D.N.J. · No. 2:26-cv-12731
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WALMART, INC.source ↗ filed by NS PR LAW SERVICES LLC · Judge Julien Xavier Neals · No. 2:26-cv-12731 · 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable rulings split roughly evenly: tracking-tech privacy claims survived in Bayhealth (confidentiality) and Gunnar Optiks (BIPA), but were dismissed in Tower Health (Meta Pixel) and Nuance (GLBA exemption). Outcome hinges heavily on specific tracking technology and state law used, unresolved at this stage. 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: Santoro v. Tower Health (3d Cir.) — Meta Pixel health-data sharing claim dismissed with prejudice, showing appellate skepticism toward pixel/tracking-based privacy theories absent clear statutory violation. Main risk: Dismissal on failure to plead concrete injury or statutory violation, mirroring Tower Health and Nuance outcomes where tracking-tech claims failed on exemption/pleading grounds. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $75M–$400M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; actual class size and per-member recovery depend heavily on specific tracking mechanism and jurisdictional statute invoked. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D.N.J. | 2026-09-28 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |