S.D. Ind. · No. 1:26-cv-02026
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC.source ↗ filed by CohenMalad, LLP · Judge Tanya Walton Pratt · No. 1:26-cv-02026 · 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy/wiretap rulings split roughly evenly: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived pleading stage on tracking-tech theories, while Tower Health's Meta Pixel claim and Nuance's biometric claim were dismissed on statutory exemptions. Outcome likely hinges on specific technology (chat/session replay) and whether Ulta fits any statutory carve-out. 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 because provider owed confidentiality duty; Ulta lacks that fiduciary relationship, weakening analogy but showing tracking-tech claims can clear MTD. Main risk: Dismissal on statutory exemption or lack of interception grounds, similar to Tower Health (Meta Pixel dismissed) and Nuance (BIPA exemption) This defendant: One prior privacy-adjacent settlement (Stermer v. Ulta, 2008) shows willingness to settle rather than litigate to judgment Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $50M–$500M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; actual technology/claim mechanics (wiretap vs. tracking pixel) not specified, and class size is a rough proxy from loyalty membership, not confirmed exposed users. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D. Ind. | 2026-09-21 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |