N.D. Ohio · No. 5:26-cv-02131
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walmart Inc.source ↗ filed by Bodiford Legal - Akron · Judge John R. Adams · No. 5:26-cv-02131 · 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $51.75M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy rulings split: Bayhealth's confidentiality claim survived while Santoro's Meta Pixel claim was dismissed, and Gunnar Optiks was vacated for further factual development, showing outcome hinges heavily on specific tracking mechanics alleged against Walmart. 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: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — survived because provider owed duty of confidentiality; suggests specificity of data-sharing allegations is decisive. Main risk: Dismissal like Santoro v. Tower Health if plaintiffs can't show individually-identifiable data sharing beyond generic pixel/tracking use. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $33.75M–$472.50M Small comparable sample, no Walmart-specific precedent, and class size/per-member figures are highly speculative absent case details. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | N.D. Ohio | 2026-09-02 | $51.75M–$725M comparable settlements |