D. Maryland · No. 1:26-cv-03724
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Macys.com, LLCsource ↗ filed by Jennings & Earley PLLC · Judge Matthew J. Maddox · No. 1:26-cv-03724 · 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy/wiretap claims split: Doe v. Bayhealth survived on confidentiality duty, Gunnar Optiks was revived on remand, but Santoro v. Tower Health and Integris show tracking-pixel claims often falter at pleading or removal stage. Outcome for Macy's likely turns on specific tracking tech (pixel/session replay) alleged. Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M median $81.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $425M · Google LLC $135M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$100 (n=3) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425.65M Key precedent: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — survived MTD on confidentiality theory analogous to tracking-tech disclosure claims relevant here. Main risk: Dismissal for lack of individualized harm/standing, as in Santoro v. Tower Health where Meta Pixel claims were dismissed with prejudice. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $58M–$500M Small, heterogeneous comparable set mixes health-privacy and biometric cases; actual claims mechanics (tracking tech type, jurisdictional wiretap statute) could shift outcome significantly. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D. Maryland | 2026-09-18 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |