E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-08254
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TRANS UNION, LLCsource ↗ filed by Philadelphia, PA 19103 · Judge Chad Francis Kenney Sr. · No. 2:26-cv-08254 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Privacy/wiretap claims against data-sharing defendants show split outcomes: Rand v. Eyemart Express survived similar Wiretap Act/Pixel disclosure theory, while Santoro v. Tower Health was dismissed with prejudice for comparable Meta Pixel claims. Doe v. Bayhealth and Clements v. Gunnar show courts increasingly let factual disputes over consent/disclosure survive to discovery. 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.) - survived on nearly identical theory (disclosure of identifiable data via tracking tech without consent), most analogous to Trans Union's data practices. Main risk: Dismissal with prejudice as in Santoro v. Tower Health, where repeated pleading failures and lack of concrete harm doomed similar pixel/data-sharing claims This defendant: Trans Union faces frequent FCRA/FDCPA filings (6 recent cases), suggesting high litigation volume but no direct wiretap precedent yet Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $5M–$250M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; actual class definition and conduct specifics unknown, limiting precision of size and recovery estimates · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-10-28 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |