D. Del. · No. 1:26-cv-01362
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TintedMD LLCsource ↗ filed by deLeeuw Law LLC · Judge Unassigned Judge · No. 1:26-cv-01362 · 18:2511 Wiretapping · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Healthcare-adjacent tracking-tech claims split: Doe v. Bayhealth allowed breach-of-confidentiality to survive while Santoro v. Tower Health and Integris's federal claims were dismissed. TintedMD's medical-exemption service closely mirrors Bayhealth's confidentiality theory but faces Santoro-style pixel-dismissal risk. Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M median $115M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $425M · Apple $250M 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 owed confidentiality duty for tracking-tech disclosures, most factually analogous to TintedMD's medical data handling. Main risk: Dismissal on pixel/tracking-tech theory as in Santoro v. Tower Health, where health-data sharing claims failed despite similarity to this case. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $8K–$125K Tiny company with no prior litigation history; class size and recovery are rough extrapolations from limited revenue signals, not confirmed user counts. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D. Del. | 2026-10-21 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |