S.D. Cal. · No. 3:26-cv-06250
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What If Holdings LLCsource ↗ filed by Pacific Trial Attorneys · Judge Marilyn L. Huff · No. 3:26-cv-06250 · 28:1453 Class Action Fairness Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable privacy/tracking rulings split roughly evenly: Bayhealth and Eyemart (Rand) let similar disclosure-based claims survive, while Tower Health and Nuance affirmed dismissal on distinct statutory/standing grounds. Wiretap theories tied to tech-pixel or consent-based data sharing remain highly fact-dependent at the pleading stage. 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.) — reversed dismissal of Wiretap Act claims based on undisclosed data-sharing via tracking tech, closely mirroring this theory. Main risk: Dismissal for lack of individualized/identifiable harm or consent defenses, as in Tower Health and Nuance BIPA exemption rulings. This defendant: Prior filing (James v. What If Holdings LLC) on same theory suggests recurring exposure, possibly systemic tracking practice. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $125K–$7.50M Extremely limited defendant-specific data; web signals irrelevant (unrelated 'What If...?' TV show), so class size and company scale are highly speculative. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | S.D. Cal. | 2026-11-02 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |