E.D. Mich. · No. 2:26-cv-14225
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Kroger Co.source ↗ filed by Law Offices of Dean T. Yeotis · Judge Denise Page Hood · No. 2:26-cv-14225 · 28:451 Employment Discrimination · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Pixel/tracking-tech privacy claims split in recent rulings: Rand v. Eyemart and Bayhealth survived similar disclosure theories, while Santoro v. Tower Health and Cisneros were dismissed on statutory exemptions or pleading grounds. Kroger's scale invites certification but outcome hinges on specific tracking mechanism pled. 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 IIHI disclosure via Meta Pixel without consent, a template Kroger plaintiffs likely mirror. Main risk: Dismissal like Santoro v. Tower Health if complaint fails to plead individualized disclosure or relies on generic pixel allegations without specificity. This defendant: Kroger previously settled a $17M auto-renewal/fees case, showing willingness to settle but no prior privacy-specific settlement benchmark. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $75M–$500M Small comparable set, wide class-size uncertainty, and realized per-member figure based on only n=2 settlements limit precision. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Mich. | 2026-11-04 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |