E.D. Pa. · No. 5:26-cv-06286
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PENNSYLVANIA DERMATOLOGY PARTNERS, INC.source ↗ filed by Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC · Judge Joseph F. Leeson Jr. · No. 5:26-cv-06286 · 28:1332(d)(5)(B) Diversity of Citizenship under CAFA · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Healthcare tracking-technology privacy claims have mixed outcomes: Doe v. Bayhealth allowed a breach-of-confidentiality claim to survive, while Doe v. Integris Health left state privacy claims unclear after remand. No wiretap-specific ruling directly favors either side here. Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M median $63.75M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google LLC $135M · Google $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 tracking-technology disclosure claim survived MTD, closest factual analog to a dermatology practice's website/patient portal tracking. Main risk: Dismissal on lack of interception/consent under Wiretap Act, similar to unresolved merits issues in Integris Health's remanded state claims Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $250K–$3M Small comparable sample, no defendant-specific litigation history, and class size is estimated from indirect web signals only. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-26 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |