E.D. Mich. · No. 2:26-cv-13088
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 Holdings, Incsource ↗ filed by Sterling Attorneys at Law P.C. · Judge Susan K. Declercq · No. 2:26-cv-13088 · 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy/wiretap rulings split roughly evenly: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived motions to dismiss on data-collection theories, while Santoro (Meta Pixel) and Cisneros (BIPA) were dismissed on statutory-exemption and pleading grounds. Outcome likely turns on specific data-sharing mechanics and consent language, which are unclear from filing alone. Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M median $63.75M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google LLC $135M · Google LLC and Alp $68M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$30 (n=3) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425.65M Key precedent: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. is most analogous — survived MTD on breach-of-confidentiality theory tied to tracking tech disclosures, showing courts will let privacy claims proceed past pleading stage. Main risk: Dismissal on statutory exemption or standing grounds, as in Santoro v. Tower Health and Cisneros v. Nuance, where defendant qualified for exemption or failed loss-causation pleading. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $145K–$15M Web signals provided no usable defendant-specific facts (class size, revenue, conduct); estimates rely heavily on generic comparables and carry wide uncertainty. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 3 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Mich. | 2026-08-28 | $47.50M–$725M comparable settlements |