C.D. Cal. · No. 2:26-cv-11989
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Triller Group Inc.source ↗ filed by Pomerantz LLP · No. 2:26-cv-11989 · 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Privacy/wiretap and tracking-tech claims show split outcomes: Bayhealth confidentiality claim survived MTD while Santoro's Meta Pixel health-privacy claim was dismissed with prejudice; Gunnar Optiks (biometric/tracking) also survived on remand, showing fact-intensive claims often clear pleading stage. 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: Santoro v. Tower Health (3d Cir.) — dismissed tracking-tech privacy claim, showing courts skeptical of pixel/SDK-style disclosure theories absent concrete harm, directly analogous to app-tracking wiretap claims. Main risk: Dismissal on pleading grounds similar to Santoro/Cisneros, or inability to certify/collect given Triller's reported insolvency and unpaid $23M liabilities Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $10M–$250M Small, heterogeneous comp set; Triller's actual user/class size highly disputed and financial insolvency may cap real recovery regardless of verdict/settlement size. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | C.D. Cal. | 2026-10-14 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |