W.D. Ky. · No. 3:26-cv-00665
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Louisville Ladder Inc.source ↗ filed by Siri & Glimstad LLP · Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings · No. 3:26-cv-00665 · 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $90M–$586M ▾No directly on-point false-advertising rulings in the comparable set; most cited cases involve unrelated theories (privacy, insurance, employment), limiting predictive value. Consumer product false-advertising claims against manufacturers like Louisville Ladder typically survive early motions if specific mislabeling/safety claims are pled with particularity. Comparable settlements $90M–$586M median $117.50M · n=10 Western Union $586M · Toyota Industries $436M · Credit Glory $200M Comparable verdict: Papaya $420M · VPX, Inc. $293M Key precedent: Cetorelli v. Duell Action Builders (Ohio CSPA) — shows courts uphold deceptive-practices claims against product/service sellers when specific misrepresentations are shown, a useful analog despite different facts. Main risk: Pleading specificity/standing dismissal risk, as seen in cases like Guthrie (denial via individualized inquiry) and Hernandez-Castrodad (standing dismissal), could sink false-advertising claims lacking concrete reliance allegations. This defendant: Prior filing (Magro v. Louisville Ladder, same theory) suggests recurring false-advertising exposure, but outcome unknown. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $200K–$18M Comparable set lacks true false-advertising/product-mislabeling precedents; estimate is a rough analogical projection, not a data-grounded benchmark. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 9 verdicts | Filing | False Advertising | W.D. Ky. | 2026-08-26 | $90M–$586M comparable settlements |