M.D. Fla. · No. 8:26-cv-02674
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supplying Demand, Inc.source ↗ filed by Seraph Legal, PA · No. 8:26-cv-02674 · 28:1332 Diversity-Deceptive Trade Practices · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy rulings split: Doe v. Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived pleading stage, while Tower Health and Nuance were dismissed on statutory exemptions/undue delay grounds, showing outcome hinges on specific tech/consent facts. 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. matters most - shows breach-of-confidentiality/privacy claims can survive MTD when provider-patient-like duty is pled, a plausible analog for wiretap theory. Main risk: Dismissal on statutory exemption or standing grounds, as in Nuance (GLBA exemption) and Tower Health (pleading deficiency), given defendant's apparent small scale limits data-collection scope. This defendant: Prior False Advertising suit (Frelinghuysen) suggests some litigation exposure but no privacy-specific pattern yet. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $29K–$2.50M Extremely limited defendant-specific data; class size and per-member figures are speculative given lack of scale signals for Supplying Demand, Inc. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | M.D. Fla. | 2026-09-14 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |