Garcia v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY

E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-08120

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
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY source ↗ filed by Motley Rice, LLC · No. 2:26-cv-08120 · 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾ Tower Health v. Santoro (3d Cir., binding on E.D. Pa.) affirmed dismissal of nearly identical Meta Pixel/health-tracking privacy claims, while Doe v. Bayhealth and the Gunnar Optiks remands show confidentiality-based tracking claims can survive when duty/consent facts are pled. The unusual GLP-1 'personal injury' class definition layered onto a Privacy & Wiretap theory adds pleading uncertainty. 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 Class (from complaint): Plaintiffs alleging personal injury and damages arising from use of Defendants' GLP-1 RA prescription products. Key precedent: Patrick Santoro v. Tower Health (3rd Cir.) — controlling circuit authority dismissing tracking-tech health-data privacy claims, directly adverse to Lilly's E.D. Pa. venue. Main risk: 3rd Circuit precedent (Tower Health) dismissing substantially similar health-tracking privacy claims on the merits, binding in E.D. Pa. This defendant: Lilly already faces two other Privacy & Wiretap suits (Tipton, Waugh), suggesting repeat/parallel exposure on tracking-tech allegations. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2M–$100M Class definition mismatches the Privacy & Wiretap label, small comparable sample, and no direct GLP-1-specific precedent — estimates are highly speculative. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts	Filing	Privacy & Wiretap	E.D. Pa.	2026-10-23	$59.50M–$725M comparable settlements