E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-06391
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TARGET CORP.source ↗ filed by Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC · Judge Karen Spencer Marston · No. 2:26-cv-06391 · 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Comparable rulings split: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived MTD on privacy/tracking-tech theories, while Integris saw removal rejected and underlying privacy claims left unclear. Fact-intensive defenses (consent, HIPAA-style exclusions) frequently push cases past pleadings but leave outcome uncertain. 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. — confidentiality claim from tracking tech survived MTD, closest factual analog to retailer web-tracking/wiretap theory. Main risk: Dismissal on standing/consent grounds or removal maneuvering, as seen in Integris where federal officer removal failed but underlying merits remained unresolved. This defendant: Target has two prior Privacy & Wiretap filings (Cavallaro, Louis), suggesting recurring exposure on tracking-technology claims. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $7.50M–$240M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; class size and per-member figures are rough estimates absent case-specific facts on tracking mechanism or opt-in data. · grounded in 6 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-08-27 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |