E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-06158
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-06158 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Bayhealth found a duty of confidentiality survives for healthcare-adjacent tracking claims, while Integris and Gunnar Optiks show similar privacy/tracking suits often survive MTD on unresolved factual questions, suggesting BI's claim likely proceeds past pleading stage. 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 owed duty of confidentiality for tracking-tech disclosures, directly analogous to pharma website tracking claims. Main risk: Defense may argue BI's website users aren't 'patients' under health-privacy duty framework, as Integris shows factual disputes can still doom claims later This defendant: Six similar filings (Ginzo, Isaacs, Taylor, Dillinger, Rivera, Rhinebarger) suggest coordinated multi-plaintiff tracking-tech litigation pattern against BI. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $5M–$105M Small comparable sample, unclear final class definition, and no direct BI settlement data—figures are rough directional estimates only. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-21 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |