S.D.N.Y. · No. 1:26-cv-07644
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenAI Inc.source ↗ filed by Klaris Law · No. 1:26-cv-07644 · 17:101 Copyright Infringement · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Privacy/tracking claims show a split record: Doe v. Bayhealth allowed breach-of-confidentiality claims to survive and Gunnar Optiks was revived on remand, but Tower Health's near-identical Meta Pixel health-data claim was dismissed with prejudice and Cisneros fell to a statutory exemption. OpenAI's wiretap theory (interception/recording of chat data) is novel and untested at pleading stage in SDNY. 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 because provider owed a confidentiality duty over tracking-tech data sharing, closest analog to AI conversational data capture claims. Main risk: Dismissal on exemption/consent grounds, mirroring Cisneros (BIPA financial-institution exemption) and Tower Health (dismissed with prejudice for undue delay/insufficient disclosure theory). This defendant: Multiple concurrent privacy filings against OpenAI (Sullivan, state-court consumer actions) suggest emerging litigation pattern and possible consolidation exposure. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $100M–$600M Small comparable sample (n=2 realized payouts) and no direct AI-wiretap precedent; actual recovery likely capped by negotiated settlement fund, not linear per-member math. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-09-04 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |