S.D. Cal. · No. 3:26-cv-05492
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard Chartered Banksource ↗ filed by Turner & Associates, P.A. · Judge Jinsook Ohta · No. 3:26-cv-05492 · 18:2333 Civil Remedies: Anti-Terrorism Act of 1991 · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Privacy/tracking claims split on facts: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived where duty or factual disputes existed, while Tower Health's pixel claim and Nuance's BIPA claim were dismissed on exemption/undue-delay grounds. As a bank, Standard Chartered may invoke GLBA-type financial-institution exemptions similar to the Nuance ruling. Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M median $81.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $425M · Google $135M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$29 (n=2) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425.65M Key precedent: Cisneros v. Nuance Communications - financial institutions may claim statutory exemptions from privacy/biometric statutes, a likely defense angle for a bank defendant. Main risk: Financial-institution statutory exemption (as in Nuance) or pixel-tracking dismissal pattern (Tower Health) could gut claims at MTD stage Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $1.25M–$75M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; no prior SCB litigation history; class size and jurisdictional scope highly speculative absent case-specific filings. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D. Cal. | 2026-09-24 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |