E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-08365
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LILLY USA, LLCsource ↗ filed by Seeger Weiss LLP · Judge Karen Spencer Marston · No. 2:26-cv-08365 · 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾{
"outlook": "uncertain",
"confidence": "low",
"rationale": "Comparables are mixed: Rand v. Eyemart survived wiretap/IIHI claims via tracking tech, but Santoro v. Tower Health (3rd Cir., controlling for E.D. Pa.) affirmed dismissal of nearly identical Meta Pixel health-data claims. Case class definition (age discrimination in hiring) does not match the stated Privacy & Wiretap theory, creati 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 Class (from complaint): Pharmaceutical sales representative applicants age 40 and older whose applications for Sales Representative positions in Eli Lilly's Diabetes and Primary Care B · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-11-02 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |