E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-06585
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, INC.source ↗ filed by Lundy LLP · Judge Karen Spencer Marston · No. 2:26-cv-06585 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $51.75M–$725M ▾Third Circuit's Santoro v. Tower Health dismissed similar health-data-sharing claims with prejudice, a controlling precedent in E.D. Pa.'s circuit; but Bayhealth Medical Ctr. survived on breach-of-confidentiality theory, showing courts split on health-privacy claims depending on pleading specificity. Comparable settlements $51.75M–$725M median $63.75M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google LLC $135M · Google $68M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$29 (n=2) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425.65M Class (from complaint): All individuals in the United States who were prescribed Zepbound for weight management or other medical conditions and who experienced an interruption or disco Key precedent: Santoro v. Tower Health (3rd Cir.) — controlling circuit precedent affirming dismissal of health-data privacy claims, directly binding on E.D. Pa. Main risk: Dismissal with prejudice as in Tower Health (3rd Cir.), especially given weak nexus between 'supply shortage' class definition and wiretap/privacy theory This defendant: Prior false-advertising ruling against Lilly reversed/remanded, showing regulatory exposure but no established privacy-litigation pattern Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $3M–$43.50M Class definition (supply interruption) poorly matches Privacy & Wiretap theory, undermining confidence in both survival and damages estimates; small comparable sample. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-09-01 | $51.75M–$725M comparable settlements |