M.D. Fla. · No. 8:26-cv-03332
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GULFSTREAM CONTRACTORS, LLCsource ↗ filed by Consumer Attorneys PLLC · No. 8:26-cv-03332 · 15:0002(a) Fair Labor Standards Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Rulings split: Rand v. Eyemart and Doe v. Bayhealth let Meta-Pixel/confidentiality claims survive, while Tower Health and Nuance show courts readily dismiss pixel/wiretap claims absent clear unauthorized disclosure or statutory fit. 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 — survived because plaintiffs pled specific IIHI disclosure via tracking pixel, a fact pattern Gulfstream's case must match to survive. Main risk: Dismissal like Tower Health/Nuance if complaint lacks specific factual allegations of unauthorized interception/disclosure Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $9K–$1.50M Settlement comps are from large tech firms, not applicable in scale to a small contractor; estimate highly speculative given no prior cases against this defendant. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | M.D. Fla. | 2026-11-02 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |