C.D. Cal. · No. 2:26-cv-09999
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta Bionics, Inc.source ↗ filed by Schall Brown and Schwartz LLP · No. 2:26-cv-09999 · 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable health-privacy rulings split: Bayhealth's confidentiality claim and Gunnar's biometric claim survived, but Tower Health's Meta Pixel claim and Nuance's BIPA claim were dismissed on statutory exemptions. Beta Bionics' device-data wiretap theory faces similar exemption risk under health-data or financial-institution carve-outs. 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; supports plausibility of health-data privacy claims against device makers like Beta Bionics. Main risk: Dismissal via statutory exemption or lack of 'interception' under wiretap law, as in Nuance (GLBA exemption) and Tower Health (pixel dismissed). Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $300K–$7.50M Small, niche defendant with no prior privacy litigation history; class size and per-member figures are rough extrapolations from device sales data, not confirmed user counts. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | C.D. Cal. | 2026-09-04 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |