S.D.N.Y. · No. 1:26-cv-08438
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kellogg Supply, Inc.source ↗ filed by Lynch Carpenter, LLP · Judge James Paul Oetken · No. 1:26-cv-08438 · 28:1453 Class Action Fairness Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $200M–$740M ▾No comparable rulings directly address consumer false-advertising claims against a supply company; Cetorelli shows deceptive-practices claims can succeed with treble damages, while Guthrie shows class cert often fails on individualized reliance issues. 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: Cetorelli v. Duell Action Builders - affirmed deceptive/unfair practices liability and treble damages, closest analog to a false-advertising consumer claim. Main risk: Class certification denial due to individualized reliance/communication issues, as in Guthrie v. Transamerica Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $1M–$55M Small sample of comparables, none squarely false-advertising consumer class actions; significant ambiguity over defendant's true size/identity (Kellogg Supply vs. Kellogg's) affects all estimates. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 9 verdicts | Filing | False Advertising | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-09-27 | $200M–$740M comparable settlements |