E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-07652
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES LLCsource ↗ filed by LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS S SCHWARTZ · Judge Gail a. Weilheimer · No. 2:26-cv-07652 · Violation of Prov. of Subchpt.VI (Electronic Fund Transfers) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable rulings split: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks let privacy/tracking claims survive, while Walker v. Fidelity (same corporate family), Tower Health, and Nuance saw dismissal on similar privacy/wiretap-adjacent theories. The directly analogous Fidelity precedent weighs toward adverse outcome for plaintiffs here. Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M median $81.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $425M · Google $135M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$29 (n=2) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425.65M Key precedent: Walker v. Fid. Invs. Inst. Operations Co. — a Fidelity affiliate won dismissal of all claims re: use of personal info, signaling institutional litigation posture. Main risk: Dismissal on exemption/duty grounds, as in Walker (Fidelity) and Cisneros v. Nuance (financial institution GLBA exemption analog could apply to Fidelity) This defendant: Prior Fidelity-affiliate case (Walker) resulted in full dismissal of privacy-adjacent claims — pattern of successful defense. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2M–$90M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; class size and exact wiretap mechanism unknown; Fidelity-specific precedent (Walker) suggests stronger defense posture than theory base rate implies. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-10-05 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |