E.D. Mo. · No. 4:26-cv-01886
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pharma Medica Research, Inc.source ↗ filed by O'BRIEN LAW FIRM PC · Judge Sarah Elizabeth Pitlyk · No. 4:26-cv-01886 · 28:1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable rulings split: Rand v. Eyemart and Gunnar Optiks let pixel/tracking claims survive on factual grounds, while Santoro v. Tower Health and Cisneros v. Nuance dismissed similar Meta Pixel/biometric claims. Outcome likely turns on whether health-related data disclosure is pled with specificity. 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 individually identifiable health info sent to Meta via Pixel, a close factual analog to Pharma Medica's likely tracking-tech exposure. Main risk: Dismissal like Santoro v. Tower Health, where Meta Pixel health-data claims failed for lack of specific disclosure allegations Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $40K–$600K Defendant is a small private CRO, not a tech platform—settlement scale from Google/Meta comparables likely inapplicable; true class size and data practices unknown. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Mo. | 2026-10-30 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |