E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-07350
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TRANS UNION, LLCsource ↗ filed by FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC · Judge Mark A. Kearney · No. 2:26-cv-07350 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy/tracking-tech rulings split: Santoro v. Tower Health (3d Cir., same circuit as E.D. Pa.) affirmed dismissal of Meta Pixel claims, while Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks let similar tracking/biometric claims survive past pleadings. Wiretap-style claims against tech-enabled data sharing face a real dismissal risk but are not categorically barred. 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: Santoro v. Tower Health (3d Cir.) - controlling circuit precedent affirming dismissal of pixel-based privacy claims, directly relevant to E.D. Pa. venue. Main risk: Dismissal at pleading stage for failure to show 'interception' or lack of consent, as in Santoro and Cisneros. This defendant: TransUnion faces recurring FCRA/FDCPA suits but no prior privacy/wiretap-specific pattern found. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $4.50M–$105M Small, heterogeneous comparable set (health/biometric/BIPA, not pure wiretap); class size and specific tracking mechanism unknown, limiting precision. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-09-23 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |