E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-06297
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NOVO NORDISK INC.source ↗ filed by Moll Law Group · No. 2:26-cv-06297 · 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Bayhealth Medical Ctr. shows health-data confidentiality claims can survive MTD, while Integris Health shows adjacent privacy claims against health entities remain 'unclear' post-removal fights. Novo Nordisk's likely pixel/tracking-tech theory mirrors these healthcare-sector privacy suits with split outcomes. 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. — confirms healthcare-adjacent entities can face viable breach-of-confidentiality claims tied to tracking tech, directly analogous to pharma website data sharing. Main risk: Federal officer removal/jurisdictional maneuvering (as in Integris) or threshold dismissal on consent/standing grounds could gut claims early. This defendant: Two prior Privacy & Wiretap filings against Novo Nordisk entities suggest recurring exposure on this theory. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $5M–$60M Small comparable sample, mixed rulings, and uncertain class definition make this a rough directional estimate, not a precise forecast. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-26 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |