N.D. Cal. · No. 5:26-cv-09340
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PayPal, Inc.source ↗ filed by Of Counsel · Judge Susan G. Van Keulen · No. 5:26-cv-09340 · 28:1331 Fed. Question · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $51.75M–$725M ▾Privacy/tracking claims show split outcomes: Doe v. Bayhealth and Clements v. Gunnar Optiks survived dismissal, while Cisneros v. Nuance and Santoro v. Tower Health were dismissed largely on statutory exemption grounds. PayPal, as a financial institution, may invoke GLBA-type exemptions similar to Nuance's successful defense. Comparable settlements $51.75M–$725M median $63.75M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google LLC $135M · Google LLC and Alp $68M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$29 (n=2) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425.65M Key precedent: Cisneros v. Nuance Communications - financial institutions may escape biometric/privacy liability via GLBA exemption, a defense PayPal could mirror. Main risk: Statutory exemption dismissal (GLBA/financial institution carve-out) as seen in Cisneros v. Nuance, which could bar wiretap claims entirely. This defendant: Only one prior filing (Borjian, FCRA/FDCPA) - insufficient to establish a litigation pattern. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $45M–$550M Comparables span varied privacy theories (BIPA, confidentiality, wiretap) with small sample size; PayPal-specific facts and exemption defenses remain unclear. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | N.D. Cal. | 2026-09-01 | $51.75M–$725M comparable settlements |