W.D. Wash. · No. 2:26-cv-04281
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avamere Group LLCsource ↗ filed by HONES LAW EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS PLLC · No. 2:26-cv-04281 · 28:1332 Diversity · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Healthcare-tracking privacy claims split: Doe v. Bayhealth and Rand v. Eyemart survived on confidentiality/disclosure theories, while Tower Health and Integris saw dismissal or unclear outcomes on similar Meta Pixel/tracking facts. Avamere, as a senior-living healthcare provider, closely mirrors the Bayhealth/Eyemart fact pattern involving health data sharing with third parties. 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.) - wiretap/disclosure claims survived where IIHI was shared via tracking pixel without consent, closely analogous to Avamere's likely facts. Main risk: Dismissal on pleading-stage grounds as in Tower Health, where Meta Pixel health-data claims were dismissed with prejudice after repeated amendment failures. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $200K–$3.75M Small, heterogeneous comparable set; class size inferred from generic company-profile signals, not confirmed user/patient counts. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | W.D. Wash. | 2026-11-04 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |