D. Maryland · No. 1:26-cv-03736
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lyft, Inc.source ↗ filed by H. Barritt Peterson Jr. & Associates · Judge James Kelleher Bredar · No. 1:26-cv-03736 · 28:1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Privacy claims involving tracking/consent show split outcomes: Bayhealth's confidentiality claim survived while Santoro's Meta Pixel claim was dismissed with prejudice; Gunnar Optiks shows courts often defer dismissal pending factual development. 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. — survived MTD on confidentiality duty theory, closest analog to app-based data-sharing wiretap claims. Main risk: Dismissal on pleadings like Santoro v. Tower Health, where undue delay and failure to plead individualized harm doomed claim. This defendant: Lyft faces recurring privacy/wiretap suits (e.g., Blue v. Lyft) plus prior TCPA settlement, suggesting pattern of consumer-data litigation exposure. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $45M–$900M Small n, wide class-size uncertainty, and mixed early-stage rulings make this a low-confidence, rough directional estimate only. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D. Maryland | 2026-09-21 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |