E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-06587
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADAPTHEALTH CORP.source ↗ filed by HAUSFELD LLP · Judge Cynthia M. Rufe · No. 2:26-cv-06587 · 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $51.75M–$725M ▾3rd Circuit precedent in Santoro v. Tower Health affirmed dismissal with prejudice of Meta Pixel/tracking claims, directly relevant since this case sits in E.D. Pa.; but Bayhealth survived a breach-of-confidentiality theory and Integris left state privacy claims unclear, showing courts split on tracking-tech wiretap theories. 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 Key precedent: Santoro v. Tower Health (3d Cir.) — binding circuit precedent affirming dismissal of pixel-based health-privacy claims, raising dismissal risk here. Main risk: Dismissal with prejudice on pleading/causation grounds as in Santoro v. Tower Health, especially if claims rest on Meta Pixel/tracking tech without concrete disclosure proof. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $4M–$60M Small comparable sample, no prior AdaptHealth litigation history, and class size is estimated from indirect revenue/business signals rather than confirmed patient counts. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-09-01 | $51.75M–$725M comparable settlements |