S.D.N.Y. · No. 1:26-cv-09299
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intuit Inc.source ↗ filed by Working Solutions Law Firm, PLLC · No. 1:26-cv-09299 · 29:2617 Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Privacy/tracking claims show split outcomes: Tower Health's Meta Pixel claim was dismissed while Bayhealth's confidentiality claim and Gunnar Optiks' biometric claim survived/were remanded for factual development. Outcome likely turns on specificity of wiretap allegations against Intuit's tracking tech. 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: Patrick Santoro v. Tower Health - pixel/tracking-based privacy claim dismissed with prejudice, closely analogous to likely Intuit wiretap theory involving web tracking tools. Main risk: Dismissal for insufficient pleading of interception/consent elements, as in Tower Health and Walker v. Fidelity where generic data-use allegations failed. This defendant: Bruce v. Intuit Inc. shows same Privacy & Wiretap theory already filed against Intuit, suggesting recurring exposure on tracking practices. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $100M–$700M No directly on-point Intuit wiretap rulings; estimate blends analogous privacy/tracking cases and small realized per-member sample (n=2), so figures are illustrative, not precise. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-10-23 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |