E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-08458
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GIS BENEFITS, INC.source ↗ filed by KOLLER LAW PC · No. 2:26-cv-08458 · 28:451 Employment Discrimination · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Wiretap/pixel-style privacy claims show split outcomes: Eyemart Express and Bayhealth survived on IIHI disclosure theories, while Tower Health's Meta Pixel claim was dismissed with prejudice and Nuance's biometric claim failed on exemption grounds. Outcome likely turns on specificity of data disclosed and whether GIS qualifies for any statutory exemption. 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.) - closely analogous Wiretap Act/IIHI disclosure claim via tracking pixel that survived reversal of dismissal, supporting plausibility of similar claims against GIS. Main risk: Dismissal under Tower Health/Nuance reasoning if GIS data-sharing is deemed non-identifiable or falls under a statutory carve-out (e.g., GLBA/HIPAA-adjacent exemption). Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $50K–$6.20M Small sample size, unclear actual class size/data flows for GIS, and no prior litigation history on this defendant limit precision significantly. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | E.D. Pa. | 2026-11-04 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |