E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-07426
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ELI LILLY & COMPANYsource ↗ filed by Motley Rice, LLC · No. 2:26-cv-07426 · 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Third Circuit's Santoro v. Tower Health affirmed dismissal of Meta Pixel health-data-sharing claims with prejudice, directly controlling in E.D. Pa. Yet Doe v. Bayhealth survived on breach-of-confidentiality theory and Gunnar Optiks shows tracking-tech claims can survive if factual disputes remain. 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 (3rd Cir.) - controlling circuit precedent affirming dismissal of pixel/tracking health-data claims, directly applicable to E.D. Pa. venue. Main risk: Third Circuit's Santoro precedent creates strong dismissal risk for pixel/tracking-based health privacy claims in this exact circuit. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2.60M–$100M Small comparable sample, fact pattern (wiretap vs. pixel vs. biometric) unclear from filing; class size and per-member figures highly speculative absent case specifics. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-09-25 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |