel/tracking litigation wave, likely same underlying website tech. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $7.50M–$120M No BI-specific rulings exist yet; class size is speculative absent user/patient-count data; small comparable sample limits precision. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-21 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |