← Records

Harris v. Trapananda Seafarms LLC

N.D. Ill. · No. 1:26-cv-10335

Full docket on CourtListener ↗

No federal docket timeline hydrated for this case yet (state-court settlements have no RECAP docket).

Our records for this case (1)

MatterTypePractice areaCourtDateValue
Trapananda Seafarms LLCsource ↗
filed by Pearson Warshaw, LLP · Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings · No. 1:26-cv-10335 · 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) · view case timeline →
Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾
Comparable rulings split: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived on privacy/BIPA-type theories, while Integris and LabCorp saw claims dismissed or left unclear at the pleading stage. Small defendant size limits confidence in extrapolating from Big Tech settlement patterns.
Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M median $63.75M · n=10
Meta $725M · Google LLC $135M · Google $68M
Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$30 (n=3)
Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425M
Key precedent: William Clements v. Gunnar Optiks - shows wiretap/biometric privacy claims often survive 12(b)(6) when factual questions about data collection remain unresolved.
Main risk: Small, low-web-presence defendant may lack the data infrastructure/scale that made Integris and LabCorp-style dismissals or narrow rulings likely on causation/duty grounds.
Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $6K–$2.50M
Tiny defendant with sparse public data; class size and per-member figures are highly speculative given no prior litigation record and limited comparables at this scale. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts
FilingPrivacy & WiretapN.D. Ill.2026-08-27$47.50M–$725M
comparable settlements