N.D. Ill. · No. 1:26-cv-12722
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abbott Laboratories, Inc.source ↗ filed by Arnold & Itkin LLP · Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer · No. 1:26-cv-12722 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Health-data tracking claims split: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived pleading-stage on confidentiality/BIPA theories, while Tower Health's Meta Pixel claim and Cisneros's BIPA claim were dismissed. Abbott faces multiple parallel filings (Luzingu, Nix, Parisi, Johnson), suggesting a recurring tracking-technology dispute with inconsistent judicial treatment. 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: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — healthcare provider's duty of confidentiality for tracking-tech disclosures survived, closely mirroring Abbott's likely health-data exposure. Main risk: Dismissal on HIPAA/healthcare-exclusion or lack of actionable disclosure, as in Santoro v. Tower Health (Meta Pixel claim dismissed with prejudice). This defendant: Four separate Privacy & Wiretap filings against Abbott (Luzingu, Nix, Parisi, Johnson) indicate a recurring tracking-technology dispute pattern. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $1.50M–$80M Small, mixed comparable set and unclear exact tracking technology/claim basis for Abbott limit precision; figures are broad directional estimates. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | N.D. Ill. | 2026-10-16 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |