Yoerger v. Datadog, Inc.

S.D.N.Y. · No. 1:26-cv-07318

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

Our records for this case (1)

Matter	Type	Practice area	Court	Date	Value
Datadog, Inc.source ↗ filed by Marjorie Mesidor Attorney at Law · No. 1:26-cv-07318 · 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾ Privacy/wiretap claims tied to tracking tech show split outcomes: Bayhealth and the second Gunnar Optiks ruling let claims survive on factual questions, while Integris and the first Gunnar ruling left issues unclear pending discovery. Datadog's case likely turns on similar fact-intensive consent/interception questions under wiretap statutes. 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: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — confirms tracking-technology disclosure claims can survive MTD when a duty of confidentiality or consent issue is plausibly pled, mirroring Datadog's data-capture role. Main risk: Courts may find Datadog acted merely as a backend processor (like Integris' EHR role), lacking direct 'interception' or duty to class members, risking dismissal. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $20M–$350M Small comparable sample, uncertain class definition, and Datadog's B2B infrastructure role make class size and liability theory highly speculative. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts	Filing	Privacy & Wiretap	S.D.N.Y.	2026-08-27	$47.50M–$725M comparable settlements