D.S.C. · No. 4:26-cv-05241
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equifax Information Services, LLCsource ↗ filed by Hays Cauley PC · Judge Joseph Dawson III · No. 4:26-cv-05241 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable Meta Pixel/tracking wiretap claims split: Rand v. Eyemart survived reversal at 5th Cir., Clements v. Gunnar Optiks survived at 7th Cir., but Santoro v. Tower Health was dismissed at 3rd Cir. and Integris Health claims were unclear/remanded. Outcome heavily depends on specificity of interception/disclosure allegations against Equifax. 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 because plaintiffs plausibly alleged disclosure of individually identifiable data via tracking tech without consent, a close factual analog. Main risk: Dismissal on pleading-sufficiency grounds for failing to show statutory 'interception' or consent exception, as in Santoro v. Tower Health (3d Cir., affirmed dismissal with prejudice). This defendant: Equifax has prior FCRA/FDCPA suits but no large-scale wiretap/privacy settlement precedent in this dataset. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $15M–$217.50M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; exact factual basis of Equifax wiretap claim unknown, limiting precision of class size and damages estimate. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D.S.C. | 2026-10-29 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |