E.D. Pa. · No. 5:26-cv-08336
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AFP ADVANCED FOOD PRODUCTS LLCsource ↗ filed by Stark Law Group, LLC · No. 5:26-cv-08336 · 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable wiretap/pixel-tracking rulings split sharply: Rand v. Eyemart and Clements v. Gunnar survived on similar tracking-tech theories, while Santoro v. Tower Health and Nuance were dismissed on related privacy claims. AFP's smaller B2B profile and lack of prior litigation history add uncertainty to how courts will treat its site/data practices. 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.) — closely analogous theory (Meta Pixel/tracking disclosure) survived MTD, signaling plaintiffs can plead around dismissal with specific data-sharing facts. Main risk: Dismissal risk akin to Santoro v. Tower Health, where undue delay and weak IIHI-disclosure pleading doomed similar pixel/tracking claims even after amendment. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $45K–$2M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; AFP's actual conduct (pixel, session replay, biometric, etc.) and class scope unconfirmed, making this a rough directional estimate only. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-10-30 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |