Winspear v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

N.D. Cal. · No. 3:26-cv-12100

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
Meta Platforms, Inc.source ↗ filed by Stris & Maher LLP · No. 3:26-cv-12100 · 17:101 Copyright Infringement · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾ Meta's own $725M Cambridge Analytica-era settlement shows exposure is real, but Pixel/health-data theories like Santoro v. Tower Health were dismissed while Doe v. Bayhealth and Commonwealth v. Meta (UCL/CLRA MTD denial affirmed) show such claims can survive 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: Commonwealth v. Meta Platforms (MTD denial affirmed) — shows California courts willing to let privacy/consumer claims against Meta proceed past motion to dismiss. Main risk: Dismissal on pleading-stage grounds as in Santoro v. Tower Health, where Meta Pixel health-data sharing claims were dismissed with prejudice for lack of actionable disclosure theory. This defendant: Meta faces repeat Privacy & Wiretap filings (Sedlock, G. v. Meta, Smith Nelson) plus a prior $725M settlement, indicating recurring exposure pattern. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $500M–$3.50B Small comparable sample, mixed rulings across different sub-theories (Pixel vs. tracking vs. biometric); actual settlement likely far below raw EV due to claims-rate discounting seen in real payouts. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts	Filing	Privacy & Wiretap	N.D. Cal.	2026-10-19	$59.50M–$725M comparable settlements