S.D. Cal. · No. 3:26-cv-05235
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Promotion in Motion, Inc.source ↗ filed by Shay Legal, APC · Judge Gonzalo Paul Curiel · No. 3:26-cv-05235 · 28:1332bw Diversity -Breach of Warranty · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾CIPA/wiretap claims tied to website tracking show split outcomes: Bayhealth's confidentiality claim survived while Santoro's Meta Pixel claim was dismissed with prejudice; Gunnar Optiks shows courts often defer dismissal on factual questions. Promotion in Motion is a mid-size consumer brand, not a tech platform, lowering typical scale but not the legal risk profile. Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M median $81.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $425M · Google $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. — confidentiality claim from tracking tech survived MTD, showing similar wiretap/privacy theories can clear pleading stage. Main risk: Dismissal risk mirrors Santoro v. Tower Health, where pixel/tracking claims were dismissed for failure to show unauthorized disclosure of protected data. This defendant: One prior filing (Feliciano, false advertising) suggests recurring consumer-claim exposure but no wiretap-specific pattern. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $300K–$10.80M Small sample of rulings/settlements and no defendant-specific traffic data make this a rough directional estimate only. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D. Cal. | 2026-09-11 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |