E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-06774
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 StopRipoff.com Law Office of Predrag Filipovic · Judge John R. Padova · No. 2:26-cv-06774 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $2.25M–$100M ▾TransUnion has a demonstrated pattern of FCRA exposure, including a $40M Ninth Circuit verdict and an $8.3M E.D. Pa. settlement in this same theory/court, but Minano and Trotman show courts readily dismiss individual FCRA counts (e.g., no private right under §1681i(a)(5), §1681c-2, §1681s-2(a)(8)) absent concrete injury pleading. Comparable settlements $2.25M–$100M median $3.25M · n=10 Equifax $100M · TransUnion $8.31M · Trader Joe's $7.40M Per member (realized): ~$102 median · $25–$500 (n=3) Comparable verdict: TransUnion, LLC $40M Key precedent: Trotman v. TransUnion (MTD granted, leave to amend) — same defendant, shows courts demand specificity but allow repleading, mirroring likely early trajectory here. Main risk: Dismissal of specific FCRA counts for lack of private right of action or insufficient concrete-injury pleading, as in Minano v. DLJ Mortgage Capital. This defendant: TransUnion shows recurring FCRA litigation pattern: $40M verdict, $8.3M and $2.5M settlements, multiple pending filings (Pinney, Ferguson, Cardona) in same period. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $562K–$36M Small comparable sample, wide class-size uncertainty, and no case-specific facts on violation type limit precision; figures are illustrative EV bounds, not point forecasts. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 1 verdicts | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | E.D. Pa. | 2026-09-09 | $2.25M–$100M comparable settlements |