M.D.N.C. · No. 1:26-cv-01151
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TUMI STORES, INC.source ↗ filed by HENSEL LAW, PLLC · No. 1:26-cv-01151 · 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Privacy/wiretap claims split roughly evenly across comparables: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived on similar tracking-technology theories, while Tower Health, Cisneros, and Walker were dismissed for lack of concrete harm or statutory exemptions. Outcome likely hinges on specificity of interception allegations and whether Tumi's tech falls under a recognized exemption. 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. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — survived because provider owed duty of confidentiality; parallels Tumi if plaintiffs allege third-party data sharing via website trackers. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to show interception/disclosure of 'contents' as in Tower Health (Meta Pixel claims dismissed with prejudice for lack of actionable disclosure). Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $1.45M–$50M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; class size and per-member figures are rough estimates absent Tumi-specific traffic/revenue data or complaint details. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | M.D.N.C. | 2026-09-29 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |