E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-07597
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANYsource ↗ filed by Philadelphia, PA 19110 · Judge Mary Kay Costello · No. 2:26-cv-07597 · 28:1446 Notice of Removal · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Privacy/tracking claims split: Santoro v. Tower Health (3d Cir., Meta Pixel) was dismissed while Doe v. Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived, showing outcome turns heavily on specific tech/consent facts. No direct Amex wiretap precedent exists beyond an unresolved Riddle filing. Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M median $81.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $425M · Google LLC $135M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$29 (n=2) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425.65M Key precedent: Santoro v. Tower Health (3d Cir.) — closely analogous pixel/tracking dismissal shows E.D. Pa.-adjacent courts skeptical of these claims absent concrete consent/disclosure facts. Main risk: Dismissal on pleading-stage grounds like Santoro (undue delay, failure to show unauthorized disclosure) given weak wiretap theory against financial institution with strong TOS consent defenses. This defendant: Amex faces recurring FCRA/FDCPA filings but this is only the second Privacy & Wiretap case (Riddle), outcome unclear—pattern not yet established. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $33.75M–$783M Small comparable sample (n=2 for per-member anchor), unclear factual basis of Amex's specific wiretap theory, and no direct financial-sector precedent limit precision. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-10-02 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |