M.D. Fla. · No. 6:26-cv-02571
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bank of America NAsource ↗ filed by Law Office of Christopher W. Legg, P.A. · No. 6:26-cv-02571 · 15:1640 Truth in Lending · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Comparable rulings split roughly evenly: Rand v. Eyemart and Gunnar Optiks survived pixel/tracking claims, while Tower Health and Nuance were dismissed on similar Meta Pixel/biometric theories. Outcome likely turns on specific factual pleading of disclosure mechanics (e.g., third-party sharing via tracking tech). 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.) — survived because plaintiffs pled concrete disclosure of individually identifiable data via Meta Pixel, a template BofA plaintiffs may mirror. Main risk: Dismissal on failure to plead actionable 'interception' or third-party disclosure, as in Tower Health and Nuance, where exemptions/technical defenses defeated claims. This defendant: BofA has prior privacy/TCPA exposure (Jenkins $32M settlement), suggesting willingness to settle rather than litigate privacy claims to judgment. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $15M–$250M Small, heterogeneous comparable set mixes BIPA, CIPA, and health-privacy theories; true class size and per-member recovery highly fact-dependent on BofA's specific tracking practices. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | M.D. Fla. | 2026-11-03 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |