S.D.N.Y. · No. 1:26-cv-08431
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vive Organic, Inc.source ↗ filed by Reese LLP · No. 1:26-cv-08431 · 28:1332t Diversity-Torts · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $200M–$740M ▾No comparable ruling in the sample directly addresses false-advertising consumer claims, so precedential guidance is weak; Dougherty shows courts often let related consumer-protection/negligence claims survive MTD, suggesting plausible survival here. Comparable settlements $200M–$740M median $274.75M · n=10 DiDi Global Inc. $740M · Merck & Co. Inc. a $688M · Toyota Industries $436M Per member (realized): ~$2,500 median · $2,500–$2,500 (n=1) Comparable verdict: Papaya $420M · VPX, Inc. $293M Key precedent: Dougherty v. Bojangles - MTD granted in part, consumer-protection-style claims (UDTPA) survived, showing courts often let statutory unfair-practice claims proceed past pleading stage. Main risk: Small company size and limited revenue may make class certification/damages model impractical, similar to Guthrie where individualized inquiry defeated certification. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $10K–$900K Sample lacks any false-advertising-specific rulings and defendant is far smaller than all settlement comparables, so figures are highly speculative. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 9 verdicts | Filing | False Advertising | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-09-25 | $200M–$740M comparable settlements |