D. Ariz. · No. 2:26-cv-10071
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General Motors LLCsource ↗ filed by Amar Law Group PLLC · Judge Camille D. Bibles · No. 2:26-cv-10071 · 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Privacy/wiretap claims split roughly evenly across comparables: Rand v. Eyemart and Doe v. Bayhealth survived pixel/confidentiality theories, while Santoro v. Tower Health and Cisneros v. Nuance were dismissed on similar data-sharing theories. GM's connected-car data practices resemble the surviving health-data-pixel cases more than the dismissed ones. Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M median $81.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $425M · Google $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 plausibly alleged third-party data disclosure without consent, analogous to GM's alleged vehicle telematics sharing. Main risk: Dismissal risk akin to Santoro v. Tower Health, where pixel/data-sharing claims failed for lack of wiretap elements (interception, consent scope). This defendant: Multiple parallel GM privacy/wiretap filings (Bockelman-Phillips, Barriga) suggest coordinated litigation wave, possibly consolidated or risking inconsistent rulings. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $7.50M–$150M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; GM class size and per-member figures are rough estimates absent case-specific data. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D. Ariz. | 2026-10-29 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |