M.D. Ala. · No. 1:26-cv-00919
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OAS Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Arista Aviation Services Group, LLCsource ↗ filed by The Evans Law Firm, PC · No. 1:26-cv-00919 · 05:704 Labor Litigation · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Pixel/tracking-based privacy claims show split outcomes: Rand v. Eyemart and Doe v. Bayhealth survived similar theories, but Santoro v. Tower Health and Cisneros v. Nuance were dismissed on comparable facts. Outcome likely turns on specificity of alleged data disclosure and consent mechanics. 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 specifically pled disclosure of identifiable data via tracking pixel without consent, a likely template claim here. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to plead actionable interception/disclosure specificity, as in Santoro v. Tower Health and Cisneros v. Nuance Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $10K–$1.45M Defendant identity is ambiguous in web signals (conflated with unrelated 'OAS' entities); class size and settlement capacity are highly speculative given lack of company-specific data. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | M.D. Ala. | 2026-10-30 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |