N.D. Cal. · No. 3:26-cv-10962
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zoom Communications, Inc.source ↗ filed by Lexington Law Group · No. 3:26-cv-10962 · 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable rulings split roughly evenly—Bayhealth and Clements survived privacy/biometric claims while Santoro, Walker, and Cisneros were dismissed, showing courts scrutinize consent and definitional elements closely. Wiretap theories against tech platforms in N.D. Cal. have survived pleading stages before settling, but statutory exemptions (as in Cisneros) can defeat claims entirely. 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: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — survived because provider owed a recognized confidentiality duty; Zoom's terms-of-service consent language may cut the other way. Main risk: Consent/arbitration clauses in Zoom's ToS could mirror Cisneros-style statutory exemption dismissal, cutting off the class entirely. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $11.25M–$652.50M Small, mostly non-analogous comparable set; class size and per-member figures are rough extrapolations, not case-specific data. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | N.D. Cal. | 2026-09-25 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |