D.D.C. · No. 1:26-cv-03360
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ERICSSON INC.source ↗ filed by SPARACINO PLLC · No. 1:26-cv-03360 · 18:2331 Anti-terrorism Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Privacy/wiretap claims show split outcomes: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived on factual disputes, while Tower Health and Nuance were dismissed on statutory exemptions or pleading defects. Ericsson's role as infrastructure provider (not direct consumer-facing) raises standing/duty questions similar to Integris Health's dismissed vicarious claims. Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M median $81.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $425M · Google LLC $135M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$100 (n=3) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425.65M Key precedent: Doe v. Integris Health (10th Cir.) — infrastructure/technology intermediary status complicates direct privacy liability, mirroring Ericsson's likely role as network equipment provider. Main risk: Dismissal for lack of direct consumer relationship or statutory exemption, as in Nuance (BIPA financial-institution exemption) and Tower Health (pleading deficiencies) Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $1.30M–$225M Ericsson is primarily B2B infrastructure provider; consumer class size and direct liability theory are highly uncertain without more case facts. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D.D.C. | 2026-09-27 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |