D.S.C. · No. 4:26-cv-03889
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TransUnion LLCsource ↗ filed by Hays Cauley PC · Judge Joseph Dawson III · No. 4:26-cv-03889 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy rulings split roughly evenly—Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks allowed claims to proceed, while Tower Health and Nuance were dismissed on statutory/exclusion grounds. Wiretap-style claims (session replay/pixel tracking) face similar factual-issue hurdles that delayed dismissal in Gunnar Optiks. Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M median $81.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $425M · Google LLC $135M 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 MTD because provider owed confidentiality duty; TransUnion's data-handling role may support analogous duty theory. Main risk: Dismissal for lack of statutory 'interception' or consent theory, as seen in Nuance (BIPA exemption) and Tower Health (undue delay/pixel claims dismissed) This defendant: TransUnion has repeated FCRA-adjacent litigation ($40M verdict, $2.5M settlement), showing willingness to litigate but occasional exposure Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $7.50M–$87M Small, heterogeneous comparable set mixing BIPA/health-privacy/wiretap theories; true TransUnion-specific wiretap exposure unclear without complaint specifics. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D.S.C. | 2026-09-04 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |