N.D. Tex. · No. 3:26-cv-03708
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yendo Incsource ↗ filed by Sulaiman Law Group Ltd · Judge Mark Timothy Pittman · No. 3:26-cv-03708 · 28:1331 Fed. Question · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy/tracking rulings split roughly evenly: Rand v. Eyemart and Gunnar Optiks let similar tracking/disclosure claims survive 12(b)(6), while Santoro v. Tower Health and Walker v. Fidelity were dismissed for failure to plead cognizable harm. Yendo's niche fintech product size and lack of prior litigation history add uncertainty to outcome prediction. Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M median $81.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $425M · Google LLC $135M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$29 (n=2) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425.65M Key precedent: Rand v. Eyemart Express (5th Cir.) - same circuit, held pixel-based disclosure of identifiable data without consent states a claim, directly relevant to N.D. Tex. venue. Main risk: Dismissal for lack of concrete injury/consent-based harm, as in Santoro v. Tower Health and Walker v. Fidelity, especially given thin factual record for a startup. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $75K–$2.50M Small sample size, no prior Yendo litigation, and class size is estimated from indirect web signals, not confirmed user data. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | N.D. Tex. | 2026-10-23 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |