E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-07012
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fliff Incsource ↗ filed by Law Office of Andrew M Carroll · Judge Joel Harvey Slomsky · No. 2:26-cv-07012 · 47:227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $29.50M–$76M ▾TCPA robocall/text claims show split outcomes: Howard and Perrong affirm dismissal on narrow statutory grounds, while League of Women Voters denied a motion to dismiss on similar text/robocall theory. Small n and fact-specific consent/technology issues make outcome uncertain for Fliff. Comparable settlements $29.50M–$76M median $36.20M · n=10 Caribbean Cruise L $76M · Dish Network $61M · US Coachways $49.90M Per member (realized): ~$20 median · $10–$500 (n=4) Comparable verdict: Dish Network, L.L.C. $61M · ccAdvertising $32.42M Key precedent: League of Women Voters v. Kramer (D.N.H.) — TCPA robocall claim survived MTD on adequately pled lack-of-consent injury, closest procedural analog. Main risk: Dismissal on 'artificial/prerecorded voice' technical definition per Howard v. RNC, or consent defense given app's opt-in registration flow Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $200K–$9M Small, appellate-skewed comparable set; no prior Fliff litigation history; class size is an estimate absent confirmed user/text-recipient data. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 3 verdicts | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | E.D. Pa. | 2026-09-13 | $29.50M–$76M comparable settlements |