Tognocchi v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

D.S.C. · No. 4:26-cv-05280

No federal docket timeline hydrated for this case yet (state-court settlements have no RECAP docket).

Our records for this case (1)

Matter	Type	Practice area	Court	Date	Value
Experian Information Solutions, Inc.source ↗ filed by Hays Cauley PC · Judge Joseph Dawson, III · No. 4:26-cv-05280 · 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾ Privacy/wiretap claims split roughly evenly: Rand v. Eyemart Express and Doe v. Bayhealth survived pixel/tracking disclosure theories, while Santoro v. Tower Health and Walker v. Fidelity were dismissed on similar facts. Outcome likely hinges on whether Experian's alleged tracking/disclosure conduct is pled with same specificity as Rand. 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.) - Wiretap Act claim for disclosing identifiable data via tracking pixel survived, closely analogous if Experian's case involves similar third-party data sharing. Main risk: Dismissal akin to Santoro v. Tower Health, where Meta Pixel/tracking disclosure claims failed despite similar factual theory. This defendant: Experian faces recurring FCRA/FDCPA suits (Harding, Fuller, Butler, Stanislaus, Logan, Kancharla), showing pattern of consumer-data litigation exposure beyond this theory. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $30M–$800M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; actual claim mechanics (wiretap vs. tracking vs. data-sharing) unspecified, limiting precision of class size and per-member estimates. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts	Filing	Privacy & Wiretap	D.S.C.	2026-10-30	$59.50M–$725M comparable settlements