Wolf v. Walmart Inc.

N.D. Tex. · No. 4:26-cv-01274

No federal docket timeline hydrated for this case yet (state-court settlements have no RECAP docket).

Our records for this case (1)

Matter	Type	Practice area	Court	Date	Value
Walmart Inc.source ↗ filed by Foster Yarborough Killingsworth PLLC · Judge Reed Charles O'Connor · No. 4:26-cv-01274 · 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾ Privacy/wiretap theories show split outcomes: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks let claims survive on factual disclosure/consent theories, while Tower Health, Cisneros/Nuance, and Walker dismissed similar tracking-technology claims for lack of statutory fit or pleading deficiencies. Walmart's repeat appearance as defendant (Oden, Udovicic) suggests plaintiffs see a recurring theory, but no final merits ruling yet establishes a clear trend for N.D. Tex. 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: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — survived MTD on tracking-tech disclosure theory, closest factual analog to Walmart's likely pixel/app-tracking allegations. Main risk: Dismissal on statutory-fit grounds, as in Tower Health (Meta Pixel claims dismissed) and Cisneros (BIPA exemption) — courts often find tracking tech doesn't meet wiretap/BIPA definitional thresholds. This defendant: Two prior Privacy & Wiretap filings (Oden, Udovicic) against Walmart suggest a pattern of repeat targeting on this theory, raising consolidation/MDL risk. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $20M–$400M Small, heterogeneous comparable set (n=9 rulings, n=10 settlements dominated by Big Tech); Walmart-specific precedent is limited to filings, not merits rulings. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts	Filing	Privacy & Wiretap	N.D. Tex.	2026-10-02	$59.50M–$725M comparable settlements