S.D. Cal. · No. 3:26-cv-05867
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVS Pharmacy, Inc.source ↗ filed by Buchalter, LLP · Judge James E. Simmons Jr. · No. 3:26-cv-05867 · 15:1114 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Rulings split sharply: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks let similar tracking/disclosure claims survive, while Tower Health and Nuance dismissed near-identical health-data-sharing and biometric claims. CVS's pharmacy-health context resembles the dismissed Tower Health Meta Pixel case most closely. 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: Patrick Santoro v. Tower Health (3rd Cir.) - near-identical health-data tracking-tech claim dismissed with prejudice, signaling courts' reluctance absent clear unauthorized disclosure proof. Main risk: Dismissal on grounds that pharmacy health-tracking tech doesn't constitute unauthorized 'interception' absent third-party identifiable disclosure, as in Tower Health Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2.25M–$90M Small comparable sample, wide class-size uncertainty, and CVS's own settlement history diverges sharply from Big Tech comparables—treat EV as directional only. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D. Cal. | 2026-10-14 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |