N.D. Cal. · No. 4:26-cv-10282
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project 7, Inc.source ↗ filed by Edelsberg Law, PA · Judge Thomas S. Hixson · No. 4:26-cv-10282 · 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $190M–$740M ▾No comparable ruling directly addresses consumer false-advertising claims against small CPG defendants; cited cases (Guthrie, Citizens of Humanity) show California courts often deny certification or find no probable cause absent uniform misrepresentation proof. Prior filing (Edwards v. Project 7) suggests recurring false-advertising exposure for this defendant. Comparable settlements $190M–$740M median $299.50M · n=10 DiDi Global Inc. $740M · Merck & Co. Inc. a $688M · Western Union $586M Comparable verdict: Papaya $420M · VPX, Inc. $293M Key precedent: Guthrie v. Transamerica: denial of certification for lack of common proof of representations, a risk mirrored in product-labeling suits like this one. Main risk: Class certification denial due to individualized reliance/exposure issues, as in Guthrie v. Transamerica This defendant: Second false-advertising filing against Project 7 (Edwards v. Project 7) suggests a recurring labeling/marketing exposure pattern. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $25K–$10M Small sample, no directly on-point false-advertising rulings or settlements for a company this size; figures are rough scaling estimates, not case-specific projections. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 9 verdicts | Filing | False Advertising | N.D. Cal. | 2026-09-11 | $190M–$740M comparable settlements |