M.D. Fla. · No. 8:26-cv-03221
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T-Mobile USA, Inc.source ↗ filed by Justice Litigation Associates, PLLC · No. 8:26-cv-03221 · 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Privacy claims survive when plaintiffs plead a specific duty or unauthorized data-sharing (Doe v. Bayhealth, survived; Clements v. Gunnar, vacated for trial), but dismissed where courts find exemptions or insufficient particularity (Santoro v. Tower Health, Walker v. Fidelity, Cisneros v. Nuance). T-Mobile has no prior privacy-wiretap win/loss on record, only a pending similar suit (Rucker), making outcome uncertain. 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. — confidentiality claim against data-sharing survived MTD, showing viability of similar unauthorized-disclosure theories against T-Mobile. Main risk: Dismissal for lack of particularized harm or statutory exemption, as in Santoro v. Tower Health and Cisneros v. Nuance (BIPA financial-institution exemption). This defendant: Second privacy/wiretap suit against T-Mobile in short span suggests recurring data-handling exposure, not yet tested at trial. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $607.50M–$2.05B Small sample of rulings, no T-Mobile-specific outcome data, and settlement/class figures assume full certification and high claim uptake. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | M.D. Fla. | 2026-10-22 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |