E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-08273
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WEBEYECARE, INC.source ↗ filed by Lynch Carpenter, LLP · Judge Gerald John Pappert · No. 2:26-cv-08273 · 18:2511 Wiretapping · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Pixel/tracking-tech privacy claims show split outcomes: Rand v. Eyemart Express and Doe v. Bayhealth allowed similar health-data disclosure claims to survive, while Santoro v. Tower Health affirmed dismissal of nearly identical Meta Pixel claims. Outcome is highly fact-dependent on consent language and data specificity. 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.) - closest factual match (eyewear retailer, Meta Pixel, IIHI disclosure) and claims survived motion to dismiss. Main risk: Dismissal on pleading grounds as in Santoro v. Tower Health, where nearly identical pixel-tracking claims were dismissed with prejudice for failure to plead actionable disclosure. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $45K–$1.96M Small sample size, defendant's limited revenue likely caps any realistic settlement far below large-tech comparables; class size is estimated, not disclosed. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-10-29 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |