E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-08333
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GMRI, INC.source ↗ filed by Freundlich & Littman, LLC · Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro · No. 2:26-cv-08333 · 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Third Circuit precedent (Santoro v. Tower Health) affirmed dismissal of Meta Pixel/wiretap claims and is binding in E.D. Pa., but Rand v. Eyemart Express shows sister circuits reviving similar pixel-tracking wiretap theories when IIHI or interception is plausibly pled. 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: Santoro v. Tower Health (3rd Cir.) is most relevant—same circuit, affirmed dismissal of pixel-based privacy/wiretap claims, raising dismissal risk for GMRI. Main risk: Binding 3rd Circuit precedent (Tower Health) dismissing nearly identical pixel/wiretap theory could doom claim at MTD stage. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $3M–$150M Web signals for defendant are confused with unrelated entities (GMR Infrastructure, Gulf of Maine Research Institute), making class-size basis weak; small comparable sample limits precision. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-10-30 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |