E.D. Mo. · No. 4:26-cv-01885
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| St. Luke's Hospitalsource ↗ filed by SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD · Judge Sarah Elizabeth Pitlyk · No. 4:26-cv-01885 · 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Healthcare tracking-tech claims split: Bayhealth and Rand v. Eyemart survived MTD on pixel/IIHI disclosure theories, but Santoro v. Tower Health was dismissed with prejudice for similar Meta Pixel claims. Integris shows removal fights but underlying state privacy claims remain unclear. 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 pled concrete IIHI disclosure via tracking pixel, directly analogous to hospital tracking-tech exposure. Main risk: Dismissal with prejudice risk as in Santoro v. Tower Health, especially if complaint lacks specific factual allegations of identifiable health data transmission Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $750K–$10.50M Small comparable sample, no prior records for this defendant, and class size is inferred from indirect web signals rather than confirmed patient data exposure numbers. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Mo. | 2026-10-30 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |