D. Mass. · No. 1:26-cv-14738
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dunkin' Brands, Inc.source ↗ filed by Reardon Scanlon LLP · Judge William G. Young · No. 1:26-cv-14738 · No cause code entered · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy/tracking claims split sharply: Bayhealth and Gunnar Optiks survived on confidentiality/BIPA factual-issue grounds, while Tower Health (Meta Pixel) and Nuance (BIPA) were dismissed on statutory/technical grounds. Dunkin lacks the healthcare-confidentiality duty that saved Bayhealth, raising dismissal risk akin to Tower Health. 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.) — pixel/tracking-based privacy claim dismissed with prejudice, closely analogous to consumer wiretap theory against Dunkin's app/website tracking. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to show statutory 'interception' or consent issues, as in Tower Health and Nuance BIPA rulings This defendant: Prior False Advertising suit (Schoenrock) suggests recurring consumer-protection exposure for Dunkin'. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $6M–$400M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; no direct wiretap/tracking case against Dunkin' exists yet, so figures are extrapolated. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D. Mass. | 2026-10-19 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |