E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-06609
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BWW RESOURCES, LLCsource ↗ filed by MURPHY LAW GROUP LLC · No. 2:26-cv-06609 · 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $51.75M–$725M ▾Third Circuit's Santoro v. Tower Health affirmed dismissal of Meta Pixel/tracking-based privacy claims, a controlling precedent for E.D. Pa., while Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks show tracking/biometric claims can survive when duty or statutory scope is unclear. Outcomes for wiretap/pixel-style claims remain jurisdiction- and fact-dependent. 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.) - controlling circuit precedent dismissing Meta Pixel health-data tracking claims, directly relevant to E.D. Pa. wiretap theory. Main risk: Third Circuit precedent (Santoro) dismissing similar tracking-based privacy claims with prejudice could doom this case at MTD stage. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $1.12M–$47.25M Small sample of realized per-member data (n=2) and no BWW-specific prior litigation; class size is speculative absent case-specific facts. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-09-02 | $51.75M–$725M comparable settlements |