D. Del. · No. 1:26-cv-01407
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ford Motor Companysource ↗ filed by deLeeuw Law LLC · Judge Unassigned Judge · No. 1:26-cv-01407 · 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $200M–$688M ▾No comparable rulings directly address false advertising against an automaker; closest analogs are Cetorelli v. Duell (CSPA deceptive-practices claim affirmed, treble damages) showing viability of deceptive-conduct theories, and Guthrie v. Transamerica (class cert denial affirmed due to individualized reliance) showing a key certification hurdle for advertising claims. Comparable settlements $200M–$688M median $237.50M · n=10 Merck & Co. Inc. a $688M · Toyota Industries $436M · Toyota Industries $299.50M Per member (realized): ~$2,500 median · $2,500–$2,500 (n=1) Comparable verdict: Papaya $420M · VPX, Inc. $293M Key precedent: Guthrie v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. — illustrates courts' reluctance to certify classes where advertising/communications require individualized proof, a likely defense theme here. Main risk: Class certification denial on individualized reliance/causation grounds, as in Guthrie, or dismissal for failure to plead actionable misrepresentation. This defendant: Prior Ford cases (Abdullah v. Ford) show pattern of partial motions to sever in product/warranty suits, suggesting aggressive procedural defense tactics. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $5M–$375M Sample lacks direct false-advertising-vs-automaker precedent; cross-industry analogies and single-data-point per-member benchmark limit precision. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 10 verdicts | Filing | False Advertising | D. Del. | 2026-10-30 | $200M–$688M comparable settlements |