E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-07409
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.source ↗ filed by Goldshaw Greenblatt Pierce LLC · Judge John F. Murphy · No. 2:26-cv-07409 · 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy/wiretap rulings split: Bayhealth allowed confidentiality claims to survive while Santoro and Nuance were dismissed on statutory/exclusion grounds; Gunnar Optiks shows appellate courts often remand for factual development rather than outright dismissal. 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. — shows disclosure-via-tracking-tech claims can survive MTD when a duty of confidentiality is plausibly pled, relevant if AA's wiretap claim involves data sharing with third parties. Main risk: Dismissal on statutory exemption or lack-of-loss-causation grounds, as in Nuance (BIPA exemption) and Santoro (Meta Pixel claims dismissed with prejudice). This defendant: AA previously settled a consumer claim for only $7.5M, suggesting a pattern of resolving disputes well below sector medians. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $20M–$400M Small, heterogeneous comparable set (n=8 rulings, n=2 realized per-member data points) and no wiretap-specific AA precedent; estimate is highly speculative. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-09-25 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |